portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Eight Great Reads At The Journal Of 9/11 Studies

Posted on March 22, 2015

This summer will mark the ninth anniversary of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html In that time, my co-editors and I have published over 150 peer-reviewed articles and letters addressing various aspects of the 9/11 crimes. Although it can be hard, thankless work, the job of co-editor has also been rewarding and I've learned a great deal.

Through publishing articles in mainstream journals, I've learned that our peer-review process is at least as rigorous as that of others. At our Journal, submissions often fail to pass the editor's initial assessment and are never reviewed. Of the remainder, dozens have failed to make it through the peer-review process to become published. It's a disappointment when that happens but it's important that whatever we publish lives up to certain standards. The end result is a treasure trove of reliable research, freely available on the web.

For example, here are six articles and two letters that should be widely read.
Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11, by Joseph P. Firmage
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Intersecting_Facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf

This short article was published in August 2006. It presents a comparison of competing theories for what happened on 9/11 with respect to known facts. The comparison clearly shows that the "create a new reality" theory, in which U.S. officials were involved in the attacks, is by far more sensible than other possibilities.

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, by Graeme MacQueen
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

This highly influential article focuses on eyewitness testimonies to the World Trade Center (WTC) destruction. The testimonies were collected by New York City officials after 9/11 and then kept secret for nearly four years. Professor MacQueen delves into these explosive eyewitness accounts in a way that makes clear why officials did not want the public to see them.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, by Steven E. Jones, et.al
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

This lucid article from January 2008 was a breakthrough in 9/11 research. Establishing the WTC thermite theory on a firm grounding of experimental evidence, it set the stage for a series of scientific articles that were published in multiple journals. In the future, this breakthrough article may be seen as one of the greatest contributions to forensic science.

Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom, by Mark Vorobej
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Vorobej_Obstacles%20to%20Persuasion.pdf

This December 2008 article is from a professor of philosophy who examined the responses of university students as they were exposed to alternative explanations for 9/11. In a five-week segment of his course on Argumentation Theory, Professor Vorobej was able to lead his students to objectively examine 9/11 from different perspectives while fostering further, constructive debate.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy, by Anonymous and F. Legge
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

In March 2010, we published this examination of the scientific principle of falsifiability in light of U.S. government reports on the WTC destruction. This often-overlooked article is well constructed and provides detail on why the official reports failed to meet some of the most critical requirements of the scientific method.

Letter on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, by Lorie Van Auken
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September---Van-Auken-letter.pdf

A series of nine letters was published on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The letters came from leading researchers, activists, and legal experts around the world. Perhaps the most compelling contribution was that of Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in the north tower on 9/11.

Letter to the Royal Society from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from the Board of Directors, AE911Truth
[PDF link] h http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Royal-Society-letter-from-AE911Truth.pdf

In June 2012, we published a letter that was sent from the board of directors of AE911Truth to Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society in England. The letter emphasized how the official account for what happened at the WTC was in direct contradiction to the laws of motion described by one of the Royal Society's most famous members—Sir Isaac Newton.

The "Strategy of Tension" in the Cold War Period, by Daniele Ganser
[PDF link]  http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014GanserVol39May.pdf

In May 2014, Swiss historian Daniele Ganser contributed this updated version of a previously published article. Dr. Ganser's article provides important historical perspective for considering what happened on 9/11. His conclusion, based on historical fact, is that objections to U.S. government or military involvement in 9/11 are based on unsupportable, a priori arguments.

These eight papers are just a sampling of the wide-range of peer-reviewed research and commentary available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If you want to learn more about that fateful day through an evidence-based approach, the Journal is a great resource. For anyone interested in contributing, we continue to seek out new perspectives that have not yet been expressed. Guidelines for submission are published  http://www.journalof911studies.com/styled/index.html at the website.

homepage: homepage: http://digwithin.net/2015/03/22/journal-of-911-studies/
address: address: Dig Within


explanations of the truth 25.Mar.2015 05:00

i



Official Story is a lie 25.Mar.2015 09:53

Listening Larry

Enough lies from dick cheney mouthpiece "i"

- this has all been debunked!!

we have watched all 7 videos

and the video theories (spewed repeatedly here on pimc by "i")  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429229.shtml

have been debunked completely

which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near this stuff

keep repeating this "i"

keep trolling indy w/ this

keep talking to your self

your parroted version are not debunked proof

your repeating dick cheney's lies - we have all heard your bush cheney official story and its been debunked

debunked proof 25.Mar.2015 11:01

i

there is no such thing. there is only the winning of hearts and minds and that battle almost completely over.

as to the title of this thread, it implies that because it was testified to in court, that makes it true.

Half of all court testimony is bullshit lying, if it weren't they wouldn't be in court.

I'm not spewing anything. All I'm doing is posting a complete counter to all of these baseless claims which all turn into a mirage when confronted with facts.

I promise that if people would quit posting unsubstiated bullshit and lies, I will quit calling them out on it.

Dick Cheney is a great man by the way.. DOH!

right wing neocon troll 25.Mar.2015 11:28

Listening Larry

i - your a troll.

your speak (for) the state - / official story.

you represent dick cheney - and you proudly admit it.

you are spreading disinformation, which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near this stuff, its been debunked.

nothing you put on indymedia is fact - its all your right wing opinions and "official lies".

same crap we see all over mainstream media blah blah blah.

Larry, are you listening? 25.Mar.2015 13:42

i

Represent Cheney? hell, I'm going have to send the VP a bill for my services then.

which is why no serious engineer / scientist will come near this stuff, its been debunked.

My point exactly. 911 is settled except on the kook-ball fringe of society with Loch Ness Monster hunters and such.

Larry 25.Mar.2015 13:48

i

your wrong. I'm not a right wing neocon troll.

I'm an old school conservative. nothing neo about me.

not more of this 25.Mar.2015 16:46

anon

OK. Against my better judgement I went ahead and read most of one of the pdf's, the second one about "explosions".

First of all, have any of you done destructive testing in a laboratory of metal bars both under compression and under tension, until rupture? I'm a mechanical engineer, and I have. In every failure the rupture of a very small test bar was sudden and violent, and the building shook.

The human mind has a tendency to describe things that are new in terms of what is already known. So two things leap out at me from these descriptions, many of the loud noises are described as explosions. I can tell you that the shock wave from a sudden failure with a lot of released stress is loud, sudden, and can carry debris along with it. So yes, a failure of a structural part in a large skyscraper would sound like an explosion. That doesn't mean that charges were placed and deliberately timed to go off after an airplane hit the building.

If anyone has every dropped a bundle of paper or cardboard onto a flat floor, there is a compression wave in the air that sounds remarkably like an explosion. So once the floors started hitting each other each collision made a shock wave and the sound of an explosion. It would sound like one after another. The mind in an emergency cannot take the time to say "it sounded like floors of a skyscraper falling onto the floor below" because the mind never experienced this before, it is described as an explosion.

And then the other comments are telling. "We've never seen a building just collapse like this before" (no shit). In previous human experiences and on video, when do you ever see buildings collapse and watch on video? Controlled demolitions, there are videos all the time and these get lots of views. So the human mind organizes the part they can't understand (a building collapsing) the sounds they hear sound like explosions (because at the acoustic level they are, just not caused by charges) and then the only similar previous visual we all have experienced is controlled demolition.

Those who are paranoid then assume this was a controlled demolition.

Give it up already.

RE: " I'm a mechanical engineer / done laboratory destructive testing" 25.Mar.2015 23:27

r o t f l m a o

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

author: Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

(14 mins.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

this is an outstanding, must-watch video produced a few years ago by an engineer, who clearly shows how existing high temperature pyrotechnic chemicals can be used to melt structural steel, of the type used in construction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

He first explains the context, and in the last half of the video demonstrates (using actual steel and thermate) how these chemicals can be used not only to melt, but also make precision cuts in heavy, thick steel beams - the kind used in skyscraper construction.


9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

physicsandreason
Uploaded on Nov 10, 2010

What's wrong with mainstream experts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

PDX IMC Link For ^ Above Jonathan Cole, P.E. Video 25.Mar.2015 23:30

25.Nov.2014 19:13


newswire article | 9.11 investigation | education

done destructive testing in a laboratory 26.Mar.2015 07:14

i

Anon of course they have and said so here. It goes something like this. I put a metal frying pan on the stove and it doesn't melt, therefore Dick Cheney masterminded 911.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgxQeCcm2dg


r o t f l m a o 26.Mar.2015 09:01

anon

Sure, there are many technologies that can cut through steel. I own several, not that type. So what?

Just because steel can be cut deliberately doesn't prove it was cut deliberately.

What do you mean? 26.Mar.2015 09:23

Garth

Anon, that statement is completely logical. It has no place here.

logic 26.Mar.2015 09:59

anon

Yeah. I know. Sorry to make sense, I should know better.

RE: " So what " 26.Mar.2015 10:32

.

Quote:


Moron Disinformationalist #1
----
" Just because steel can be cut deliberately doesn't prove it was cut deliberately "
----


Moron Disinformationalist #2
----
" Anon, that statement is completely logical "
----



mm, kay. Yeah. Logical. Ri-iiight.


