Prism Webcast News

What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?

Monday, September 10, 2007
Posted in 9/11 Truth | Tagged 9/11 Truth

Consider this statement made a few weeks ago by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley and other (previous) members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

“Further, on the Scholars’ web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.”

How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?

While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.

As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method. The Greek method was to look at the evidence (superficially) and then try to explain things through logic and debate. The Greeks came up with various ideas in this way — such as the geocentric theory in which the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all the stars and planets revolved around the earth. There were problems with this geocentric explanation, but Plato insisted that they must “save the hypothesis,” and plausible explanations were found to account for anomalies — i such as the retrograde motion of Mars. The philosophical debates and discussions were seemingly endless; the Dark Ages ensued.

Along came Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others with their experiments and observations, and the centuries-old Greek philosophy-based notions began to crumble. Galileo observed through a telescope that Jupiter had moons — which revolved around Jupiter (not the Earth). He was threatened with torture if he did not recant his explanation (that the Earth was not at the center). He suffered house arrest but not torture as he quietly continued his experiments.

In the lifetime of Newton, another experimenter who challenged the Greek approach, the scientific community worked out a system whereby scientific studies would be published after review by peers — qualified experts who could judge the quality of the research. Peer-reviewed technical journals arose and the peer-review process brought order to the relative chaos of work up to that time. Now experiments could be done and written up, then peer-reviewed and published. Peer-reviewed papers would draw the attention of others. To give an example of using the modern scientific method, a few colleagues and I are doing experiments and making observations in a scientific approach to what really happened at the World Trade Center. It is NOT merely a plausible explanation or debates about “possibilities” that we seek. Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play (see journalof911studies.org/Intersecting_facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf ) we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers. Ours is a forensic investigation, looking for a “smoking gun,” which would then lead to a serious criminal investigation.

I do not plan to make a career out of 9/11 research, and I am not making money from my investigations anyway. We need a formal, solid investigation of the 9/11 crimes committed, not a long-term study which endlessly debates all alternatives. I seek such solid evidence of an insider crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) that some of us will successfully demand a criminal investigation to confront key individuals who may have insider information — within one year, if possible– not many.

So what evidence is likely to lead to such a criminal investigation?

As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene. These four areas are:

• Please note that I do not focus only on the thermate-hypothesis, and I do research in all four areas above. Details are given in my talk, available here: http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

  Leave a Comment »

  Comments RSS 2.0

  no comments yet - be the first?

  Message
  Name (Required) Email (Required - will not be shared) Site URL

  
  
  Enter the letters you see above.