Here ... respond to the peer reviewed studies, then:

In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[37]. And in August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in The Environmentalist, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials'.[38].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

14 points:

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


HTML version:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081


"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."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081


Environmental anomalies:

http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/09/...steven-e-jones/



Try and poke holes in them ... so far I believe nobody has done so.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6917

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed

Youtube
Tuesday, Dec 30, 2008

9/11 Truth responds to NIST with HARD FACTS & Evidence!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5encPb5wgQ

A portent of 911 in an Alex Grey painting?

The Simpsons 9/11 Conspiracy: Did The Simpsons Know About The September 11 Attacks Before It Happened?
www.sodahead.com/question/211494/the-simpsons-911-conspiracy-did-the-simpsons-know-about-the-september-11-attacks-before-it-happened/

http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

Full, two-hour presentation.

9/11: Blueprint for Truth —
The Architecture of Destruction

with Richard Gage, AIA

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
http://www.ae911truth.org/



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1.

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2.

Unnatural symmetry of debris distribution
3.

Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5.

Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6.

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8.

1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9.

Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10.

Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11.

Several tons of molten iron found under all 3 high-rises
12.

Evidence of thermite incendiaries found in steel & dust samples
13.

FEMA steel analysis: sulfidation, oxidation & intergranular melting
14.

No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”




EDWARD ASNER

October 6, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to thank Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for presenting the scientific facts behind the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. AE911Truth presents solid research that contradicts the official story of the building's destruction with the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.

An accurate understanding of history is required to make good decisions in the future. Over and over again, history has shown that the first public perceptions of historical events are not always correct. I, along with millions of others, have serious questions about our country's recent history about 9/11.

I have signed the AE911Truth.org petition calling for an unbiased investigation of the "collapses" of these three high-rise buildings. I encourage everyone to do the same, and also become a Sustaining Member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Sincerely,

/s/

Edward Asner

ROURKE: 'BUSH WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME'




Monday January 12,2009
Actor MICKEY ROURKE sympathises with U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York.


The Hollywood tough-guy spoke out about his political views in a candid interview with Britain's GQ magazine, and admits he doesn't understand why so many people blame Bush for a string of world issues - including Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the West.

And the actor, who claims he didn't follow last year's (08) historic U.S. election battle between Barack Obama and John McCain, urges the public to consider the tremendous pressure the controversial president was under following the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a fuck who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."





www.express.co.uk/posts/view/79536/Rourke-Bush-was-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time