Journalof911Studies.com and other sites provide broken links to peer reviewed papers.

The links that are currently provided were valid prior to a redesign of the Benthan web site.

Since the Benthan site has been changed, I have not been able to access the following articles through the Benthan site:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the WTC Destruction

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Copies of the original papers ARE STILL AVAILABLE at the following locations:

A pdf copy of the 14 Points of Agreement paper is at
http://www.911truth.org/Articles/FourteenPoints_Jonesetal.pdf

A pdf copy of the Active Thermitic Material Paper is at
http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

benthan-open.org no longer seems to be a supported web site URL.

The new top level URL seems to be http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm

It seems that bentham is only allowing free access to the CURRENT ISSUE of each of their open journals. In order to see an article from a previous issue, it looks like one must order and pay for a reprint.

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationO...

Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:

The Hard Evidence Down Under Tour 2009 - An Amazing Success!!

by Janice Matthews
November 23, 2009
911Truth.org

The Hard Evidence Down Under 2009 Tour has nearly wrapped up, following events in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia and in Wellington, New Zealand. Every one of these events met with overwhelming success.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?"

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLegge.pdf

Here are some excerpts:

"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one
reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the
arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another."

"There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not."

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the journal.

Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):

1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf

These two important episodes of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program, Kevin Ryan and Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones.

Kevin is a chemist who is formerly of Underwriter Laboratories. Kevin became a 9-11 whistleblower when he was fired for writing his now infamous 2004 letter to Frank Gayle at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Kevin has been very prolific in his research since getting fired by UL and has either authored or co-authored many important papers relating to 9-11 since 2004.

Dr. Jones is a retired physics professor and first emerged in late 2005 with his important paper, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, and has continued to do groundbreaking research into the "collapses" of all three high rise buildings on September 11th, 2001.

Kevin and Dr. Jones both sit as co-editors at the Journal of 9-11 Studies and Dr. Jones is the founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. Both have been stalwarts in the scientific and scholarly area of the 9-11 Truth Movement..

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:

“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:

• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

Two new papers have been published at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The first is "Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom", by Mark Vorobej.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Vorobej_Obstacles%20to%20...

Professor Vorobej teaches Philosophy, and is a former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies, at McMaster University. Here is the introductory paragraph from his paper.

"From January to April 2008, I taught an unusual upper-level undergraduate Philosophy course on Argumentation Theory at McMaster University. The course focused on such questions as “What makes a good argument good?” and “What makes a belief rational?” - where an argument is understood as an exercise in rational persuasion aimed at inculcating rational belief. And approximately five weeks of the course were devoted to studying the arguments of the 9/11 truth movement."

The second paper is an updated version of a letter previously submitted by Michael Fury. It is called "The Ghost in the Machines: Evidence of Foreknowledge in the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries." An excerpt is below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/GhostWTC.pdf

"The locations of the computers in question within the towers is unknown, but if Wagner is correct, two possibilities emerge: (1) either the "insiders" had foreknowledge of the precise impact points of the aircraft (otherwise why assume that the main frames would be destroyed?) or (2) they had foreknowledge of the total destruction of the towers."

From Steven Jones;

Kevin Ryan shows his skills as both a chemist and a “private investigator” in his paper, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” – Published July 4, 2008, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Kevin Ryan discusses nano-thermite (“super-thermite”) and provides very important results of his own investigation of connections between NIST and researchers studying/developing nano-thermite.

Several of us have been discussing nano-thermite for quite a while now. For instance, I announced in Boston last year the observation of red-gray chips which I found in WTC dust samples. (If you need to catch up, pls see this short video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en ) Research papers on this material are now being written/reviewed for publication.

Thermite is comprised of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder (or another metal oxide). When the powders are “ultra-fine grain”, less than about 100 nano-meters, then nano-thermite is formed. This form of thermite, also known as “super-thermite,” is not just an incendiary – it is EXPLOSIVE!

Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is an article by Frank Legge, called "9/11 and Probability Theory". Here is an excerpt.

"If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events, like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andProbabilityTheory17...

The second paper is a letter from Kevin Fenton, entitled "WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered".

"It is interesting to compare the collapse initiation floor in WTC1 to the central impact floors in terms of three of the main aspects thought to have influenced the collapse: impact damage, jet fuel spilled, and debris available to remove fire insulation."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors...

Monday May 26, 2008

Kevin Ryan

Richard Gage

Kamal Obeid

Listen 10:00 pm - 12:00 midnight (CST) to Questioning War- Organizing Resistance on the WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com and to our guests - Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA, Ron Brookman, Kamal Obeid, Scott C. Grainger, PE.

Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

Thanks to the able translators who have made the "Fourteen Points" readable now in Dutch and Italian:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntenDutchVersion.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntiItalianVersion.pdf

It is through INTERNATIONAL efforts that I believe we can succeed in the TRUTH AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT (seeking Truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, the NAU/SPP, the expanding US debt and falling dollar, rising oil prices, and so on -- and Independence from corrupt and decaying systems, individually and in communities).

The Italian translators are Riccardo Pizzirani and Massimo Mazzucco. Massimo wrote about this paper:
"we have just [finished] a translation of your “14 points” piece, which I personally found delightful: I never thought such fine irony could be married so elegantly to any 9/11 discourse.
Thanks for it all, on behalf of all Italian 9/11 truthers as well."

The translation into Dutch was accomplished by Frank Ho, who wrote:
"Thanks for showing interest in my Dutch translation of your 14 points study. I'm impressed by this new approach in seeking for agreements. The Journal of 911 Studies is free to use this translation for it's purposes.
"There is one remark. I translated this article with lot's of efforts because of it's main importance....
My main goal is making the information about 9/11 irresistible and inevitable for mainstream oriented public and press. Therefore I consider a smooth readability and presentation as an obligation."

Further translations are welcomed!

Dr. Frank Legge has a knack at explaining difficult concepts logically and succinctly, as exemplified in his latest paper: "WTC 1 Collapse – What if the Columns Miss?" Dr. Legge considers four possible ways in which the columns in WTC 1 could have interacted in a gravity-driven collapse, and concludes:

"None of these four outcomes was observed. Clearly all the evidence points to the use of explosives to sever the columns in a precise sequence designed to produce vertical collapse at near free fall speed. As felling of such a tall building had previously not been attempted, it is likely that a considerable excess of explosive was used to make absolutely certain that the collapse would be vertical and complete. As a probably undesired consequence of this excess, most of the concrete was pulverized, as we observe.

"We can therefore safely conclude that, regardless of how the columns of the upper section interact with the columns of the lower section, the official explanation for the collapse is false."

Please read this three-page letter, here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we've gotten somewhat behind in publishing papers. But to begin a new round of articles and letters, we've just published an interesting look at the financial implications of 9/11. This paper from Professor Olivia Jackson examines typical perspectives about the impact of the attacks on the US economy, and comes to what may be a surprising conclusion..

Here is an excerpt.

"In summary, this paper highlights the United States’ ability to continue to persevere in the wake of crisis. As highlighted, instead of weakening the economy, 9/11 played no significantly direct role in altering the direction in which the economy was headed, given that the United States was already enveloped in a recession before the attacks occurred. If anything, such a tragedy as 9/11 brought about more challenges for the country, consequently, resulting in a more heightened US awareness and increasing stamina to meet these challenges"

More at the following link.

The Impact of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on the US Economy
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/OliviaJackson911andUS-Eco...

Dr. Daniele Ganser (History Department, Basel University, Switzerland) succeeded in publishing an academic paper in Sept. 2006 a significant European newspaper – quite an accomplishment! Subsequently, his article was translated into French and English. With his permission, his article is re-published for convenience of researchers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in THREE languages:

Deutsche: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserDeu11Sept.pdf

Français : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserFrancaisOnzeSept.pdf (Actress Cotillard pls read)

English : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserSwissProfs.pdf

The editors of the Journal note that some of his views may be controversial even in the 9/11 fact-seeking movement – which is fine for publication as long as the views are substantiated and supported with solid evidence (as his are) and ad hominem-type attacks are avoided. The model of publishing an article like this in a major newspaper provides a notable good example. (Publication in mainstream peer-reviewed technical journals is even more highly encouraged!)

A paper that will surely rattle a few cages was published today:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!

I should also note that three physics departments are listed in the affiliations: Brigham Young University, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, and Univ. of Iowa. (Some PhD's are sticking their necks out again... The paper, we believe, is solid.)

You will want to read this one! We hope it will generate interest and comment.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

We have a new article today, from Professor Graeme MacQueen, entitled –

“Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven...

Here are a few excerpts.

“In the debate over the collapse of World Trade Center 7, warnings of the building’s collapse have come to play an important role. In addition to the numerous collapse warnings mentioned in written documents, such as those I will be using in this article, we have seen a growing number of videotape fragments and interviews in which people appear to have been told in advance of Seven’s collapse. Many proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis take these cases, both written and video, as evidence that the building’s collapse was brought about deliberately.”

“But those who think that Seven’s fall was natural rather than deliberate have not shied away from the collapse warnings. They have simply interpreted them in a different way. In essence, they have said that the warnings were rational and expected given the severe damage Seven had sustained.”

Dr. Frank Legge and Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti team together on a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, entitled:
"9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible"
This paper is the 100th paper to be published in the Journal of 9/11 studies in its nineteen months of existence, or about five scholarly, peer-reviewed papers per month on average (including full articles and letters). A great place to get solid facts and analyses!

