Four Peer-Reviewed Letters Recently Added To Journal Of 9/11 Studies
Four peer-reviewed Letters were recently added to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. We invite reader comments on these papers which add to the body of evidence supporting the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings and raise significant questions regarding "whodunnit". We appreciate the rapid rate of contributions of fine papers to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Gregory H. Urich
Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers (April 25, 2007)
Tony Szamboti, ME
The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers (April 24, 2007)
Michael Fury
The Ghost in the Machines: Mystery of the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries (April 23, 2007)
James Bennett and Steven Jones
An Open Letter to Dr. Steven Jones by James Bennett, with replies by Steven Jones (April 23, 2007)
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
The above paragraph...
Was sent to me by Steven Jones. If you have a problem with the wording, feel free to contact him. I posted it because he sent it to me.
Incidentally, do you think the 9/11 Report was the "definitive account" of the 9/11 attacks like it has been claimed to be several times by those in power?
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
But...
They were mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks. Not the "best account of what happened leading up to the attacks", which in itself is absurd. This is the "best account of what happened leading up to the attacks."
The 9/11 Commission failed miserably with the task they were given.
If you were an honest individual instead of a "debunker", you would admit that.
They couldn't even give an accurate account as to when F-15s arrived over the skies of Manhattan, and you think the 9/11 Report is the most "definitive" account of the attacks? Why don't you go kill baby seals or something cause you're abilities as a "debunker" leave much to be desired.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
And you can't read....
Where did I say comprehensive?
I said the 9/11 Commission was given a mandate to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11.
It's not our job to "form an actual coherent narrative that is internally consistent." Our job is to question our Government when they lie to us. Which in the case of 9/11, they have 1000x over.
Again, if you were an honest individual as opposed to a "debunker", you would admit that.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Don't know how I missed you...
Oh I was tracking Brainster--your cleverer half.
Have you tracked that IP yet? Seen if it matches anyone in your new haloscan comments?
I could post that IP in your comments, if you prefer...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Whew...
Thank goodness you're here Superman.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Okay, I'm baffled...
What are you on about? Or is that just a generic super-hero reference?
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
It was a joke with several meanings...
#1. Yes, it was a generic super-hero reference. Since you're the resident "debunkinator."
#2. It was a smart-@ssed way of saying "I can handle "debunkers" on my own thank you very much. See... look at the above idiot."
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
"See... look at the above idiot."
I'm trying to,. but I can't see him--he's scarpered, the chicken shit.
Actually, I'm following him around for my own reasons. Screw Loose tried to say I made that hate blog drrected at myself; only when it was clear I was filing a formal complaint with Google did they back off.
But they still haven't apologized. I don't care about some anonymous git who thinks he can scare me by posting a public murder fantasy---but I DO care if someone says I would post that shite--knowing it wouild frighten people who have never done me harm AND possibly enable a sociaopath to hurt someone. If I've got a problem with someone, I go to the source directly--I'm not a coward, like Jimbo above apparently is.
Hence the me jumping in to harrass the wanker where ever I find him. I have the probable IP address of the individual who claimed some responsibility--I'm just seeing if the Screw Loose twits have bothered to check it against their haloscan records--because I know for a fact that the suspect has posted there in the new comments format.
Excuse me, I have to track James again...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Why are you talking about Google searches...
when Jon Gold referred you to Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline. A quick look at a single page would make it clear that it is not "just running with every rumor you find on the internet and claiming that is the story." What you would find is that every event listed and every item of information is backed up by 3-10 cited sources, primarily major newspapers.
Why are you off on a wild tangent, ignoring the credible, comprehensive source that Jon Gold cited? How often do you decide which information to ignore because it doesn't fit your predefined viewpoint? For the past 5 and a half years, perhaps?
Yea...
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
I read the first one
It was very interesting. The weight of the towers is a very big deal in terms of whether progressive collapse could start and continue. The author correctly concludes that the standard figure (500,000 tons) is way off, but forgets to mention that NIST agrees with him - they give a figure of 250,000 tons per tower on page 32 of the main report. He should probably mention that.
Plus, in the conclusion he says the upper block of the North Tower starts on 96 (i.e. that is where the collapse starts). As far as I can tell this is another urban myth. When I watch the video slowed down it looks like 98, and this seems to be where NIST thinks it starts, too - check out the table of page 87 of its main report. This gives a weight of upper block around 25,000 tons.
Building weight
For my film (still unreleased), I tallied up the NIST numbers regarding the weight exerted on each column at the 98th floor, and caluculated a weight of 33,000 tons for the uppermost floors. Interesting that their numbers don't add up... I wonder which one is accurate.