911 Pentagon Video Footage

[Babe Ruth]

Raptor

Remember, by definition, THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Unless you happen to claim that all this was planned and executed by one person.

The only real question is, "just who were the conspirators?"

Thus, using the word "conspiracy", while accurate, is used more in the Dubya sense, which implies that no conspiracy at all took place.

If that innuendo is all you got, well.....

[bee]

Its like all that Roswell crap again ! LoL That was a great line that an actual ATC guy made,And Did we re-open all the Roswell cases? No ! 9/11/01 was exactly what it was !Lets move on !

but...but....Sky believes in Roswell, or had you forgotten.

correct me if I'm wrong Sky and you've changed your mind.

and I don't want to take the thread off topic with this. But DONTEATUS seems to have forgotton all the mega battles about it on the BE thread

and other Roswell threads...?

.

[skyeagle409]

Remember, by definition, THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.

Considering there is no evidence of a government conspiracy and the fact that 9/11 Truthers have failed to present evidence of a government conspiracy, what more is there to say?

[skyeagle409]

but...but....Sky believes in Roswell, or had you forgotten.

correct me if I'm wrong Sky and you've changed your mind.

Nope, I haven't changed my mind.

[RaptorBites]

Raptor

Remember, by definition, THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Unless you happen to claim that all this was planned and executed by one person.

The only real question is, "just who were the conspirators?"

Thus, using the word "conspiracy", while accurate, is used more in the Dubya sense, which implies that no conspiracy at all took place.

If that innuendo is all you got, well.....

So far there has yet been any evidence of a Government Conspiracy in regards to 9/11.

Yes there was a conspiracy, I have not denied that.

Islamic radical terrorist conspired to crash planes at US targets.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

and the Gulf of Tonkin was exactly what the US government stated it was at the time, wake up!

[RaptorBites]

and the Gulf of Tonkin was exactly what the US government stated it was at the time, wake up!

What does the Gulf of Tonkin have anything to do with 9/11?

Is that your proof that the US Government was lying about 9/11?

What is the point you are trying to make.....

If that is your poor excuse of proof that the government lied about 9/11, then you need to start presenting facts instead of the tired old argument that once a liar always a liar statement.

Want me to give you examples on when the United States Government did not lie? That will disprove your contention that the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, therefore is also lying about 9/11.

You need to wake up.

Edited October 9, 2012 by RaptorBites

[DONTEATUS]

Video of 9/11 please!

[Jackofalltrades]

As far as reopening the case to allow a independant inquiry, how much would it cost to provide the man power to redeliver all that evidence YET AGAIN? I really don't mind independant inquiry but not at the cost of tax dollars.

If the CT camp would like to provide the money, then feel free.

And if the CT's are proven wrong, would they also claim the evidence provided to them was altered in any way shape or form?

There is nothing more that I would like than to be able to afford an independent inquiry into 9/11, but I cannot afford such a thing, if I had the money I would of payed for it personally just to get to the whole truth, with unbiased view point's

And the answer is NO I would NOT say the evidence was tampered with or altered in any way shape or form, as long as the inquiry was truly independent

For an independent inquiry to take place there has to be access to ALL evidence, and seeing as a majority of the steelwork from the WTC's has been scrapped or recycled, and some of the document's is classified by congress (as far as I am aware) then an independent inquiry is out of the question, as some of the evidence needed is missing

[skyeagle409]

There is nothing more that I would like than to be able to afford an independent inquiry into 9/11, but I cannot afford such a thing, if I had the money I would of payed for it personally just to get to the whole truth, with unbiased view point's

And the answer is NO I would NOT say the evidence was tampered with or altered in any way shape or form, as long as the inquiry was truly independent.

If you want to do your own individual investigation, start with the operators of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175. Afterward, you can check with the FAA, Boeing Aircraft company, and the engine manufacturer whose engines powered the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks. They can confirmed that none of those aircraft were modified to fly under remote control in the manner claimed by 9/11 Truthers, and confirm those aircraft were not switched.

For an independent inquiry to take place there has to be access to ALL evidence, and seeing as a majority of the steelwork from the WTC's has been scrapped or recycled, and some of the document's is classified by congress (as far as I am aware) then an independent inquiry is out of the question, as some of the evidence needed is missing

I took a photo last Saturday of a steel beam taken from one of the WTC buildings and adding it as an attachment here and I might add that 7 tons of the steel were used in the construction of the USS New York.

You can replay the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and in each of those videos, you will not hear sound of bomb explosions nor are bomb explosions evident in those videos, which explains why demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings and why investigators found no evidence of explosives at the Fresh Kills landfill.

I have said before that 9/11 conspiracist can call for another investigation, but as long as they pay for it. I cannot see the use of tax dollars for another investigation that is not going to change history. The fact of the matter is, foreign terrorist were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which had nothing to do with a government conspiracy.

Edited October 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

There is nothing more that I would like than to be able to afford an independent inquiry into 9/11, but I cannot afford such a thing, if I had the money I would of payed for it personally just to get to the whole truth, with unbiased view point's

Apperantly with the "millions" of supporters of a Government Conspiracy on 9/11. I am sure that donating $5 each would assist with the payment.

And the answer is NO I would NOT say the evidence was tampered with or altered in any way shape or form, as long as the inquiry was truly independent

It was more of a general question. as it seems fitting since some of the evidence..."pentagon parking lot video" have been claimed by a lot of CT's as being tampered with.

For an independent inquiry to take place there has to be access to ALL evidence, and seeing as a majority of the steelwork from the WTC's has been scrapped or recycled, and some of the document's is classified by congress (as far as I am aware) then an independent inquiry is out of the question, as some of the evidence needed is missing

So why are those that still want an independant inquiry to happen?

The evidence presented that supports the Official Narritive is abundant and pretty straight forward. If there was any reason that you were to find any kind of flaw in the narrative, please let us know.

Simply stating that even an independant inquiry would fail because most of the evidence was destroyed doesn't work anymore.

[MID]

"It's long been over, and long been understood." You got half right, it has long been over, however it has not "long been understood" if it was there would not be such debate's like this, and there would not be people that are questioning the event's of 9/11, and they would definitely not spend as long as some people have on 9/11, if it was "long been understood"...

Debates like this are unusual. They are spearheaded by people who actually do not know much about that which they speak, are not arguing in a place where they expect they'll be profoundly challenged. There are many more of them then there are specialists, engineers, and technicians who wish to engage in nonsense. That's essentially why , even though specialists have indeed long understood, that discussions like this still occur.

There were in fact debates in the actual investigation. These are typical, not publically done, and are done by people who do know, among people who know. They generally result in new areas of investigation. Sometimes people wonder why it takes so long to draw conclusions in cases like this:

It's because professionals are investigating, and are maturely and emotionally executing their tasks.

On forums like this, it is easy to tell charlatans, and people who simply want to argue in support of points there's no support for.

It simply isn't hard to tell that someone's lacking in knowledge or education. Not often does it take more than a sentence or two to tell.

[MID]

If you want to do your own individual investigation, start with the operators of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175. Afterward, you can check with the FAA, Boeing Aircraft company, and the engine manufacturer whose engines powered the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks. They can confirmed that none of those aircraft were modified to fly under remote control in the manner claimed by 9/11 Truthers, and confirm those aircraft were not switched.

Sky,

I think it would be significant to observe the people you mentioned reactions to such questions!

And to consider modifying a passenger aircraft to be able to be remotely flown!

Can you imagine the pilot's association reaction to such an idea?!

Can you imagine a single ATP boarding such an aircraft in any capacity at all???

Of course, it's rather obvious that non-airline-pilot-alien-enemy-combatants flew very simply and killed themselves, as well as their opassenger ciomplements. I could've trained any adult non-pilot I've ever flown with to do the simple maneuvers these idiots aboard these planes did.

Nothing about any of the flying on 9-11 was anything but simple (and often sloppy). No necessity, or evidence of remote control was ever seen, nor was it required. Even the amazingly sophisticated and impossible "Hani Maneuver" :w00t: was just a simple 300 degree turn! "Nice and easy until you see the building out there, then--

Point at it...push them levers forward, keep pointing at the building, and drive right on into it through that big wall!"

I know...for the CT, that's just too much. Gotta be something else for them! Reality is too complex to be true!

You can replay the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and in each of those videos, you will not hear sound of bomb explosions nor are bomb explosions evident in those videos, which explains why demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings and why investigators found no evidence of explosives at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Yep, that too.

It wasn't that hard to figure out, Buddy!

[Coffey]

[media=]

[/media]

And

http://en.wikipedia....nistan_Pipeline

Edited October 10, 2012 by Coffey

[skyeagle409]

Sky,

I think it would be significant to observe the people you mentioned reactions to such questions!

And to consider modifying a passenger aircraft to be able to be remotely flown!

Can you imagine the pilot's association reaction to such an idea?!

Can you imagine a single ATP boarding such an aircraft in any capacity at all???

The 9/11 conspiracist need to understand the things they have been throwing on the table just doesn't happen in the real world. BR thinks that two B-767s with the same flight number and airline logo could be placed at the same airport and not attract attention. Imagine this senario. A request from United 175 to taxi to the active runway is made to controllers. The controllers respond:

[ United 175, cleared to taxi]

Upon reaching the end of the active runway,United 175 makes a call to the controllers requesting permission to takeoff.

[United 175, cleared for takeoff]

About 10 minutes after the takeoff ofthe real United 175, another call is made to ground control requesting taxi instructions for United 175. The response from ground controllers will be something like this.

[What the h***?!?!?!?!]

It is very difficult to imagine that 9/11 conspiracist don't see a problem, including the world-famous pilot of all time, BR.

Of course, it's rather obvious that non-airline-pilot-alien-enemy-combatants flew very simply and killed themselves, as well as their opassenger ciomplements. I could've trained any adult non-pilot I've ever flown with to do the simple maneuvers these idiots aboard these planes did.

I heard that!

BR seems to think it took the strength of Superman to perform and his remarks have broadcasted to everyone that he has never piloted a real aircraft before.

Nothing about any of the flying on 9-11 was anything but simple (and often sloppy). No necessity, or evidence of remote control was ever seen, nor was it required. Even the amazingly sophisticated and impossible "Hani Maneuver" :w00t: was just a simple 300 degree turn! "Nice and easy until you see the building out there, then--

Point at it...push them levers forward, keep pointing at the building, and drive right on into it through that big wall!"

Yepper! And, from the time Hani initiated the turning maneuver, I could have gone to the kitchen and pulled out a snack and bottled water from the refrigerator and head for the living room to turn on the TV and I would still have wait for him to complete his turn.

[skyeagle409]

[media=]

[/media]

And

http://en.wikipedia....nistan_Pipeline

What you see with your own eyes in that video is that there are no bomb explosions, nor are bomb explosions heard, and add to the fact that no evidence of detonation cords or blasting caps were recovered from the rubble of WTC7, nor any of the WTC buildings for that matter.

This is what real controlled demolitions using explosives sound like, which is not what you saw nor heard in the WTC7 video you've posted.

Edited October 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject: -

Double ha, 'have been proven biased in applying publishing rules', the familiar whine of the anti-evolution creationist, great company to be keeping. Do you have actual evidence from a mainstream journal indicating, 'your paper is scientifically sound and meets all the criteria for publication but we can't do that because of political sensitivity' or anything along those lines? Or does this also require me to just be 'unbiased'?

I’ve requested on at least two previous occasions that you review the complaint of U.S. attorney James Gourley regarding the publishing rules at JEM. Here is an excerpt so perhaps you can see favouritism granted to the official theory’s 'golden engineer' and bias the truth movement must face: -

Okay. And? Exactly how am I supposed to differentiate between 'bias' applied to Gourley because he's a truther and bias applied to Gourley because his work doesn't meet the standards of this journal? Exactly how have you differentiated those two?

Ok, first you challenged me to prove that bias exists, which I did. Now you want to know the cause of the bias. Well, in answer to your question, Gourley’s paper was peer-reviewed and published - indicating it met standards of the journal. Which leaves your remaining answer.

And is it true this was 4 years ago? Is your story that in this amount of time the only reason that he hasn't made more headway spreading his sound scientific reasoning is because almost everyone in the engineering/mechanics world is unfairly biased against truthers?

If you go back to the beginning of this line of discussion (very first quote of this post), my point is self-explanatory: that papers for 9/11 truth have been published in mainstream journals but have faced editorial bias in doing so (that fact was actually just a side-note that you jumped on).

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made. We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone. I used to keep a track of the numbers, please excuse the recent three year gap: -

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

That’s an average of nearly one new architect or engineer every day over the last almost 5 years.

Why isn’t it even more, given the call is so well founded? The reasons are many – bias in the mainstream media/journals, failure of the professional community, disruption of the truth movement - and we have spoken about this in large part on the Talking Turkey thread from pg. 5/6.

The first reason I mentioned, post #66, was the deliberate efforts of the Bush administration and counter intelligence to divide, discredit and counteract the truth movement. You did not respond to evidence for this occurrence. So I still wonder, how do you find the research and background of Morgan Reynolds?

[Q24]

The evidence presented that supports the Official Narritive is abundant and pretty straight forward.

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation. I could ask dozens of potentially vital questions that could only be answered with speculation. Is that really good enough to support a war?

[skyeagle409]

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made. We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone.

Just a reminder that the '9/11 Truth Movement' does not have the support of Architects & Engineers.

[skyeagle409]

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation.

Only in the minds of those who have been watching too many Hollywood action movies and not interested in facts and evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks. To back that up, 9/11 conspiracist have consistently failed to provide evidence of a "false flag' operation.

Edited October 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation. I could ask dozens of potentially vital questions that could only be answered with speculation. Is that really good enough to support a war?

No it isn't!

We didn't go to war when:

* Terrorist set off explosives beneath WTC1 in 1993

* Terrorist detonated explosives next to the USS Cole

* Terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, and Lebanon.

* When Pan Am 103 was downed by a bomb.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ok, first you challenged me to prove that bias exists, which I did. Now you want to know the cause of the bias. Well, in answer to your question, Gourley’s paper was peer-reviewed and published - indicating it met standards of the journal. Which leaves your remaining answer.

Okay, but the entire point was to determine if this should be called 'bias' in the first place, I'm using your word. I wouldn't use the word 'bias' to refer to the scenario where his work doesn't meet the standards of the journal; it might be accurate in the absolute broadest definition, but I wouldn't say that the Detroit Tigers are 'biased' against me because they won't let me join their team. That's cool that his paper was peer-reviewed and published, I had read various references but wasn't sure if there were multiple papers or submissions, sounds like truthers are making some headway then. I'm not sure what to make about Bazant not having the same word restrictions, is this just absolutely unheard of by this journal on other topics? Despite your finding him to be a criminal, he has a very impressive scientific resume, awards, etc, maybe they loosen the rules for him or for distinguished scientists or papers they find to be exceptionally excellent, I'm not sure. Or maybe they're just automatically biased against truthers, that's a possibility. Not sure if it's the only one though, I don't really have enough info, you're always going to also have the fact that they are a private journal and can publish or not publish anything they want for any reason they want, of which 'bias' is only one of them.

And yes, I did want to know the cause of the bias, because you stated the cause of the bias, political sensitivity, but didn't address my question concerning that. There is legitimate 'bias', and there is illegitimate bias. Perhaps they are biased against truthers because of how embarrassingly crappy some of the arguments that other truthers have made? Ultimately that is also unfair and biased, they should evaluate each submission on its own merits, but it's not because of political sensitivity. Scientific journals are also pretty heavily 'biased' against perpetual motion machines and intelligent design, and IDists especially make the exact same complaints that apparently truthers make. It might be because of political sensitivity/atheism, or it might be because of the poorness of the science or other reasons, some of which strain the definition of 'bias' as I think it's normally used.