This paper should be read for its cogent, pithy arguments regarding the sudden initiation of the destruction of the Towers. Quoting brief extracts:

Gregory Urich has analyzed WTC Tower 1 and presents his findings in a detailed in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, December volume.

This technical paper pulls together data from a number of sources and will certainly support further analytical studies of the destruction of the WTC Towers. While we as a community are calling for an in-depth investigation, note that we are NOT waiting for Congress to act; we are proceeding with our own investigation. Without external grants from the government, we have no strings attached and are free to pursue the truth and to challenge the "official story" wherever we find it incomplete or misleading. The series of 99 papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies constitutes a strong, evidence-based challenge to the 9/11 official story.

Gregory's peer-reviewed paper is published here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available
data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design
loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons

Kevin Ryan and Michael Fury have added very informative Letters to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Kevin's letter begins: "Just before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Ryan Mackey, a new defender of the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory, posted a 200-page paper that attempts to critique the NIST chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.... Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex. Introducing himself, Mackey declares his allegiance to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)..."
Read the rest of Kevin Ryan's Letter here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Michael Fury (pen name) writes an open letter to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He begins,

As Chris notes below, the CNN white plane story has mysteriously re-appeared on the CNN Videos page. For those who may be visiting 911blogger for the first time, here is Shoestring's blog entry, and a link to Shoestring's offsite blog. For more detail on this story, see the PDF article, "Why Did the World's Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?" by Mark H. Gaffney, at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. -rep

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/01/yir.mystery.plane.cnn

CNN did a rare story about 9/11 mysteries. This one focused on the white plane which was widely seen circling the nation's capital on 9/11/01, yet was not widely reported upon in the news.

Why is CNN covering this story? Why now? What is behind this sudden interest in a plane that did not even merit inclusion in the so-called "official report" on the events of 9/11.

We've published a new letter at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is an evaluation of the amount of jet fuel available to feed the fires in the WTC towers, with comparisons to more easily understood volumes.

The paper is entitled –

Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers

The author wishes to remain anonymous to the public.

Although it is understood that the jet fuel was consumed in only a few minutes, this letter puts the initial quantities involved in perspective.

Naomi Klein's recent book The Shock Doctrine is an excellent account of how disater capitalism works, particularly in the aftermath of the attacks of 911 and hurricane Katrina. However, it only focuses on part of the story - after the disaster. As such, when asked in a recent interview if she believed that the benefactors of "shock and awe" campaigns in the aftermath of such disasters could possibly have also had a hand in orchestrating them her response was that she is "not a conspiracy theorist." I respect her work very much thus I sent this email to her publicist in the hopes that she will have the courage to consider the rest of the story - before the disasters. At the very least, for both 911 and Katrina, numerous warnings to government officials were ignored leaving the public woefully unprepared and ill-equiped to protect themselves. I'm posting this letter in the hopes that others will ask public figures to be accountable for the information they give and continue to educate themselves when given an opportunity to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IwPueUfW94

Two frequent contributors to 911blogger.com have published letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: George Washington and Reprehensor.

"The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks." -- found in "Burden of Proof" by Geo. Washington: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/BurdenofProof.pdf

A new topic has been opened in the Letters section of the Journal to encourage well-written letters to Senators and Representatives. Reprehensor's "Open Letter to Jane Harman, Re: Terrorism and the Internet" is an example of such a letter. It is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LettertoJaneHarmanUSCongress.pdf

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies encourage submission of well-researched and written articles such as these, to commence the peer-review process. All papers are peer-reviewed, unless an exception (very rare) is granted by the editors and then a disclaimer is added to the posted paper. Information on where to submit papers is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/contact.html .

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another's work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker's book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11." Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply -- a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy -- hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen... But I digress...

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:

In April, the team of presented a Request for Correction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a lab under the Department of Commerce. This request was published in the June issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The authors were James Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

In their reply dated September 27, 2007, NIST states: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
And they expect the requesters to be satisfied with this response?!?
Remember, NIST is making these statements to men who lost family members in the Towers destruction… Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, as well as to serious researchers Jones, Ryan, Gourley, Gage and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Further from the NIST response letter: “NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” The next sentence admits: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…”

I will be interested in how people react to this article. I wanted to learn more about the many framed-victims (it must be said) of the "9/11 Official Story," and so I asked a Muslim. Thanks to Dr. Kevin Barrett, the article has significant informative content and hope you will read it here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/BarrettAnswersJonesReIslam.pdf
The Appendix contains Kevin's account of his run-in with airport security operatives -- and his great sense of humor shines through...

"How many Iraqis have fled their country due to the 9/11 wars?
According to the BBC, more than two million Iraqis have fled their country due to the US invasion and occupation."

"Approximately what proportion of Muslims question the US-official 9/11 story?