I appreciate 911blogger and the opportunity to share some recent events and thoughts with all of you. I'm just going to talk freely to you my many friends in this community...

1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).

Dr. Frank Legge has a knack at explaining difficult concepts logically and succinctly, as exemplified in his latest paper: "WTC 1 Collapse – What if the Columns Miss?" Dr. Legge considers four possible ways in which the columns in WTC 1 could have interacted in a gravity-driven collapse, and concludes:

"None of these four outcomes was observed. Clearly all the evidence points to the use of explosives to sever the columns in a precise sequence designed to produce vertical collapse at near free fall speed. As felling of such a tall building had previously not been attempted, it is likely that a considerable excess of explosive was used to make absolutely certain that the collapse would be vertical and complete. As a probably undesired consequence of this excess, most of the concrete was pulverized, as we observe.

"We can therefore safely conclude that, regardless of how the columns of the upper section interact with the columns of the lower section, the official explanation for the collapse is false."

Please read this three-page letter, here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf

Dr. Daniele Ganser (History Department, Basel University, Switzerland) succeeded in publishing an academic paper in Sept. 2006 a significant European newspaper – quite an accomplishment! Subsequently, his article was translated into French and English. With his permission, his article is re-published for convenience of researchers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in THREE languages:

Deutsche: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserDeu11Sept.pdf

Français : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserFrancaisOnzeSept.pdf (Actress Cotillard pls read)

English : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserSwissProfs.pdf

The editors of the Journal note that some of his views may be controversial even in the 9/11 fact-seeking movement – which is fine for publication as long as the views are substantiated and supported with solid evidence (as his are) and ad hominem-type attacks are avoided. The model of publishing an article like this in a major newspaper provides a notable good example. (Publication in mainstream peer-reviewed technical journals is even more highly encouraged!)

A great event came together very well Saturday evening, 23 Feb 2008, under the able leadership of Julia and Kristine (sp?) of KPFK - LA. Julia provided introductions followed by Richard Gage for about 35 minutes, then I spoke for about an hour, followed by Richard once more... Then Cynthia McKinney gave a powerful, motivating talk -- she is running for US President in the Green Party (USA). She is very 9/11-savvy. Finally, Q&A. It was fun -- a lot of energy at the meeting.

I presented new SEM/EDS data on the red/gray chips -- and explained further research that is being planned and done to finish this up. (Hopefully the video will be available soon.) I also spoke about areas where I/we actually agree with NIST scientists and engineers, e.g.,

1. The "pancake theory of collapse" -- has been analyzed and dismissed by NIST in their reports. For example, in an FAQ released by NIST in Aug 2006, they write:

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers."
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Dr. Crockett Grabbe of the Dept. of Physics, University of Iowa, has challenged NIST in his latest paper: Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum

ABSTRACT

NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. These issues and their unmistakable implications are addressed.

READ the full paper here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf

A paper that will surely rattle a few cages was published today:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!

I should also note that three physics departments are listed in the affiliations: Brigham Young University, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, and Univ. of Iowa. (Some PhD's are sticking their necks out again... The paper, we believe, is solid.)

You will want to read this one! We hope it will generate interest and comment.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

Dr. Frank Legge and Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti team together on a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, entitled:
"9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible"
This paper is the 100th paper to be published in the Journal of 9/11 studies in its nineteen months of existence, or about five scholarly, peer-reviewed papers per month on average (including full articles and letters). A great place to get solid facts and analyses!

This paper should be read for its cogent, pithy arguments regarding the sudden initiation of the destruction of the Towers. Quoting brief extracts:

At the Boston Tea Party conference last Saturday, I announced that I had found peculiar "red chips" in the WTC dust, and the possible significance of the findings. The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time. Paul Payne (great work Paul!) was there and taped the talk, and asked if he could extract for now the part where I announced the discovery, and if I would provide the PPT slides (etc). I did so, and I congratulate Paul for doing this video clip so very quickly.

Yes, the discovery is original work and with other scientists now examining the microspheres and red chips in the WTC dust -- this new evidence, there is hope of a breakthrough, pending confirmations. I will refrain from further comment here; hope you all will watch the clip (and the full talks from the Boston conference as they become available). Again, many thanks to Paul Payne for this work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en

http://www.sendspace.com/file/aoi6hr

Gregory Urich has analyzed WTC Tower 1 and presents his findings in a detailed in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, December volume.

