14 Point Destruction of the NIST & FEMA 9/11 WTC Reports

I just posted this as a diary at OpEdNews.com. If you haven't heard about that site, consider submitting your favorite breaking news links and original writing there as well. Anyone can publish a diary, and if their editor's think it meets the level of an article, it can be headlined and picked up by google news and all the rest. OpEdNews.com gets 600,000 visitors a month, they're around 29,000 on Alexa and well-known journalists and reporters have blogs and submit articles to be published there. They basically allow anyone to say anything we want about anything, which is why it gets so many visitors and participants. The Journal article was Dugg in Science- I put this one in Political News where people interested in political truth issues have a heavier presence; Digg was science/tech oriented when it began, and has evolved by popular demand (and the owners apparently like all the traffic they get- to the point of placating the public's wrath, even at the expense of offending industry and facing possible legal problems- see my comment in Be the Media Revolution http://www.911blogger.com/node/15094 about the HD DVD most-popular post. Anyway, as this article prominently features the direct link to the Digg for the Journal article. I vote for keeping the Jones article at the top all week; August 1, 2006 Scripps News Poll: "16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll A September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

67% is about 201 million People, figuring 300 mil as the pop- 16% is 48 million, and that poll was nearly 2 years ago. And we "speculate", sure- so let's hear some debate from the scientific community then, in peer-reviewed journals, hopefully more of these open ones, so we can all see for ourselves what the hell they're talking about. We've got 6 more days to get the Journal article into Most Popular- if we get it up there in the Science rankings, science types are going to see it- i think we can get it to Most Popular, period- maybe all week, all month, all year- all time? 48 million plus? Most everyone who comes here visits a lot of other sites; please politely request (remind that them you've donated, if you have) that they prominently place the original Journal Digg link at the top of their sites for the next 6 days to give this story the maximum possible boost; if they've published articles that challenge the conventional, non-explosive theories and they support a full honest investigation and they want these 14 points seen and addressed by the scientific community, I think they'd want to do so. PrisonPlanet.com, InfoWars.com, PropagandaMatrix.com, Rense.com, WhatReallyHappend.com are some of the biggest sites out there that cover these issues, and I know i've forgotten a bunch. Plus, Reprehensor, I vote for keeping "Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!" at the top all week, or at least the Digg link and a short blurb about why it's important to Digg it and ask others to.

Please comment, here and at OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7084

According to an August 1, 2006 Scripps News Poll: "16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

A September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

67% is about 201 million People, figuring 300 mil as the pop- 16% is 48 million, and that poll was nearly 2 years ago.

If you're tired of waiting over 6 years for the NIST WTC 7 Report, have questions about the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2 and want the scientific community to know about and address these 14 points, then please Digg the Journal article here:

Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction

The Open Civil Engineering Journal has just published an article by Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, known for their criticism of the official explanations of the destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1,2 & 7 and for advancing the theory that explosives brought them down.

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

As Dr. Jones notes in his commentary on the article at 911Blogger.com: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

“With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper.”
With publication in a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal the debate about 9/11 WTC controlled demolition has reached a new level. AE911Truth.org has 317 architectural and engineering professionals and growing, so the debate has not been insignificant thus far. Also, the NIST FAQs show the public debate has not gone unnoticed by NIST. However, now, with the publication of this article, the scientific community has been invited, and NIST defenders are challenged, to debate the true meaning of these 14 points that the NIST Report and/or FEMA Report have acknowledged as fact.
One might ask, if those who dispute the official explanations of the 9/11 destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 agree with NIST and FEMA on these 14 particular points, then why do those agencies need to defend themselves to the scientific community?
The problem is that FEMA’s and NIST’s own assertions of fact contradict their own conclusions, and other popular myths, that plane damage, fires, gravity, mass, force, etc. caused the “global collapse” of WTC Towers 1 & 2. For instance, as noted in Point 5, the NIST Report and FAQs do not explain the complete destruction of Towers 1 & 2, instead asserting that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” because “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”. NIST Aug 30, 2006 FAQ
Also, as noted in Point 1, NIST still has not released it’s report on WTC 7 (47-story steel-frame and concrete building that completely collapsed about 5:20 pm on 9/11) more than 6 years after the 9/11 events, and according to the FEMA Report “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue”
In my view, having studied videos of the World Trade Center "collapses", it seems impossible that plane/debris damage, fires, mass, gravity, force, etc. could’ve caused the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7. It also seems obvious that explosives could’ve easily caused the observed effects. However, I’m not an expert so I’m glad these issues, starting with these 14 points, are going to be debated in the scientific community- after all, as noted by Dr. Jones, and apparently Noam Chomsky as well:
“Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”

Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history.”

The above quote and the full article are at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081

Download “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction” from Open Civil Engineering Journal at:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm

(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

Direct link:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

You can read more about the theories of the authors at:
Journalof911Studies.com
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Other useful websites for examining the 9/11 events, and the effects on public and private policy:
911Truth.org
911Blogger.com
911Research.WTC7.net & 911Review.com
Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org