Needed: More scientists and engineers. And more teamwork. And better peer review.
I just now heard about the following, on 911blogger: A Proposal for Proving Controlled Demolition in a Civil Negligence Suit Against the Security Groups Responsible for the WTC.
In my opinion, this is WAY premature. We are NOT yet anywhere near ready to prove any such thing in a court of law, not even in a civil case.
Too many people in the 9/11 Truth movement think we can prove CD of the WTC buildings via “looks like a CD” arguments plus folklore “physics.” Nothing could be worse for us than to go into a courtroom with those arguments, against a defense attorney who could produce much better expert testimony plus a bunch of photos and videos showing pre-collapse bowing of perimeter columns and (in videos with audio) an absence of explosions loud enough to be demolition charges.
On the other hand, I do believe that Steven Jones is onto something very important, with the spherules and the various temperature discrepancies that have been noted not only by him but by other sources unrelated to the 9/11 Truth movement. (See his latest paper, Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (PDF), especially section 4, “Discussion of relevant previously published data.”)
But his results are, at this point, far from scientifically unassailable yet. He has found enough evidence to raise suspicion, but not much more than that yet. It seems to me that he needs a lot more help than he’s now getting from experts in various relevant fields, including chemistry, metallurgy, structural engineering, and forensic science, in order to produce more definitive results. And he needs that help ASAP, in my opinion.
Do you, dear reader, know any scientists or engineers in the following categories who are sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth movement?
- Chemists and chemical engineers
- Forensic scientists
- Structural engineers and other mechanical engineers (especially high-rise structural engineers)
- Explosives experts
- Fire experts (especially forensic fire investigators)
If so, please ask them to contact Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice ASAP, and/or to contact Steven Jones at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I would highly recommend that they also be asked to join Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and participate, at least occasionally, in the “Scientific Analysis” sub-forum of the private forum of STJ911.
It would be desirable to have not just more active researchers, but also a wider variety of peer reviewers for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. (Steven Jones has put out a call for more peer reviewers recently.) So, if anyone reading this happens to know any interested experts in the above categories who don’t necessarily have the time or means to help by doing actual research themselves, but who might be willing to be peer reviewers, that would be very helpful too.
(In the title of this post I use the term “assisted collapse,” because I think that demolition using high explosives is very unlikely, given the lack of videos with sufficiently loud explosive sounds. If only incendiaries were used, and not explosives, then the term “controlled demolition” is not appropriate, because the timing cannot be controlled as precisely as with high explosives.)
Disclaimer: Opinions voiced in this post are solely my own. I’m not speaking on behalf of STJ911 or any other organization.
P.S.: One issue over which there perhaps could be a successful court case, right now, is the question of why NIST didn’t get all the steel from fire-affected areas, contrary to fire investigation protocol. Perhaps the people in charge of the cleanup operation could be sued on behalf of the families?
Further P.S.: I’ll need to do more research on the question of what happened to the steel, and when, and how. Also it has been brought to my attention, elsewhere, that we don’t yet know what, if anything, the FBI (or the NYC police) might have done by way of looking into the possibility of arson, explosives, etc. This should be looked into, if possible, perhaps via FOIA requests.