Attorney James Gourley: International Center for 9/11 Studies
Attorney James Gourley: International Center for 9/11 Studies - Alex Jones Tv 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9EwRm2M1MY
Attorney James Gourley: International Center for 9/11 Studies - Alex Jones Tv 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj_kpUlV32w
Alex talks with attorney James Gourley, author of the Request for Correction petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology
http://www.ic911studies.org/
http://www.infowars.com/
International Center for 9/11 Studies
The International Center for 9/11 Studies is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the scientific study of the attacks in New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001. The Center engages in scientific research and educational activities that are international in scope and mutlidisciplinary in nature, and is committed to promoting and engaging in data-driven empirical research performed to the highest academic standards. Through a network of former and current University professors, as well as professionals in a multitude of science and engineering professions, the Center encourages collaboration, information sharing, dialogue and debate across geographical and disciplinary boundaries.
Scientific Papers
The Center's Director has authored or co-authored several peer reviewed papers regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers.
Government Accountability
The Center led an effort by a team of experts to submit public comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology pointing out serious errors and omissions in the NIST report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Scientific Research
The Center provides funding for scientific research into the collapses of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
- Joe's blog
- Login to post comments
He seems like a very good,
He seems like a very good, industrious, man.
Thanks for your great work.
But there is one question that I was hoping would be asked, and that was that it was written somewhere (probably here at 911Blogger) that NIST actually still withheld tons of tapes because they were "intellectual property". So NIST created a special classification that allowed them to withhold stuff at their own choosing, and so there was probably lots of interesting and/or incriminating footage within that "withheld because of IP concerns" category. Specifically, CNN just happened to have cameras trained on the WTC all morning long because it was the debut of Aaron Brown's show on CNN. This would almost certainly include footage of the plane striking the first tower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Brown#CNN
NIST had to have gotten that footage.
But regardless of that, I think that this man joins the ranks of Kevin Ryan, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, and so many others who've done substantial work that really solidifies the veracity of the proof that it was an inside job. Maybe some of this footage will be used by the prosecution when the murderers are on trial. (Gotta stay optimistic, ya know?)
WTC 7 Explosion
* I'm removing my embed here because the sound was enhanced. (the low end). I think that the raw version of the WTC 7 explosion unsanitized by NIST should be presented first.
Thanks so much James Gourley for your valiant efforts! This was the first interview I've seen of you and I am very impressed.
Raw File
http://911datasets.org/images/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_...
Well done James!
Excellent interview. Thanks to Alex for having you on and thank you for all your hard, smart, work.
Ditto!
Ditto!
AE911Truth.org article about the International Center for 9/11 Studies and James Gourley
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-07/little-known-911-truth-organizatio...
IC911Studies YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES
James has contributed towards many of the papers at "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"
http://stj911.org
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/unexplodedthermitedisc.htm
Video of Leslie Robertson talking about molten steel?
Is this video in the cumulus database? If so, what is the file name?
By the way, I'm particularly interested in this because when asked about a report of his comment on molten steel, he apparently replied "I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge." As he is the structural engineer for the twin towers project who claims they were only designed to take the impacts of 707s traveling at 180mph and low on full, without the effects of the resulting fires being considered, having him on tape speaking of molten steel in contradiction to his denial of having done so will be particularly useful.
Robertson Vs Skilling
Pavlovian Dogcatcher said..."Video of Leslie Robertson talking about molten steel? Is this video in the cumulus database? If so, what is the file name?"
Good question. Also in regards to Robertson, I think Skilling is more important in that firm as his name is in their title.....see....
"The Port Authority released a white paper in 1964 referencing the analysis done on the structure of the WTC."
"Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center Towers" was the low-key title on the white paper in the Port Authority's files. Below the title were eleven numbered points on the structure, beginning with ..
1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington SKILLING Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings." At the end of the three page document was the notation "MPL:fg" above the date "2-3-64" meaning that the white paper had been typed for Malcom P. Levy by his secretary, Florence Grainger, on February 3, 1964."
"...halfway down the first page, the paper contained this astonishing statement:"
"3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8)traveling 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage to the building and would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." page 131
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287
"found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8)traveling 600 miles per hour."
Just because Robertson didn't do an impact study of the fire that would result doesn't mean Skilling didn't.
"There would be another airplane study performed later, by Leslie E. Robertson, a young and talented engineer who would soon set up an office for the Skilling firm in New York. Although no official report on this study, which was presumably commissioned by the Port Authority, has ever surfaced publicly, individual details have emerged. What is known is that the calculations again focused on a Boeing 707, "the largest jet aircraft in the air at the time," as Robertson would describe it, crashing into one of the towers." page 138-139
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287
Debunkers like to point out that the lead designer Robertson admitted that they never did a study on the jet fuel fires. But the fact is Robertson was NOT the lead designer and his study was done LATER. Skilling was the lead designer and strongly implies in this quote that the fires were analyzed.
Skilling:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1...
He also said....
Skilling:
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1...
Soooooo...
What the government was saying when they wanted the twin towers built....and that they could withstand Plane impacts......
"1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings."
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287
"3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8)traveling 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage to the building and would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." page 131
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287
What the Government was saying after 9-11 when they didn't withstand those plane impacts....
"However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
I wonder how hard they tried to locate Skillings firm study?
and NIST
We also have the NIST report which decided that the plane destroyed 10 core columns for their simulation, apparently because fewer columns would not result in collapse. They also said that only the motors would have sufficient momentum to destroy a column, and that it would be sufficient to destroy only one column.
I think I am correct in asserting that these planes had only two motors, and in the case of the South tower one of them missed the core!
Thank You James
for taking the bull by the horns.
Polls? LIKE
Many thanks to an honorable man, using his profession to elevate humanity, instead of himself. Hats off, and let's throw them high for James Gourney.
I would like to mention to all, that there is a poll going on, which is already set up, we all can use, without dropping mucho dough into hiring a polling company. Our FB accounts, if you are friends with Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth on FB, as articles come along, and they are coming through your FB page, then the hit "Like" button hit, (versus the "down" button). I see that it shows me that more people like it than not. I'm talking about breakthrough knowledge for the TM. Let's all share knowledge about how responses to new information do on our FB page. Let's all participate in the debates too following the article via FB..
FOIA lawsuit financial support
Funds needed for 9/11 FBI records litigation...
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-20/foia-funds-request
Good interview
James Gourley is a great person to work with and is very persistent as we now know.
I would recommed not getting into an argument with him unless you like to lose.
No Argument Here.
Only appreciation for both James and you Kevin.
Great work, James! as usual
My association with James goes back to 2005 and I appreciate his tireless efforts to bring forth the facts.
I would like to call attention to his paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics which challenges the official 9/11 story.