Originally posted by Res Ipsa
This may be academic to you, but if this truly were the case wouldn't the mainstream scientific community all sign on?
Additional to SPreston and godles's comments: - the answer, I'm afraid, is yes and no. Many (like godless) in the mainstream scientific and
engineering community have: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Journal of 9/11 Studies
, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
660+ Engineers and Architects Question 9/11
7 Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11
Very many others are unaware of the issues, thanks to the mainstream media's incessant promotion of the official story and scrupulous censorship of
information which challenges it.
Coupled with this, very few major scientific journals would dare put their heads above the parapet by publishing a theory that almost pre-supposed
government complicity in the horrors of 9/11. In an ideal world, scientific merit would be the issue. In the real world, the panel will protect the
political and financial well-being of its journal. When the stakes are this high, the peer review process is, to a large extent, a gatekeeper's
Nevertheless, several other peer-reviewed papers that contradict the official accounts of 9/11 (as per the 9/11 Commission, NIST etc.) have already
been published, but typically they received no mainstream publicity:
The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Volume 23
(Research in Political Economy) edited by Paul
Zarembka (2006), Elsevier Science Press
Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11,
Allen M. Poteshman, 2006, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
11 septembre 2001 : des volumes inhabituels sur les options peu avant
Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, 2007, University of Zurich - Swiss Banking Institute
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government
Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley, The Open Civil Engineering Journal,
Volume 2 (2008)
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones (17 February 2008)
NIST's study into the destruction of the towers, it should be noted, was not peer-reviewed: “I wish that there would be a peer review of this... I
think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both
structurally and from a fire point of view... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for
Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Is this like the global warming debate? Are there scientist from both camps "whipping it out" to sell a book, get published, stroke the ego,
If this were so clear cut how could it not merit a line on Drudge or on our Yahoo mail page?
First, let's be clear - this is not somebody "whipping it out" to sell a book. It was exhaustively peer-reviewed "with pages of comments by
referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation
and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter". Furthermore, (unlike most
technical specialist journals) the Open Chemical Physics Journal is free access - see download link above.
I don't expect to see the major industry journals or popular science magazines covering this (for reasons stated) but as for the lack of internet
news coverage - it was only published a few hours ago.
There are two camps for sure, but I don't think many realize how small the official camp is compared to the growing number of highly accredited
engineers and scientists on the other side.
Many seem to assume that any scientist not actively engaged in criticising NIST must be tacitly acquiescing. Clearly this is an illogical
Although there are about 1.5 million engineers in the US, the same four who "investigated" the Oklahoma City Murray building bombing turn up six
years later as the ASCE team on the WTC collapses. One of them (Corley) is also involved in the Weidlinger study on behalf of Silverstein (which
arrives at a different theory about the cause of the collapses!). Two of them work on the Pentagon Building Report. Another 6 who work on the FEMA
report become part of the NIST team. Apparently very few engineers were either required or willing to work on the government's investigation.
And, of course, FEMA and NIST are federal agencies, like the Bush appointed 9/11 Commission, with institutional conflicts of interest that guarantee a
lack of independence.
9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”