Good brief summary of better 9/11 skeptics

I found this nice summary of some of the better 9/11 skeptics. Read each of the their statements and then ask yourself: does what they say sound plausible? Don't try to understand how it was done in terms of detail or try to imagine why someone would have let such a thing happen. If you are honest with yourself, you will agree with me that it is possible that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. You will agree that it fits the evidence much better than the 'official' story, which is that fire was the primary reason the buildings to fall. After you have your eyes opened to this new reality, you are free to conjecture on how exactly it was done, by whom and for what reasons. But we really need to have an investigation in order to know all that with any certainty.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070

Lookin' for the 911 Truth - Conservatives for 9/11 Truth by 911wasInsideJob bio

Most people, when they encounter 9/11 skeptics for the first time, assume that most members of the 911 truth movement would be drawn from the left of center politically. In fact, most of the strongest and most respected voices speaking about 911 truth are conservatives-- old-school republicans who speak out of a profound respect for the truth, the constitution and the rule of law. For example:

Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts was the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of economics that came to be called "Reaganomics.". Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review.

Here is what Paul Craig Robert has to say about 9/11:

"I haven't looked at it very close, but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall speed except under controlled demolition. Those buildings did not come down the way the 9-11 report says. It is strictly impossible, in fact, it's a total, the account in the 911 report is a total contradiction to the laws of physics".

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," recently he has written several papers and two books about 9/11; "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11." And "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"

Here is what David Ray Griffin has to say about 9/11:

"It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government". (read his paper)

Ray McGovern
Ray McGovern had a 27-year career with the CIA as an analyst, spanning the administrations of JFK to GHW Bush. His duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's Daily Brief (PDB). During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Here is what Ray McGovern has to say about 9/11:

"There are real doubts in my mind whether they [Cheney and Rumsfield] clue the president in on some very serious things, 9/11 for example… a lot of bizarre stuff going on there… very troubling. What can be more telling than the fact that the president was unwilling to see the commissioners alone, he had to have Cheney with him… that's not symbiosis, that's making sure we've got our stories straight."

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

Morgan Reynolds
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during George W. Bush's first term.

Here is what Morgan Reynolds has to say about 9/11:

"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse…, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up." (read his paper)

Prof. Steven E. Jones
Steven E. Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives. Professor Jones describes himself as a life-long Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000.

Here is what Professor Jones has to say about 9/11:

"I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the "final" reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled- demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated". (read his paper)

For more information go to 9eleven.info.