Com 8- 14 Points- 25 People- 5 Minutes

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

In one of my Communications classes, today we gave 5 minute speeches on a “memorable experience”. I used the occasion to talk about last Friday, April 18, 2008 when the Fourteen Points paper was posted on It went something like this:

“Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?”

Last Friday, I was thinking that today I would be talking to ya’ll about the first time I saw Loose Change, the online DVD that quote is from, which a lot of you have probably heard of. However, last Friday night something happened, that, imho, is just as memorable and is more immediately significant.

This event was the publication of a letter titled “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”, in The Open Civil Engineering Journal- an Open Access, mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by This event is significant because the 5 authors are known for hypothesizing that on 9/11 World Trade Center towers 1, 2….& 7, we’re destroyed by controlled demolition. This letter, however, does not deal with controlled demolition. The authors are merely seeking to reach grounds for “productive discussion” of the 14 points outlined in the letter, which in turn are based on assertions of fact already made by NIST and FEMA in their reports and public statements, and quote extensively from them. The big issue here is that the NIST and FEMA reports appear to be grossly inadequate, contradicting both their own conclusions and established facts.

Coinciding with the publication in, one of the lead authors, Dr. Steven Jones published this 14 point open letter in full at, with commentary. Dr. Jones noted, “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.”

At 911Blogger, Dr. Jones also quoted Noam Chomsky advising those who suspect explosives brought down the World Trade Center to get the attention of the scientific community by getting a paper published in a scientific journal. Chomsky, in response to an email; “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…”

This event of publication is a historic, one-time event; there will likely be other published peer-reviewed papers to follow that disprove the NIST and FEMA reports (and there will likely be rebuttals), however, as Dr. Jones noted, things are now on a new level. This discussion about why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed has now moved into the mainstream scientific community.

Since I saw Loose Change and investigated it, I have not believed the official 9/11 story, although I accepted it almost without question until I saw Loose Change summer 2005. After studying videos of the “collapses”, it was no longer possible to believe that plane damage, jet fuel, weakened steel giving way underneath the mass on top it could’ve turned several hundred thousand tons each of steel framing and concrete into rapidly inflating dust clouds and ten story piles of rubble. To me, it seemed obvious that explosives could’ve caused the observed effects.

So, while I noticed that showing videos of WTC 1, 2 & 7 to people was usually enough to get them to question what we’ve been told about 9/11, I wasn’t sure how useful this would in finding or prosecuting the culprits. Plus, in my search for answers I was discovering that the number of “holes” in the “official” 9/11 story, not just what we were told about World Trade Centers 1, 2 & &. As 9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert noted, once the physical evidence is destroyed or missing, then in court it comes down to one expert vs. another in front of a jury who may or may not be fully qualified to understand what they’re talking about. Ruppert recommend that 9/11 Truth researchers and activists focus on gathering evidence by studying official reports, documents and statements and mainstream media reporting for lies, contradictions and inconsistencies.

However, with the publication of this Fourteen Points letter, the 9/11 Truth Movement now has both; a paper that essentially proves the NIST and FEMA reports are frauds, and that controlled demolition was the likely cause of destruction. Whether it really does that remains to be seen; I’m not a scientist or even an expert- I just like to read, and I support free speech and public debate of important issues. It’s possible that the paper will not stand up to rebuttals that are published and will go down a laughing stock. It’s also possible the NIST & FEMA reports will go down as laughingstocks- and prompt criminal, congressional and international investigations.

Another thing I learned from this experience is how to Blog; as soon as the paper was published, I and the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement realized the paper’s significance and began posting links to it all over the web, and I also began to blog daily about the paper and the online coverage of it. I had not really blogged before, but I wanted to make sure this event got maximum visibility. One interesting thing I discovered is that Google News, the search engine most people online are using to search and get news, has not been sending me Alerts to my email about the Fourteen Points paper- or any of the articles about it- even though I have at least 11 different alerts with a variety of keywords that should’ve caught it, that caught other articles with those keywords. Some of these articles ARE caught by Google WEB alerts, but the fact that they’re not in the NEWS alerts means a LOT of People are not going to receive an alert about the article, even if they have the right keywords. I’m not sure what’s up with Google’s shoddy service- it could be a “glitch” or an “editorial decision”.

If you want to find the article though, it is indexed in Google and you should be able to find it by typing “Bentham” “Fourteen Points “ and “World Trade Center”.

In closing, I’ll quote from Loose Change once more; “Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center”?

I don’t.

Thank you.

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction