Saturday, November 12, 2005

BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

It's getting tougher and tougher not to believe that we were attacked by our own government:

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it's likely that there were 'pre-positioned explosives' in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at

Unlike a lot of the wacky videos and whatnot out there, this article was 'accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year'. I don't know if that means the paper has already been peer-reviewed or not. Peer-reviewed papers, in general, are legit. There can be a wacky professor somewhere, but there are other professors out there who are smart enough to cut through his wackiness and call him/her out on his/her bullshit - that's peer-reviewing.

I keep links to some 9/11 sites in the margin of this blog, on the left. I've joined Sibel Edmonds and Daniel Ellsberg in front of the Federal Courthouse in DC to protest the coverup of 9/11 crimes. I've watched videos like those at this site, of regular people - news people, fireman, policeman, building inspectors, people on the streets - all making observations about 'bombs' and 'explosive' and 'controlled demolition'. The fireman talking about his experience hearing/seeing the floors of the building 'popping' like 'boom, boom, boom, boom!' - one after another - it's all too much. It forces you to believe what you were told you'd be crazy to believe - that your own government committed mass murder against your fellow citizens.

I don't think Bush knew, but Cheney and Libby and Perle - yes, of course.

But, I think it's important to keep in mind what Chomsky said - and I think he has a point here - a good point - he thinks that even if the government did do it, our time, as committed citizens, would be better spent elsewhere. We'd be better off spending our time changing our democracy to prevent something like this from happening again in the future. It is Chomsky's view, I think, that capturing and punishing Bushco would not act as a good deterrent against future crimes by future American governments. But further, Chomsky wants real change - institutional change - and punishing a few evil criminals is just not going to get us there. Chomsky rips U.S. foreign policy 24x7, but he contends that the problem goes much deeper than a few evil old white dudes at the upper echelons of our current government. He believes that the very structure of our government, which is minimally democratic, at best - will virtually guarantee that the American people will continue to suffer at the hands of a few elite rulers for generations, or forever, unless we change 'the system'.

My guess is that introducing a viable third party into the U.S. political system would be a great start towards the 'institutional change' Chomsky is seeking.

Let's do it!

UPDATE: Older article, different prof.

No comments: