9/11 Poll for Scientists, Engineers and Architects


Please answer the following very simple poll, in order to help people understand the events of 9/11. People without a scientific background sometimes have trouble understanding which theories are likely to be true and which are not. This poll is not intended to reach a preconceived result. Instead, I am just trying to get a sense of what the scientific, engineering and architectural community believes.

Please give your honest opinion, based upon your scientific, engineering or architecture knowledge and experience.

For each theory listed below, state whether you think -- given the available evidence and the laws of science -- such a theory is likely or unlikely to be true:

1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally

2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate.

3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.

4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.

5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.

6. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and no airplane crashed into the buildings.

7. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and aircraft other than Boeing planes crashed into the buildings.

Please post your answers -- including your name and background (so that we can assess your credibility) here.

Thank you.

Postscript: Someone asked my view of the above-described questions. My view is not particularly important, as I am not a scientist, engineer or architect. However, I have compiled the views of many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers. For anyone who believes the government's version of events, I invite you to see what these world-class scientists say.

Show "Can you also ask them if wings/tails can slice through steel" by KT
Show ""so that we can assess your credibility"" by KT

Nope, if they've got the credentials, and they are who they

say they are, then I will respect their answer. That's all I was trying to say (sorry, not perfectly-worded).

Show "Why don't you answer them too GW, so why can see your views?" by KT

I am not a scientist,

engineer or architect. I will defer to them.

My only agenda is to accurately discuss what the scientists, engineers and architects say. Even if I had a hypothesis that I thought was really neat, if 99% of the 9/11 truth scientists, engineers or architects said it wasn't likely, I would drop it like a hot potato.

Show "That's OK, I'd just like to see what you believe." by KT

Mr. KT,

respectfully, the whole POINT is that it doesn't MATTER what I believe. Why?

Because the scientific method means coming up with hypotheses based on the observable facts, and then TESTING them. If the testing shows the theory doesn't hold up, you drop it. If it does hold up, then its more likely to be true.

I have had many theories over the years that I thought were superb. But I emailed physicists, chemists, etc., and they said -- uh...no. So I DROPPED them. Even though I really thought they were neat theories.

Show "Don't be afraid to answer your own poll questions." by KT

Rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question

Could it be because they are secretely workign to discredit through association the entire 911 truth community?

Its not much of a secret

Its not much of a secret really. They just pretend that they are sincere. There may be a few gullible people who have actually fallen for the suggestion that some still shot is some smoking gun, but as anyone knows if you stare at static long enough and you look for a simple shape, eventually your brain will see that very shape in the midst of nothing. The power of suggestion should not be underestimated, for when you fall prey to it, you convince yourself that the suggestion is indeed true.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Just to get this question out of the way

Suppose there was a 2 inch diameter steel pole 20 foot tall with a 1/4 inch wall thickness and tremendously well supported at both ends inside a building. Lets say a tall lobby.

Now also imagine a wooden vehicle like a bus weighing 20,000 lbs and doing 300 mph hitting it. Or lets say a five foot diameter log by twenty-five feet long, weighing three tons, and doing 300 mph hits this pole in the center. I know the aircraft were moving at approximately 470 mph and 560 mph but I am using 300 mph here just for illustrative purposes.

Does anyone think the pole will just cut right through the vehicle or log? Or do you think the pole will break in the middle due to a very high bending stress?

It wasn't just slicing as in shearing which caused the aircraft to go through the perimeter columns it was high bending stresses. The bending stress was actually greater than the shear stress. The aluminum will also work harden due to very high plastic stresses. It wasn't like the planes were made of foam.

This is a simple illustrative answer to a complicated problem.

If you will notice on the silhouette of the aircraft on the North Tower face there is not a definite tail imprint. Which means the full tail did not go completely through the perimeter columns. The mechanics there were such that the shear and bending stresses on the tail were greater for at least the upper part of it. The same thing goes for the wing tips.

How about a construction manager?

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The towers were DESIGNED to behave just as was seen. The faulty appeal to intuition that is the "roadrunner" argument has no basis. That this argument, in light of knowledge of the buildings' design, is used as "evidence" to support the no-plane theory shows the intentional disingenuousness of those who are trying to shoehorn an unprovable theory into a brief of verifiable facts in order to tarnish that brief.


Exactly Tony Szamboti...

The Damage to WTC2

Below is the "FEMA" impact damage diagram...

Which is pretty accurate when compared to a picture of the south tower impact hole, you can see where certain parts of the wings failed to make it cleanly through and only damaged the outer cladding.


I cannot believe that this TV Fakery at the WTC kakka is still being touted, it's sooooo two years ago and a total BS farce.

Best wishes

Show "Why didn't you show the WTC 1 gash?" by KT

Why dont you, KT?

Why dont you show the WTC 1 gash, KT?

Because knowing my luck, I'd probably get banned.


Good Work

It should also be noted that the perimeter columns on the 95th floor were quite thin.

The hole in the South Tower is not as pronounced at the 80th floor because the columns were thicker there.

Show "Then stop afflicting people with your non-scientific views" by Constitutionalist

Mr. Constitutionalist,

I have a science background. I went to a good university and studied science there. I understand the scientific method.

What is your background, sir?

And are you one of the people who has threatened 9/11 activists with "doom", "watch your back", "your days are numbered", "throw battery acid in your face", etc.?

Are you one of the people behind the videos calling 9/11 activists "terrorists" who "should be hunted down" and who would wish that they had been in the Twin Towers or the Israeli cafe when people were killed?

If you do not respond to this, should we take that as an admission that the answer to these questions is yes?

Sorry man but you opened the

Sorry man but you opened the door and let these stinking street bums in with this thread and now they're getting comfy on the newly bought leather couch. Delete it dude, please.

Show "If you understand science," by Constitutionalist

Mr. Constitutionalist,

You said: "In response to your offtopic query, I don't condone the kind of incitements to violence regularly promoted by 911blogger."

That, sir, is a clever and evasive response, but did not answer my question. Do you deny that you said (orally or in writing) at least one of the following statements to at least one 9/11 activist:

(1) You are "doomed";
(2) your "days are numbered"
(3) your "fate is sealed"
(4) threatening to throw battery acid in someone's face
(5) calling people "terrorists"
(6) Saying people should be "hunted down"


If you do not deny that you said (orally and/or in writing) at least one of the above-described statements to at least one 9/11 activist, should we take that as an admission that you did make at least one of the above-described statements?

Mr. KT,

do you know the answer to this question?

Show "Hypocrisy?" by KT

Mr. KT,

you have asked me:

(1) What specific threats were made. I have provided some of them above; and

(2) What I believe in regards to the poll. I will provide answers, IF you specifically provide a truthful yes or no answer to the following question:

Do you know the answer to the following question I asked the person using the alias Constitutionalist at 911blogger.com:

Did Constitutionalist say (orally or in writing) at least one of the following statements to at least one 9/11 activist:

(1) You are "doomed";
(2) your "days are numbered"
(3) your "fate is sealed"
(4) threatening to throw battery acid in someone's face
(5) calling people "terrorists"
(6) Saying people should be "hunted down"


Show "OK. No, I don't know the answer to that question." by KT


Here are my personal views. But they are not important, because I'm not a scientist, engineer or architect (although I studied science at a good university), and the whole point of the poll is to see what they think.

1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally

Very, very, very likely. See, for example, http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/jones.html

2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate.

Very likely. Personally, I think Steve Jones and others at STJ911 have done some convincing work.

3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.

Very unlikely. I read Dr. Wood and Morgan Reynold's papers. I've read the papers at the Journal for 9/11 Studies. I think the papers at the Journal for 9/11 Studies refute the factual claims in the first set of papers.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY that I don't believe that directed energy weapons may exist. Former secretary of defense Cohen has said on the record that weather-modification and earthquake-producing technology exists. See http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/291204earthquakeweapon... (I used to have the original DoD link, but can't locate it right now) . And I think Tesla made a lot of discoveries. So, I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to discount the possibility that such weapons exist.

In addition, maybe someone will eventually prove directed energy weapons at the WTC. However, the evidence which has been pushed to date to support this theory is of a very poor and easily-debunkable quality. In other words, I apologize for saying this, but I think the arguments put forward by Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds are HURTING the chances of ever convincing anyone that directed energy weapons brought down the WTC. The threats, harassment and intimidation which I've written about before are not helping either: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/threats-of-violence-against...

In any event, I currently think this theory very unlikely.

4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.

Very unlikely. While I, personally, haven't looked at the data myself, Steve Jones says the radiation levels aren't impressive. Leuren Moret, who I've met and like, thinks nukes were used. She bases this conclusion in thinking that only DU could have punched through the steel frame and core of the Twin Towers. I haven't seen any evidence that she's right (i.e. I think she is wrong at present), but she is raising a different theory.

5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.

Very likely. I actually started out being open to the no-planes-at-the-Twin-Towers! Why? Because, when I first started questioning 9/11, the first people I encountered who were discussing controlled demo told me so, and pointed to videos that they claimed showed this. I was frankly so busy at that time with work, etc., and with researching controlled demolition, stand down, etc., that I didn't have time to look at these claims for a long time.

However, when I started asking "where did this video come from?", I got responses like "I don't remember", and others who took a look at the videos told me they (the videos purportedly showing tv fakery) were faked.

In addition, when I started asking about this, I got hostile answers attacking me for asking innocent questions about facts.

After that, I started spending a little time taking a look at it myself, and found a lot of evidence which contradicted the no-plane theory, such as this: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

BTW, I am agnostic about it, but would not be surprised if remote control was used. See http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/01/wheres-remote-control.html

6. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and no airplane crashed into the buildings.

Very unlikely. See above.

7. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and aircraft other than Boeing planes crashed into the buildings.

Unlikely. See above. Also, while there may very well have been alot of military craft in the air that day used in the war games, and while it would not have been hard to use those, I think that the Boeings crashed. Maybe someone will show me facts which convince me otherwise, but I haven't seen them yet.

Those are my honest opinions. Take them or leave them. But my whole point is that if 99% of the scientists say something, I'm going to go with what THEY say. And if I believe something but run into evidence which disproves it, I will drop it -- even if I liked the theory. Again, several scientists can tell you that I have emailed them theories over the years and said "maybe this happened ..." and they've said "no, that's actually not very likely because of ..." Then I've dropped the theory, BECAUSE CONTINUING TO WRITE ABOUT THE THEORY WHEN IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED AS MORE PROBABLY THAN NOT TO BE FALSE HURTS THE CREDIBILITY AND MOMENTUM OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.

Show "Thanks, not sure why that was sooooo hard for you to post." by KT

"GeorgeWashington" calls 911blogger "terrorist"? & violates TOS?


I'm afraid I can't help you with your battery-acid fetish. I do not threaten people.

All I've done here is point out that 911blogger has supported threats of violence on 9/11 researchers such as Dr. Fetzer.

So, if you're calling the violence advocates on 911blogger "9/11 activists," and if pointing out that someone is a threat-maker is calling them a "terrorist," those are your words, not mine.

Additionally, you should note that it violates 911blogger's terms of service to carry arguments from one thread to another as you seem to be doing here. The topic of this thread is your poll and your tacit admission that it is worthless. I am sure the objective & honest 911blogger adminstrators will be along any moment to ban you for breaking the TOS by engaging in this cyber-stalking activity.

Mr. Constitutionalist,

your repeated failure to deny the accusations constitute an admission that you indeed made one of the above-described statements. You have had plenty of opportunities to say that you DIDN'T make ANY of those statements. However, you have failed and refused to do so.

You, sir, told me to "shut my piehole" when the rest of us were having a civil discussion in this thread. You did not say "shut your piehole" in the thread on harassment of activists. Therefore, I have the right to ask you if you have told at least one 9/11 activist you are "doomed" and/or similar threats.

And it was not me, sir, who called anyone a terrorist. That defamatory phrase was used against a number of 9/11 activists in numerous recent videos. Are you connected with at least one of those videos, sir?

You have serious English

You have serious English comprehension problems. I told you I haven't threatened anyone. I haven't even seen these videos that have you so panty-wadded. You should talk about them on your panty-wad thread; not your invalid poll thread.

Your continued cyber-stalking activities are in violation of the TOS; but so of course are the threats on 911blogger which you support.

And I *thanked* you for shutting your piehole; I did not tell you to do so.

Hope this helps.

Mr. Constitutionalist,

I did not ask you whether you think you have threatened anyone. It is possible, for example, that you told someone he "is doomed", but did not mean it as a threat. I am asking you whether you have used any of following words in communications with any 9/11 activists:

(1) "doomed";
(2) "days are numbered"
(3) "fate is sealed" or "destiny is sealed"
(4) "battery acid"
(5) "terrorists"
(6) "hunted down"

Again, it is possible that you used such words and somehow did not consider them threatening.

So please answer the following question:

Have you, or people you associate with, ever used ANY of following words in communications with any 9/11 activists:

(1) "doomed";
(2) "days are numbered"
(3) "fate is sealed"
(4) "destiny is sealed"
(5) "battery acid"
(6) "terrorists" (referring to any 9/11 activists as "terrorists" )
(7) "hunted down" (referring to "hunting down" certain people who are 9/11 activists )


Wouldn't anyone who had not used such words respond "no, I did not use or associate with anyone who used any of those words in a communication with or regarding any 9/11 activist"?

