Dr. Frank Greening Agrees To Debate 9/11 Skeptics

Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate

Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate

The National 9/11 Debate is pleased to announce that Frank R. Greening Ph.D. has agreed to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on March 10, 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. Frank R. Greening will be part of a seven-member debate team that will support the U.S. government’s official account of 9/11 events.

Frank R. Greening was born in London, England in 1947. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and has carried out research in physics, chemistry, and materials science for 30 years in academic and industrial positions. He has published approximately 80 research reports and journal articles, including numerous articles supporting the government’s collapse sequence theories of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2.

While the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists remain invited to participate in the National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report has expanded the potential government debate team members to any qualified persons that are willing to publicly defend the government’s account of 9/11 against the opposing debate team already assembled. Dr. Greening is the first such expert that has agreed to debate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth as well as other experts that oppose the government’s account of 9/11 to include Philip J. Berg, James H. Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, George Nelson, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy D. Wood.

“Regardless of what you believe about the events of September 11, 2001, the need for a fair, public debate regarding the government’s official account of 9/11 is made apparent by the fact that nearly half of all Americans, and arguably, more than half of the world population does not accept the U.S. government’s final 9/11 reports as complete or factual. The goal of this debate has always been to give each side a safe public forum for honest debate where each side is allowed to completely express their views and debate the merits of these views,” says Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “With Dr. Greening coming on board, I am confident that others will follow and this much needed debate will occur.”

The format of the National 9/11 Debate will include a credentialed seven-member debate team that supports the government’s account of 9/11, a credentialed seven-member debate team that disputes elements of the government’s account, and a seven-member media panel that will monitor the debates and pose questions to the debate team members.

You can find some of Dr. Greening's work at 911myths.com.

Thanks Jon for the heads up!

The NIST report?? Hahaha.

The NIST report?? Hahaha. Amazing and sicikening how easy it is to purchase a traitor these days.

Here's your FACTS Cincy...

Here's your FACTS Cincy... NO High Rise building has been brought down due to fire until WTC 1,2, and 7! And WHATEVER YOU BRING TO THE TABLE, YOU CANNOT FULLY EXPLAIN WTC7!
chilidip | 08.16.06 - 11:25 pm | #

??? I'd say your reading comprehension skills need to be improved greatly childip. I'm the one who posted all of the questions/statements refuting the government's OT.

Go back and re-read the postings and CONCENTRATE...CONCENTRATE!

R: "Facts, intelligence and

R:

"Facts, intelligence and civility." I wish I could be one to accept your compliment. Yet, I know at least I opened up on Mr. Rational with a less than civil "Dork".

To the kind hearted and genuine people who ultimately pursue the truth.... no matter their own personal failings or the ugliness of the truth.... please accept my apologies for my use of profanity and verbal force. Mr. "rational" got under my skin, momentarily.

Yeah, these clowns show up

Yeah, these clowns show up asking us to debunk the NIST report. I'm sure if I had the time, I probably could, word-for-word, even though buildings don't get pulverized to dust and body parts launched hundreds of yards away onto rooftops by traditional collapse.

But that's not the damn point. There is mountains of evidence to prove the OV is a lie and a cover-up.

Is that not all we need?

this is great to read. the

this is great to read.
the guy 'rational' comes in with insults and nonfactual accusations wanting us to start from scratch with the reasons we don't believe the official story. Post after post refute his claims in a noninsulting and intelligent manner. This is the sort of thread that I'd love people not exposed to the truth to read.
It shows that we have facts and intelligence and civility on our side.

Is this a joke? That's March

Is this a joke?
That's March 10, 2007!
http://www.teamliberty.net/id289.html

Yeah... the date should

Yeah... the date should DEFINITELY be moved up.

Click Here

I pity the fool, dont care

I pity the fool, dont care how many books he has written or his so called credentials, he is desperately trying to pass off pure fiction that defies the laws of physics & gravity.

That makes it a thoroughly debunked hypothesis and he is going to be made to look like a fool.

That covers the theory. Who

That covers the theory. Who wants to debate the facts?

From his site regarding

From his site regarding Silverstein's "pull it" comment...Classic:

There are questions about both sides of the issue, then, but overall, the explanation of “pull it” meaning “remove the firefighters” makes more sense to us. It means we don’t have to find explanations for why he said this on TV, for instance, or why the fire department would be involved in demolitions, and cover them up afterwards (or why we should take Silverstein at his word for “pull it”, then ignore everything else he says).

they'll clean the floor with

they'll clean the floor with this guy.

my dog could clean the floor

my dog could clean the floor with this guy

"2007" is the punch-line.

"2007" is the punch-line.

Jon Gold said, Who wants to

Jon Gold said,

Who wants to debate the facts?

Certainly not you. Greening will show that you are afraid of the facts.

Here's some help for you. The truth will set you free:

Debunking Tarted Up Horror Tales
by Austin Bay

August 16, 2006

Trust that conspiracy theorists will attempt to exploit the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to spread sensational claims and sensational lies.

Moreover, it's a fair bet sensationalist media will collaborate, not because the squawk show host or headline scribbler believes the poisoned foolishness, but because anger, fear and trembling sell. Conspiracy theories are public ghost stories of a sort, campfire horror tales tarted up with government devils, corporate witches and other demons-of-convenience.

However, Popular Mechanics magazine and Hearst Communications have provided a handy antidote to the conspiracy theorists' more noxious rhetorical poisons.

"Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts" expands to book-length a collection of articles Popular Mechanics published in March 2005. The book contains new appendices and updated analyses.

"Debunking" begins with an insightful and blunt foreword by Sen. John McCain, who observes, "Conspiracy mongering is no small phenomenon. . . . These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination. But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs."

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's blurb for the book describes it as "reliable and rational" and that the government "isn't competent enough to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret."

Book editors David Dunbar and Brad Reagan laud former Sen. Pat Moynihan's classic quip: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

With Moynihan as a guide, the book follows a "Claim" and "Fact" format. Here are excerpts from the section entitled "Melted Steel":

"Claim: . . . 'We have been lied to,' announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. 'The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.' The posting is entitled 'Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.' . . .

"FACT: . . . Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius . . . significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius typically required to melt steel. . . . However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength -- and that required exposure to much less heat . . . "

The "Fact" section includes analysis from structural engineers, a professor of metallurgy and explosives experts.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories have overt and covert promoters. Some are more nuisance than threat. Howard Dean verbally toyed with 9/11 conspiracy theories when he was playing primary election footsie with hard-left constituencies. Others seek nuclear weapons and finance terrorism. "Debunking" notes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling May 2006 letter to President George W. Bush included "broad hints" that the U.S. organized the attacks.

"Debunking's" afterword, written by Popular Mechanics editor in chief James Meigs, deserves special plaudits. Journalism and rhetoric professors should make use of it in undergraduate classes. The afterword's first sentence sets the stage: "On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination." That's the day his magazine's "debunking" issue appeared in print.

Meigs, however, quickly moves from hate mail to a discussion of "conspiracism" techniques. ("Conspiracism" is a term coined by Chip Berlet of the liberal Political Research Associates think tank.)

Meigs analyzes eight 9/11 conspiracy-spinner techniques. I'll mention two:

(1) Attempts to "marginalize opposing views." Meigs says thousands of eyewitness 9/11 accounts and the analyses of numerous universities and professional organizations (including Underwriters Labs and the American Society of Civil Engineers) are dismissed as "the government version."

(2) Circular reasoning. Meigs writes that " . . . among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy." He concludes: "Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a world view that is immune to refutation."

Meigs' analyses of "demonization" and the "paranoid style" are particularly crisp and compelling.

I also wrote a book blurb, calling "Debunking" "a victory for common sense . . . ." The world deserves more victories just like it.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20068161442.asp

"Certainly not you. Greening

"Certainly not you. Greening will show that you are afraid of the facts."

I used to be somewhat afraid of this Government because of the horror they have caused, but now I know that we will win. Fear is not something I have to deal with anymore.

Rational Dork: Jet fuel

Rational Dork:

Jet fuel burns [in a jet engine] at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius....

But NOT when spilled all over my blue jeans.

Comments from the real

Comments from the real world:

Also in the mail: the expanded Popular Mechanics debunking of the 9/11 conspiracy myths. When I went down to the lobby cash machine I put the book on an adjacent shelf while I extracted my money. A lanky young man waiting to use the machine pointed to the book, and asked how it was. I said I hadn’t read it, but I’d read the article on which it was based, and that was a good resource. “Of course, it’ll all be dismissed by the people who believe these things.” I took my money and stepped aside.

“I know,” he said. “I have friends who believe in the conspiracy.”

“Really? I don’t know how I could be friends with people who believed that.”

“They believe the whole thing,” he said. “The Jews were warned beforehand, that sort of stuff.”

“Oh, anti-semitism and anti-government paranoia. That’s a dandy combo.”