This technical paper pulls together data from a number of sources and will certainly support further analytical studies of the destruction of the WTC Towers. While we as a community are calling for an in-depth investigation, note that we are NOT waiting for Congress to act; we are proceeding with our own investigation. Without external grants from the government, we have no strings attached and are free to pursue the truth and to challenge the "official story" wherever we find it incomplete or misleading. The series of 99 papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies constitutes a strong, evidence-based challenge to the 9/11 official story.

Gregory's peer-reviewed paper is published here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available
data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design
loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons

Kevin Ryan and Michael Fury have added very informative Letters to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Kevin's letter begins: "Just before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Ryan Mackey, a new defender of the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory, posted a 200-page paper that attempts to critique the NIST chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.... Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex. Introducing himself, Mackey declares his allegiance to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)..."
Read the rest of Kevin Ryan's Letter here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Michael Fury (pen name) writes an open letter to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He begins,

I've written a letter to the editor, Boston Globe, in response to the article which appeared there yesterday: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/03/the_science_of_how_buildings_fall_down/

I invite feedback as I plan to send this letter to the Globe later today. I wish to address some important 9/11 points, and call attention to the Boston Tea Party conference next week. The letter will also be sent to the author of the article (Colin Nickerson of the Boston Globe).

Dear Editor:
As reported in the Boston Globe 12/3/2007, a 1/8th scale building was constructed and subjected to the destruction of one of the key support columns. And what happened? The scale building did NOT fall down! I wish to contrast this empirical result with the COMPLETE destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/2001. From the article:

I asked David Ray Griffin for permission to post his email here -- because of it's insightful content. He agreed, asking that I post it with all the names of the authors of the Appeal written to NIST.

Dear James, Steven, Kevin, Richard, Frank, Bob, Bill, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,

I have just read your Appeal to NIST. It is absolutely brilliant and very useful.

(I will be quoting bits of it in an updated edition of The New Pearl Harbor, which I’m working on now.)

Thanks very much for this great contribution to the cause.

David

The Appeal to NIST was penned mainly by James Gourley and he deserves recognition for his work in the 9/11 Truth movement. It is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf James and I have written a technical paper which we hope will be published soon. (I'm going to ask you to do a little prepatory homework; please work through the problems here: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html . All four lessons are helpful.)

A local 9/11 activist taped my talk given June 24, 2007 in Orem, Utah, to an audience of about 700 people (standing room only in the large Friendship Center). Thanks to Tim Costello! He inserted photos and some text (based on my PPT slides) and put this on a DVD, with the idea that it could be copied and distributed freely. Now Tim has put the DVD onto video.google (55 minutes long), here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-281848486800635615&hl=en

A strange thing is that when I checked this several days ago, the number of views was over 700; this morning it was just 138 views... Do they reset the counter?
The talk was one of a series given in cities in Utah and Idaho, and represents an effort to bring the most salient points regarding 9/11 to the public. It could be considered a sequel to my talk given at UVSC in February 2006 (also in Orem, Utah). I welcome comments!

OUTLINE of the talk:
(Introduction)
1. Complete WTC skyscraper collapses at near free-fall speeds: challenging the "official story"
2. Lack of Air Defenses on 9/11
3. WTC Dust: Toxic and Loaded with Melted Spheres

Two frequent contributors to 911blogger.com have published letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: George Washington and Reprehensor.

"The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks." -- found in "Burden of Proof" by Geo. Washington: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/BurdenofProof.pdf

A new topic has been opened in the Letters section of the Journal to encourage well-written letters to Senators and Representatives. Reprehensor's "Open Letter to Jane Harman, Re: Terrorism and the Internet" is an example of such a letter. It is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LettertoJaneHarmanUSCongress.pdf

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies encourage submission of well-researched and written articles such as these, to commence the peer-review process. All papers are peer-reviewed, unless an exception (very rare) is granted by the editors and then a disclaimer is added to the posted paper. Information on where to submit papers is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/contact.html .

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another's work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker's book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11." Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply -- a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy -- hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen... But I digress...

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes: