Tucker Carlson ducks WTC-7 collapse in Jones interview

Prof. Steven Jones, writes Tucker Carlson of MSNBC's The Situation, "seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers," but was "almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest."

While the word "hypothesis" may not be clear to the average viewer - Prof. Jones may have done better by sticking to simpler language, it seemed to this viewer that Tucker was an "epically" bad host. He didn't give Prof. Jones a chance.

Tucker kept asking about World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, when Prof. Jones wanted to talk about World Trade Center building 7, and wanted Tucker to show the video of the collapse of this 47-story building.

Why is it that MSNBC, and other networks, refuse to question the collapse of building 7? How many Americans even know that building 7 collapsed in less than 7 seconds - after a fire had burned for several hours. We're told that no other steel-framed building has collapsed from fire.

What caused building 7 to collapse in this manner? Does Tucker have an answer? It seems that he doesn't even want to examine the evidence. But at least he did invite Prof. Jones to air highly controversial views, which is more than other networks have done.

9/11-Iraq link refuted 10 days after attack

The National Journal reported yesterday that ten days after the attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush was told that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the record of these briefings, and related CIA assessments. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

This intelligence information was was also distributed to Vice President Cheney, National Security Council adviser Condoleeza Rice, and other senior Bush administration policy makers.

Tampa, FL: 'Investigation' into the events of 9/11

Press Contact: Ilene Proctor or Angus Hsu
Direct Line: (310) 271.5857
Cell: (310) 721.2336
E-mail: proctor@artnet.net

Philanthropist Jimmy Walter Presents:
The New Pearl Harbor-Confronting the Evidence
A Real Investigation into What Happened on 9/11
Dec. 7, videos screened on Dec. 8

Who: Host Jimmy Walter, Morgan Reynolds, Dave Von Kleist, William Rodriguez, Joyce Riley and Eric Hufschmid and David Ray Griffin in Video

What: Vice President Dick Cheney and 24 other Bush officials and friends signed a call for a "New Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to invade Iraq in 1998. They said it would take "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." to convince the American People that we must invade Iraq to "project American Military Power".

Where: Tampa Theater
711 Franklin Street
Tampa, Florida, 33602
For Reservations, call: 813 274 8286

50% of New Yorkers question 9/11 Commission report

911 Special Interest Group

Kevin Barrett coordinator, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Madison, in a letter published in The Capital Times writes: "In New York, half the population believes that top U.S. officials conspired to commit mass murder and high treason on 9/11, while the other half does not (Zogby poll, 8/29/04). Though the 9/11 truth forces have equal numbers, and better arguments, so far they have not been able to get a word edgewise into the New York Times."

MSNBC: Questioning what happened on 9/11

JONES:  ... There are two hypotheses here.  One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse. 

CARLSON:  OK. 

JONES:  The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse.  And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper. 

CARLSON:  I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a paper in Utah, from you.  I'm quoting now.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic.  Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all." . . .

JONES:  Well, that's basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course.  "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence.  Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."

 . . . all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal?  It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.

View the MSNBC interview, and videos of the collapse of WTC 7: Video 1; Video 2

What is the purpose of this blog?

We are neither conducting an investigation, nor do we wish to duplicate the vast amount of information available on the Internet. Rather we want to post news of "upcoming events, interviews, professional publications, books, etc." regarding individuals who fall into one or more of the three categories below.

(1) scientists and engineers who are conducting independent research into the events of 9/11;
(2) authors whose books on 9/11 have been published by major, non-fiction publishers;
(3) others whose questioning of the official version of 9/11 has been reported in major news media.

Most of all we need the credibility that goes with a scientist's, engineer's, or author's record of achievements. If you fall into either of these categories, please provide a LINK to your resume or biographical details on the INTERNET.

All are welcome to comment subject to the guidelines for this blog, but only those who fall into the one or more of the three categories above will be linked at this blog, and/or whose achievements, events, etc. will be reported.

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions

Watch for C-Span's rerun of "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," by David Ray Griffin. Professor Griffin takes a critical look at the official The 9/11 Commission Report. He argues that "omissions and distortions" in the report amount to a cover-up by government officials and says that the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Brigham Young University, Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones writes: "Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. . . .

"None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up. . . .

"I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.

". . . the notion that the “explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005)."