You can play clever word games all you want. But anyone who had NOT used at least one of those words or phrases in the context described would clearly and unambiguously deny it.

Agent "Rick" Siegel, you are

Agent "Rick" Siegel, you are not welcome on this site you piece OF DESPICABLE DISINFO TRASH! TAKE A HIKE CRIMINAL!

Show "Your comments violate the new " No More Personal Attacks" policy" by KT

Accessory after the fact to

Accessory after the fact to MURDER is a high crime! And something that probably applies to you also and anyone else who sits on a desk at disinfo central pushing "No planes hit the WTC" disinfo.

Slandering. Another personal attack

Saying I work at "disinfo central" is claiming I am a disinfo agent which smears my credibility. Since you have no proof of your claim, you are engaging in slander which is a personal attack on my character and a violation of this website's new rules.


"which smears my

"which smears my credibility" - I think you do a great job of that all by yourself, and by unwarranted association the Movement’s.

Because “Killtown”, whenever some new person sees all the disinfo garbage on your site and thinks that’s in anyway representative of 9/11 Truth, that person then thinks everything else that’s actually valid is just as nuts, that’s the effect you have, PERIOD! You are a detriment! And quite rightly people suspect you of being a disinfo shill, and I agree with them.

Show "Insults and slandering are against the forum's new rules" by KT

Its not slander when its

Its not slander when its true ; )

Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Correct, *when* it's true. Prove it's true, or it's slander.

Do you approve of slander imgstacke? I know you approve of censorship since you banned me for saying what theory I believe in.


NPT is disinformation, so

NPT is disinformation, so its not censorship, keeping nonsense off the forum. And since this isn't a court of law, I don't have to prove jack shit to you.
This isn't a cult/religion where your theories are held up with precious sanctity. No one is buying your nonsense and you know it. No one has to put up with it, and when we don't you scream and cry foul.

Your act is played past its time. Get reassigned.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Prove it. PROVE it's disinformation. Bet you can't.

And if you can't, then you are slandering which is a personal attack.

But in the meantime, feel free to fear-monger all you want.


No Offense

But that was *always* the official rule around here.

However, no one ever obeyed it before now, so why should they start now?

People like Dem Bruce and Jon Gold and Albanese were given free rein to smear others and run them off the site.

The troublemakers were a small group, but pretended to represent everyone else, or at least the "sanctioned" opinion, and were favorites of the mods, if not exactly the mods themselves.

And this is supposed to have changed?
Now that everyone who doesn't fit the sanctioned opinion is run off we can re-impliment the "no attack" rule, you know, the one that was always, in any case, applied arbitrarily?

This sounds like the Republians and Bush after Clinton was run out, "We now want everyone to show courtesy and friendliness. There is now in effect a bi-partisan friendlienss rule"

Also, for a while there was nothing to be done but shut down comments entirely.

Is this enough of a history or do the newbies need to go through the archives?

I'm taking a screen shot of this thing in case it gets deleted. That's how much faith I have in this site.

Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - "Horselover Fat" Phillip K. Dick
Sheweth Picts

I support Dem Bruce Lee 100%

And I do hope that SomeBigGuy's recent statements about "disinformation" getting you banned hold up.

I find that on the scale of naughtiness, that calling someone in essence what they are vs. misinforming the public and screwing the entire movement with gibberish theories can't be compared. It's night and day.

If the gibberish theories weren't here, there wouldn't be heated arguments over them.

They need to go away.

I thought they were gone (for a while now), but somehow have appeared despite their complete and utter falsity and fraudulence.


Screwing the entire movement??? What planet are you on?

The movement keeps getting bigger and bigger. I see no evidence that any specific theories are "screwing" it up.

However I do see many many people starting to complain about all the immature behavior from the closed-minded truthers and the heavy censorship at a lot of "truth" sites.

Btw, NPT is growing, not because we are good at fooling people, it's growing because the evidence gets stronger every day and people are starting to wake up and come out of the planer coma that has been instilled in us from the movement the media replying the fake video crashing into the towers over and over and over again.


that's an outrageous statement

and plainly does contradict all the high sounding sentiments expressed here about respectful dialog.

Mr. KT,

I find it very interesting that instead of saying something like "I think the poll will show that credible scientists, engineers and architects will support directed energy an no-plane theories", you are attacking a neutral poll.

Show "How am I "attacking" it?" by KT

Why would you do this?

This is a terrible poll, sure to alienate straight run of the mill professionals.

You're legitimizing complete nonsense by considering it a possibility.

Muy mal.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Well, the poll is only aimed at

scientists, engineers and architects who ALREADY question the government's version.

nausea7543 When the student

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Is it possible that you could have another choice that states there was a combination of causes used for the demolition of the buildings.

Mr. Nausea,

if you had posted this idea before anyone responded, I would have added the question. However, a number of people have already voted.

The good news is that scientists could still vote "likely" on more than one theory. That sort of does the same thing you are suggesting.

No Scientist, Physicist, or Engineer

Would even take this "poll" seriously, and if they did vote in the affirmative for ANY of the question, and anchored their name to it, I would be suspect. of where they earned their degree. Point blank, the poll is vague and structured misleadingly. And to top it all off by giving you their "names"? What about all the other professionals in the field of steel or welding or metallurgy?



question 1 should be: Do you believe that WTC 1,2,7 were intentionally demolished on 9/11? If answer is yes, skip to question 2. If not skip to question 12.

Question 2: Do you believe WTC 1&2 were demolished and not 7.
Question 3: Do you believe that 7 was demolished and not 1&2.
Question 4: If controlled demolitions were used, what manner do you think was used to accomplish it?
a)Conventional Demolitions such as Thermite, Thermate, Shaped charges, TNT, Plastics, etc.
b) Directed energy weapons (D.E.W.) such as lasers, plasmoids, microwave, etc.
c) Nuclear Energy such as radio isotopes, neutron bombs, mini nukes, etc.


Question 1: Do you believe that flights 11 and 175 hit the North and South Towers...if yes...skip to question blah blah blah. If you answer IS NO please answer question 2:

Question 2: Do you believe that a different flight was diverted or there was a "flight switch", and real airplanes, but different flights, crashed into the Towers. If NO, answer question 3.

Question 3: DO you believe that what we were shown on television that day was not really planes but an edited image and computer graphic to look like planes. If yes skip to question blah blah....If NO please don't answer more questions

I think you get the point. Scientists and Professionals don't like to answer vague and "simple" polls like this. If you're serious about it, rewrite it to be more concise.


Anyone who has had ANY experience in the structural steel field or steel period knows that a structure(in this case an "I"beam or "H" beam is only as strong as it's weakest point of resistance or tension. Meaning the flanges, the plates, the connectors, the welds, etc. To crack BEAMS apart is a ridiculous notion. Are you aware of how many TENS of THOUSANDS of pounds per square inch it takes to crack a beam. DO you realize what force it takes to even bend it? A beams failure mark would be at it's weld or connector (JOINT ROOT) or any seams. Possibly if you had every piece of steel having porosity, slag, fissures, inherent discontinuities, toe cracks, etc. But evenly distributed steel just doesn't crack if that's what anyone thinks.Especially mild steel with tensile strengths in X80 through the X90 range, which is most likely what was in the towers.

This one is off topic

George - I've had the utmost respect for perhaps all of your contributions.
I heard about you before I heard about this site.
But this one is a complete no go. No professional is going to pass an opinion on someone's hypothetical ideas and then put their name on it.
Stick with the facts.
What about these guys ? Why were they let go ? Why would any American citizen not think they should be brought back and questioned under oath to find out -whatever ! - they know ?
These are the FACTS that have to be pursued.
Not - 'were energy weapons used'... polling engineers and architects etc....


Sometimes I think this movement gets nearly totally diverted by shills...
It's sad - but things are still doable.

Vote this down as well

The voting down of this material says a lot about this site


Can't make this stuff up.
Deal with it America !

Good to see

Good to see others finally showed up that thought this was a dumb poll.
This idea was originally substantially voted down. Was beginning to wonder...

Please George.

Isn't this poll a little dumb?

Proof: It sure got KT:s attention.

Show "You calling me dumb?" by KT

What is the point of this

What is the point of this poll?

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

GW, we don't need this

GW, we don't need this garbage.

I agree. Can we just stick

I agree. Can we just stick to reporting news and happenings in the 9/11 movement for a few days on the front page and let the divisiveness die down? We don't need to encourage it with emotionally-charged polls.

This is just mud slinging

There is no need for this here, everyone gets dirty.

Besides, any self respecting Scientist or Engineer would have joined the relevent 911 Truth association.

KT has been flagged for

KT has been flagged for moderation for posting Disinfo. DBLS has been flagged for moderation for personal attacks.

Furthermore, I'm closing this thread to any additional comments.