Just because a Moron shows up on PDX IMC and types something on their keyboard/posts it here,

doesn't mean it was done deliberately.



Anyway the above video is proof that the evidence (of iron-rich microspheres) discovered in WTC wreckage, and deliberately downplayed-ignored by NIST, points to a particular, unique demolition engineering technique which certainly could have been utilized in destruction of all 3 towers.


i.e. Explains precisely what the NIST report fails to do, regarding cause of the building collapses that day.


Particularly with regard to WTC Building 7 which was not struck by an aircraft and yet collapsed into its own footprint at free fall speed, exactly as the other two main towers.


First and only time in structural engineering and construction history that steel framed skyscrapers have collapsed due to "office fires" (official NIST report explanation).


Logic.

Anon 26.Mar.2015 11:48

i

they are convinced Dick Cheney got away with mass murder because they hate him, and they have to contort common sense, ignore facts, and defy basic science to get there.
This has become a belief, no longer an idea, so its almost impossible to change ones mind with a belief.

Larry and his devout zealot friends come unglued when you post reason facts and arguments that challenge their beliefs. Like you told them their kid was ugly, or their dick was too small. They take it personally.

the videos posted above clearly and conclusively counter their assertions so therefore its all a grand CIA conspiracy (something conveniently unable to prove).

They're hopeless.

RE: " defy basic science " 26.Mar.2015 13:21

You Mean

NIST's reports on the WTC building collapses (2 main Towers, and for WTC 7) defy "basic science".

Yes, correct.

defy "basic science". 26.Mar.2015 13:59

i

yes, exactly. imagined reports from self proclaimed experts who double as subway harmonica players during rush hour.

" experts who double as subway harmonica players during rush hour " 26.Mar.2015 14:01

Uh No.

( that would be you, "i" )


Note topic title of this article :

Journal Of 9/11 Studies
(URL home page provided ^^above)


also see :

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

ae911truth.org

I hate Dick Cheney too 26.Mar.2015 14:44

anon

and think he should go before the Hague along with Rumsfeld and Bush.

This is for the opportunistic use of 911 to create false premises to get us into two useless wars and destroy the constitution of this country.

However, not for conspiracy to create a false flag operation and bring the towers down. What lunacy.

Wouldn't it be fun here to mention how perishable "experts" are? Let's turn the tables for a moment, and recognize that the right wing in this country has any number of "experts", "scholars", and "science" to tell us global warming isn't human caused.

Just cause there are people publishing don't mean it's worth shit. Same with 911.

anon 26.Mar.2015 15:12

i

I don't think you can send someone to the Hague for practicing politics. As to global warming. It only exists in computer models which have never been shown to be realistic.

False 'equivalence' between AGW deniers and 9/11 skepticism 26.Mar.2015 19:09

nice try

Quote:
-----
right wing in this country has any number of "experts", "scholars", and "science" to tell us global warming isn't human caused
-----

and, High correlation of ^ those exact same individuals/GOP Congressional representatives who also doubt the scientific theory of Evolution.



The technology used to construct the WTC (and all other) skyscrapers is just that :

Technology.

aka Applied Science.

that is what structural engineers, and even demolition engineers are: Engineers. They manipulate nature using our accumulated knowledge of scientific principles, in order to create human artifacts and structures.

as are aeronautical engineers i.e. those who design and build airliners. They're engineers, "applied scientists" in the field of Engineering, one of the Applied Sciences.

Also fwiw the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — formerly known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) — which issued the reports purporting to explain how 3 steel framed skyscrapers (one of which wasn't hit by an aircraft) collapsed into their own footprints at free-fall velocity from the stated cause of "office fires", is a subsidiary of the United States Department of Commerce (not a 'scientific' agency).

Never before, or after 11 September 2001 has this occurred. No fire, safety or structural engineering codes were changed as a result of NIST's conclusion either.


Climate and atmospheric science is one of the Earth sciences (aka Natural science).

It's not a form of technology, engineering or Applied Science.

GMOs are a technology (applied science). All the scientists and engineers associated with it, are researching/outputting a product, a technology, that will be utilized for commercial end purposes.


As are airliners and all aircraft. Skyscrapers = Technology.


Events of 11 September 2001 = Technological (not 'natural' events).


(so-called, and ill-named, 'geoengineering' is the Applied Science offshoot of the natural Earth science that studies atmospheric processes themselves - i.e. in the direct and specific interest of __modifying__ the natural state of Earth's atmosphere itself)


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_sciences


anyway Deniers (like their bed-friends the Creationists) need to get basic foundational terminology straight prior to hysterically tilting at windmills, drawing "right wing" parallels between skeptics of 9/11 and global warming, etc.