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made. We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone. I used to keep a track of the numbers, please excuse the recent three year gap: -

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

That’s an average of nearly one new architect or engineer every day over the last almost 5 years.

Why isn’t it even more, given the call is so well founded? The reasons are many – bias in the mainstream media/journals, failure of the professional community, disruption of the truth movement - and we have spoken about this in large part on the Talking Turkey thread from pg. 5/6.

And of course another reason is perhaps your case is not quite as strong, blatant, and solid as you seem to believe. That experts who know full well and better than you how to evaluate the points you argue, legitimately and correctly do not agree with you. These are possibilities, and they don't seem to be remote ones to many people. As long as we're discussing 'bias' and all...

The first reason I mentioned, post #66, was the deliberate efforts of the Bush administration and counter intelligence to divide, discredit and counteract the truth movement. You did not respond to evidence for this occurrence. So I still wonder, how do you find the research and background of Morgan Reynolds?

Let me look into that again, Q; I am beyond work-swamped right now, but I will get back to you on this and your latest posts on TT.

[Q24]

I'm not sure what to make about Bazant not having the same word restrictions, is this just absolutely unheard of by this journal on other topics? Despite your finding him to be a criminal, he has a very impressive scientific resume, awards, etc, maybe they loosen the rules for him or for distinguished scientists or papers they find to be exceptionally excellent, I'm not sure.

Ok, that’s what I’m looking for.

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments. Does the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive past resume on paper, make it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, makes it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, and that the truth movement is attacked from within, makes it fair? Well then, perhaps it’s fair that scientists were silenced during the time of Lysenkoism?

No, none of this is genuinely fair; it is illegitimately biased.

I do respect the way you begin and end the quoted section above with, “I’m not sure”, almost accepting the bias is apparent, but holding out for another answer which you cannot grasp (most likely because it does not exist). It’s nothing to do with technical standard of the journal which you brought up again in your post – that is for the peer-review to decide, which Gourley’s paper passed. The decision to limit Gourley/de-limit Bazant is an editorial/political decision. And of course 9/11 is a political issue. Can you imagine the attack JEM would be open to from powerful pro-war elements of the establishment if the journal gave appearance of the official and alternative 9/11 theories being on equal standing?

Anyhow, as I said, the difficulty of publishing such sensitive papers is really just a sideshow. Those seeking 9/11 truth have managed to publish papers, not only many at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but in mainstream journals – that was the real point. I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

People should really not criticize efforts of the truth movement and bias they face before getting their own house in order.

That experts who know full well and better than you how to evaluate the points you argue, legitimately and correctly do not agree with you.

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me. Can you show me all these experts who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me? If not, it seems that my support is built upon facts and figures, whilst that you appeal to would be founded more in possibilities and speculation.

[skyeagle409]

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me.

May I remind you that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not have the support of professional and private pilots, architects, and civil engineers.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

______________________________________________________________________________

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

_________________________________________________________________

More on this article can be found here:

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

Edited October 11, 2012 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments.

Two quick points about this topic. First, the editor has the option of allowing longer articles if he thinks the topic merits it:

The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.

http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/

Second, you keep claiming that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed, but in fact discussion pieces just go through an editorial review process:

To accept or decline a Discussion or Closure, one review is required by the editor or someone he or she designates to review Discussions. It does not need to be sent to an individual reviewer unless the Discussion reviewer feels an outside review, for particular expertise, is necessary.

http://www.asce.org/...on-Peer-Review/

If you want my opinion on the whole topic, I think the significant point is that after the one discussion paper, Gourley doesn't attempt to continue the technical argument but instead does a typical conspiracist shift to something he thinks has more mileage, the fact that Bazant was allowed more words than he was.