Jan 30 2006
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax - Yahoo! News
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax - Yahoo! News
Hrm. I recognize none of these “distinguished experts” listed. Then again, I’m not in the field. Anyone have a clue if there’s anything to trust about this kind of stuff? It’s being generated in my backyard over here at the U of MN.
Maybe those conspiracy theories aren’t complete nonsense.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Just quick googling the names, they at least look somewhat legitimate. And the points they list in the article are pretty compelling if true.
There was actually something put out onto community television that I bumped into which spawned the original “9/11 Conspiracy Theory” posts. The production quality was crap (a la a high school student with VideoToaster), and the narration was your standard conspiracy-theory hype (”They deny all wrongdoing and stick to the original report — WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE FROM US!?!? WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!?!?! ARE THEY EATING BABIES?!?!?”). Because of that, I didn’t put much stock in what few facts were presented, but I’ve always been fond of watching/reading that kind of stuff. I may have been a bit quick to dismiss them.
Did a little poking around on the named experts. It’s quite a group.
Bob Bowman: Self-Written Bio, 22 year career Air Force officer and now President of “Institute for Space and Security Studies” (whatever that is)
James Fetzer: Homepage, Professor of Philosophy at U of MN-Duluth.
Wayne Madsen: Bloggy-thing, liberal activist…?
John McMurty: Homepage, Professor of Philosophy at U of Guelph(?)
Morgan Reynolds: Post on LewRockwell.com, Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M, Chief Economist for US Dept. of Labor 01-02
Andreas von Buelow: translation of article, former German Cabinet Minister of Technology
Not sure I’m willing to follow where they’re leading, but they bring up some particularly weird points that I wouldn’t mind hearing an answer to.
[...] used the 9/11 attacks to not be prevented. Assuming that the existing explaination is not a hoax, and that the public story is accurate for all political purposes (which [...]