“You can’t talk to them about it,” he said, and shook his head.

Later that night I read the entire book. Sane, logical, unemotional, sensible, comprehensive. There: IÂ’m now officially part of the conspiracy. My membership card should arrive in two weeks. I understand we get 10% off at DennyÂ’s.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0806/081406.html

Jon Gold said, Fear is not

Jon Gold said,

Fear is not something I have to deal with anymore.

Along with thinking.

"Along with thinking." Two

"Along with thinking."

Two points of credibility for me. One claiming I'm afraid, and two claiming I'm not that bright.

Thanks.

Erin said... But NOT when

Erin said...

But NOT when spilled all over my blue jeans.

Neither did steel have to melt in the towers as you claim erroneously.

Jon Gold said, Thanks. Your

Jon Gold said,

Thanks.

Your welcome.

You understand with all of us that you have zero credibility. Google it.

I'll have to show up with a

I'll have to show up with a diagram and function protocol for the compressor section of a go-fasty jet-motor and how they run and lamp-oil

(which I just can't figure out why it won't SOFTEN this cheap lantern I have from 1851)

NOT!

The collapse of the WTC

The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

"If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."

The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

I have 3 points of

I have 3 points of credibility from you. Each insult counts as one point of credibility for me.

"Neither did steel have to

"Neither did steel have to melt in the towers as you claim erroneously."

I suppose the steel didn't have to melt. The problem is that it did.

Jon Gold said,

Jon Gold said,

I have 3 points of credibility from you. Each insult counts as one point of credibility for me.

What insults? I deal in facts.

Cincy911Truth, Where did

Cincy911Truth,

Where did you come up with that nonsense?

I have a dumb question. If

I have a dumb question. If we can't believe the account of the 9/11 Commission, why then should we put our faith in something written by Popular Mechanics? If our own Government lied to us, why should we believe a magazine instead?

Ya... all that stuff

Ya... all that stuff "rational" said.... and greening too!

'cause "aluminum glows red when it's hot".......

NOT!

More debunking of

More debunking of 911BloggerMyths:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Erin, You want truth or do

Erin,

You want truth or do you want to continue to beleive in fairy tales.

Jon Gold said, I have a

Jon Gold said,

I have a dumb question.

You have nothing but questions. You never have answers. Googling "jon gold" shows you never answer questions. Why are you hiding?

rational: That's my question

rational:

That's my question to you, but since you beat me to it.

You go first.

Tell me how it is, sir.

I'm not kidding.

Debunking Popular Mechanics'

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Posted in the database on Thursday, August 10th, 2006 @ 17:02:41 MST (117 views)
by Paul Joseph Watson

Following the publication of

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6880

Erin said, Tell me how it

Erin said,

Tell me how it is, sir.

Be my guest. Debunk Greening and NIST. Let's see your evidence.

Any other questions

Any other questions Rational?

"You have nothing but

"You have nothing but questions. You never have answers. Googling "jon gold" shows you never answer questions. Why are you hiding?"

I have a thread dedicated to taking questions. I taught a few online courses, and I took questions.

A Lie?

Cincy911Truth, You must be

Cincy911Truth,

You must be new at this. Please do some actual research and don't believe everything 9/11 conspiracy buffs feed to you.

Try to deal with the issue rationally. Think.

I'm sure there are SEVERAL

I'm sure there are SEVERAL people here who can attest to the fact that I have answered their questions to the best of my ability.

I hear insults but I don't

I hear insults but I don't hear any facts from you? Got any?

Jon Gold said, I have a

Jon Gold said,

I have a thread dedicated to taking questions. I taught a few online courses, and I took questions.

The floor is yours. Refute NIST. Right here for all to see.

Put your money where your mouth is.

By all means people should

By all means people should debate the issues, but it seems to me that actually, it isn't up to Frank Greening, or other panelists to be defending the US government's account of 9/11, rather it is up to the US goverment itself.

It's ok to have a debate to bring more attention to 9/11 issues, but if it is the case that the US government will not, or can not defend it's story then clearly a serious underlying problem remains.

"Jon Gold said, I have a

"Jon Gold said,

I have a thread dedicated to taking questions. I taught a few online courses, and I took questions.

The floor is yours. Refute NIST. Right here for all to see.

Put your money where your mouth is."

Wait a second... didn't you just lie about me?

"By all means people should

"By all means people should debate the issues, but it seems to me that actually, it isn't up to Frank Greening, or other panelists to be defending the US government's account of 9/11, rather it is up to the US goverment itself.

It's ok to have a debate to bring more attention to 9/11 issues, but if it is the case that the US government will not, or can not defend it's story then clearly a serious underlying problem remains."

I agree completely.

Why don't you listen to

Why don't you listen to these "conspiracy buffs"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRoONuSQgGE&eurl=

rational, You know WHO wrote

rational,

You know WHO wrote the Popular Mechanics article???

It was Benjamin Chertoff, the cousin of Michael Chertoff!

I hear insults but I don't

I hear insults but I don't hear any facts from you? Got any?

It's certainly not an insult but an observation. It is evident from my years of experience that you have done no research about 9/11. I presume you have access to the same material I do so it should not be difficult.

Oh, yes, see the links above for facts that 9/11 conspiracists have never refuted.

Hope that helps.

Yo, rational, why do you

Yo, rational, why do you think they are gagging Sibel Edmonds?

Why did the 9/11 Commission omit any reference to the wire transfer(s) from General Ahmad to Mohammed Atta?

How could anything hit the Pentagon 35 minutes after the WTC was hit and when Dick Cheney was monitoring the flight as it came in?

Do you think WTC firefighters are lying when they say they found 3 of WTC black boxes?

Who directed the wargames?

rational: I'll try it this

rational:

I'll try it this way. May I debunk NIST and Greening together?

I'm going to go off-line for a few, not long, just long enough for an extra pack of smoke, and an envelope.

I smoke a few, and jot a bit on the back of the envelope.

I'll come back to this blog posting, and offer you a simple answer, right quick. Ok?

By all means people should

By all means people should debate the issues, but it seems to me that actually, it isn't up to Frank Greening, or other panelists to be defending the US government's account of 9/11, rather it is up to the US goverment itself.

You are confused. The government has nothing to do with scientific and factual evidence presented by Greening or all the other independent experts in structural engineering.

The 9/11 conspiracists' claims of bombs, explosives, and nefarious plots have all been easily refuted by factual evidence.

And I suppose that the

And I suppose that the following occurences are just 'coincidences'?

having no response from NORAD,

war plans on Dubya's desk on 9/9/01,

troops in the Caspian Basin countries (north of Afghanistan) and two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea just prior to 9/11

notification to U.S. public officials not to fly before and on 9/11

Guiliani being told in the morning on 9/11 that WTC 7 was going to collapse

5 war games

etc. etc. etc.

Anonymous said, Yo,

Anonymous said,

Yo, rational, why do you think they are gagging Sibel Edmonds?

etc...

And your answers are.....?

Or maybe al Qaeda planned

Or maybe al Qaeda planned all of those 'coincidences' too huh?

We're

We're waiting...waiting...waiting...

Erin said, I'll come back to

Erin said,

I'll come back to this blog posting, and offer you a simple answer, right quick. Ok?

By all means. I LOVE 9/11 conspiracists who KNOW they are better than any expert living. Guys and gals like you inspire such confidence with your knowledge!

Cincy911Truth, You really

Cincy911Truth,

You really need to get going on your research.

Insults, insults,

Insults, insults, insults..but funny....not responses with facts.

Cincy911lacking said, We're

Cincy911lacking said,

We're waiting...waiting...waiting...

I'm waiting for you to do your research.

Go away little boy. I'm done

Go away little boy. I'm done with your nonsense. Bye!

I guess you missed this,

I guess you missed this, Cincy. One more time:

"Oh, yes, see the links above for facts that 9/11 conspiracists have never refuted."

Okay, but the debate will be

Okay, but the debate will be held on March 10, 2007? It's only August 16, 2006. Why so long? I was hoping Bush & Cheney would be in prison before that. (Is this to provide the gov't with enough time for another false-flag attack or two?)

Cincy911Truth wrote, Go

Cincy911Truth wrote,

Go away little boy. I'm done with your nonsense. Bye!

Poor gal... she must be afraid of the cold hard truth. Most 9/11 conspiracists avoid the truth like the plaque.

Such a waste....

See you anon after Jon Gold has refuted NIST.

"See you anon after Jon Gold

"See you anon after Jon Gold has refuted NIST."

You lied about me so I don't have to do nada for you my friend.

Rational, all your attacks

Rational, all your attacks are ad hominem. You're basically walking in here, trying to convince people who have done hundreds of hours of research on their own, that they ought to believe your shit just because a magazine or a TV show said it. We've looked at hard data and numbers, my friend, and we've watched and read documentaries and reports from hundreds of sources. And you base your conclusions on what? Faux News and Popular Mechanics, two sources that are mouthpieces for the gov't? Give me a break.

