technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40, published by Bentham.org

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Fourteen_Points_of_Agreement_World_Trade_Center_Destruction

A letter has just been published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific engineering journal; this is significant because the authors, Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley are known for hypothesizing that on 9/11 WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition. In their letter they seek to reach agreement on grounds for "productive discussion" on the subject of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, based on the 14 points outlined in the letter Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM, which are in turn based on assertions of fact already made by NIST and FEMA.

Given that the authors agree with the NIST and FEMA reports on all 14 points listed in the article, what's the issue? The issue is that the NIST and FEMA reports appear to be grossly inadequate, contradicting both their own conclusions and established facts. Read and see for yourself whether or not you agree; now that this has been published, the scientific community will be debating it.

Coinciding with the publication of Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction in the Open Access OCIEJ, Dr. Jones published it in full with commentary at 911Blogger.com http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081 . Dr. Jones notes:

"With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level - JREF'ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science - that would not surprise me.

Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me: "You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one..."

Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a "technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering," to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history."

A September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

August 1, 2006 Scripps News Poll "16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

You can read more about the theories of the authors at:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

STJ911.org

Journalof911Studies.com

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Fourteen_Points_of_Agreement_World_Trade_Center_Destruction

Other useful websites for examining the 9/11 events, and the effects on public and private policy:

911Truth.org

911Blogger.com

911Research.WTC7.net & 911Review.com

Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org

###