RATIONAL, GIVE UP, YOU

RATIONAL,

GIVE UP, YOU HAVE LOST. THE PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP TO YOUR LIES. HAVE FUN WORSHIPPING GOVERNMENT WHILE BEING ENSLAVED.

Like I said, I just wanted

Like I said, I just wanted to enjoy a smoke before "rational" has me up against the wall.

I'll beg to show ONLY 20 thousand square inches of unheated loadable steal at the 40th floor. Ok?

That's about 139 square feet for those who don't think of steel in inches or kpsi.

That's only the equivalent of a single steel column, with a bathroom floor sized cross section, holding up One WTC.

I'm going to multiply that by only 60KPSI (a joke of COMPRESSION resistance for the cheapest of steel, which I'm "told" the WTC was otherwise.) Ok?

Plus, the mild-steal (if you want to insist that WTC was built with crap) is not "brittle" or easily shatter-able. Chew on that, please.

So what we've got here, is crappy steel, smaller surface, and less than a tenth of the psi load-ability....

AND YA STILL NEED 600,000 TONS to crush it down.

The powder-fluff and pixy-stick show for "9/11"...... was a little weak on providing that kind of downward load. And since even mild-steel isn't "brittle", it's not about to shatter.

Fuck you, rationally.

P.S. Greening thinks aluminum can glow florescent..... dumb ass.

http://video.google.com/video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58582387431741404

I found this interesting. I noticed they edited the clip a little bit in the middle. Seems like there was some missing dialog and the video faded into a different shot.

"Neither did steel have to

"Neither did steel have to melt in the towers as you claim erroneously."

I suppose the steel didn't have to melt. The problem is that it did.
emptyground | 08.16.06 - 9:36 pm | #

Damn good retort! Keep 'em coming!

I get frustrated with little

I get frustrated with little video clips like this. There is obviously more to this video, I want to see the rest.

Btw, rational: I happen to

Btw, rational:

I happen to KNOW I'm not "better than any expert living". I may be a little pissed that so many of them are coward into silence, and leave many of us out here to bag away best we can.... but considering what some war-mongers did on 9/11.... I at least understand them a bit.

See... I just don't care about that silliness anymore. Got past it, moved on, so should you.

Are you going to check my math and let me know if I made a mistake, or two, or three..... or are you going to go away?

rational | 08.16.06 - 9:22

rational | 08.16.06 - 9:22 pm | #

i say this every time only because it seems to happen every time, but, you shills ALWAYS have the most ironic names...........

The floor is yours. Refute

The floor is yours. Refute NIST. Right here for all to see.

Put your money where your mouth is.
rational | 08.16.06 - 9:54 pm | #
___________________________________--

Refute this, shill:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University

Conclusions

I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated.

A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. If possible it would question, under oath, the officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did. The implications of what happened on 9/11/2001 clearly supercede partisan politics. Physics sheds light on the issue which we ignore to our peril as we contemplate the wars that have been and may yet be justified on the basis of the 9/11 tragedy and its "official" interpretation.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

and somebody ask Dr.

and somebody ask Dr. Greening who the other one named mysteries are from 911myths.com. not having full names and trying to pass yourselves off as experts is a joke.

I've read some of Greening's

I've read some of Greening's papers on 911myths. He raises some interesting points that I would like to see followed up by Jones (for example, a better molten aluminum and pulverized concrete test reaction which particles of smaller surface area are used)... I think Jones hasn't published a reply yet because he is busy pursuing other leads. IMO Greening raises some interesting points but nothing which kills any of Jones' hypothesis. I will be interesting to watch this debate between the experts... Also, in the latest journal of 911 studies volume, Gordon Ross writes what appears to me to be an excellent rebuttal of Greening's gravitational collapse paper . However, my background is in science, not engineering, so I'll be interested to see if Greening gets another response to Ross' paper in the next volume and what he has to say...

testing

testing

rational, If you don't have

rational,

If you don't have a peer-reviewed paper and a Ph.D. in physics, STFU.

"World Trade Center, Rise

"World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon" is on the History Channel.

Well, in San Diego anyway.

Well, in San Diego anyway.

rational? rational? I

rational?

rational?

I should'a let my dog on you.

Here's your FACTS Cincy...

Here's your FACTS Cincy... NO High Rise building has been brought down due to fire until WTC 1,2, and 7! And WHATEVER YOU BRING TO THE TABLE, YOU CANNOT FULLY EXPLAIN WTC7!

Building a Better

Building a Better Mirage

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

Introduction

In June of 2005 the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published the draft of its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' (document NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf). This Report and a separate one on the case of WTC 7 represent the culmination of NIST's three-year 20-million-dollar investigation of the collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report makes no attempt to explain how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize -- let alone explain -- the demolition-like features of the collapses, such as their explosiveness and nearly free-fall rapidity.

(more)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

They edited out part of the

They edited out part of the Frank Demartini quote. They did not show the part where he said he believed the towers could take multiple aircraft hits.

rational- it is shocking

rational-

it is shocking that you have so much extra time on your hands that you can sit on your computer alllll day long on 911blogger just to consistently spread disinfo and try to debunk everything we say..... hmmm almost as if is your job... almost as if you are getting paid to do it!!!

http://freepress.net/presswar/=manufacture

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592

So with the 7 member media

So with the 7 member media team that makes it 14 vs. 7 - ya, that sounds fair.

To anyone who raises

To anyone who raises objections out of a sincere curiosity, I would recommend Dr. Griffin's latest book, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. Its presentation on 9/11 is succinct yet comprehensive.

irRational,you must have

irRational,you must have come from Digg,or are you a friend of Benjamin Chertoff? do you have knowledge of where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are?
Do you think a rational decision to pass the Patriot Act is a strong message to "terrorists? Do you think jet fuel took down WTC 7? Did fire really take down WTC7? You are a fraud,one of those who put out disinformation ...thats My opinion. So why doesn't the government stop resisting and have a independant investigation between rational evidence? consider that the biggest crime commited on our nation's soil,and the evidence was removed as fast as it could be removed? This can't be the actions of a government,who was just attacked,and then they go and remove the evidence. Odd behavior,that is.

Lol. "Rational" sounds

Lol. "Rational" sounds decidedly not so. Ad hom, condescension and quack "science" from government spokepersons do not an argument make. You people are starting to resemble the flat earth society. You're time is at hand.

rational, where have you

rational,
where have you gone with your weak arguments? have you collapsed upon melting in the heat of your steaming bs?

Careful, rational:

Careful, rational:

Pointing out Jon Gold's fake opposition to the official Muslim-hijacker-hugging version of events can lead to an entire flock of disinfo agents verbally coming to his aid... If you persist, 911blogger will show its true colors by banning your IP address.

No matter how many times it's been explained to 911blogger that the false blaming of fictitious Muslim hijackers is at the very core of the govt's big lie of 9/11, 911blogger continues to promote and prominently link to those who promote the govt lies (Muslim hijackers, hijacked Boeings) of 9/11, including WKJO and EGLS.

For some reason, outspoken rationality is not welcome here at 911blogger -- it tends to make 911blogger and friends (ie, Jon Gold -- didn't JG once tell us that his father was a freemason?) look like coverup disinfo.

=================================================

IMHO, the best single measure of a 9/11 presentation's value is how
impossible the presenter makes it for people to keep clinging to the
belief that they can blame "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Further, if
the presentation tries to advance that unfounded belief (especially
subliminally), then it is acting as government propaganda.

_________________________________________

Time line of Paul

Time line of Paul Thompson.

http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Start with reading "about this project".

Paul Thompson is an alumnus from Stanford.

He has links to countless articles from the main stream media. Its up to us to connect the dots because the mass media won't.

I did not know where to put this URL but I think this is an unbelievable resource in our quest for knowing the truth about 911. Its a virtual goldmine with gold that has not been discovered yet and dots yet to be connected. Really it appears the media has disclosed a lot but its been buried in sections that are not read much. I believe that even the media does not know how much it has exposed of the truth.

I know I will be spending some time here.

Plese pass the link on.

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up anon,and you are so right about the bits of information out there. I find them from time to time..even in places that get criticized by other 9/11 sites. I sent an E-Mail out to this guy 2 days ago,I haven't heard a response yet. But the story is very significant and would implicate a few people when the independant investigation starts. Check it out here;

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03092006.html

I hope he can do better than

I hope he can do better than his paper 'ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE' in which he states in section 4.2 that the relative strength of the core column was 6.7x greater than an exterior column. What kind of 'strength' is he talking about? Tensile, compressive, shear or what? Is he really trying to get me to believe (for example) that a 6"x6" solid titanium column has the same strength as a 6"x6" hollow aluminum column with a 1 millimeter wall thickness because the columns have the same cross sectional area? Get a grip.