The so called peer reviewed letter is right here
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm

It is not a scientific paper, it is a leter making statements without any data to back up any claims nor is there any science involved. You see, there is about a thousand miles difference between a letter and a paper in the scientific community. If you aren`t too lazy, click on the link above, then click on the year 2008 and scroll down to find Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction and opwen it. Within you shall find a letter, not a scientific paper. Those fuckers said they peer reviewed a paper? They lied.

Okay, if you can find a paper in any of those locations listed, post the link. What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice...... Let`s see what you got, cowboy! Find us a paper, or eat crow 9/11 Dupe.Now I`m going to try to find what was taken off of BYU`s website. You had better hope I do not find it.

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1, Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2, Frank R. Greening3, and David B. Benson4
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain
the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked
whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to
agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but,
despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on
which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the
dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact,
and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to
produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into
many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the
building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph
(or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound.
This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and
shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The
resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust and solid fragments, neglected
in previous studies, are found to be indeed negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not
insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a
logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

Introduction
To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001
came as the greatest surprise since the collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Immediately
after the aircraft impact, the structural frame behaved as expected, but not after the fire.
To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and
Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of
tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then shown that the kinetic energy of
the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower
part by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail,
conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST 2005), supports this explanation. Although NIST did not analyze the overall process of
dynamic progressive collapse below the fire zone, it verified a sequence of effects that triggered
the collapse: (1) scraping of much of steel insulation by flying objects during aircraft impact
(without which the towers would not have collapsed, as concluded by NIST); (2) cutting of many
columns, and damage with large deflections of others during aircraft impact; (3) subsequent load
redistributions among columns; (4) sagging of heated floor trusses and their catenary action,
evidenced by multistory inward bowing of perimeter columns; and (5) viscoplastic buckling of
heated, damaged and overloaded columns.
Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities
of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have
nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled
demolition. The objective of this paper, based on the report by Baˇzant et al. (2007), is to examine
whether those allegations might be scientifically justifiable, and to show that the concept
of gravity-driven collapse does not conflict with any observations.
1McCormick Institute Professor and W.P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials
Science, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, CEE/A135, Evanston, Illinois 60208; zbazant@
northwestern.edu.
2Graduate Research Assistant, Northwestern University.
3Engineering Consultant, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 3X7.
4Professor Emeritus, http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people...0Cause%20It.pdf

You certainly can find much more which says that NIST`s data gives sufficent evidence to rule out explosive demolition. The funny stuff about Stevie`s claims along with those who claimed to have published papers is that all of it goes straight back to conspiracy websites, not scientific journals. Your link to Bentham goes to the same letter I posted a link for. As any yard ape can tell, there is nothing enclosed within this letter which can be peer reviewed. It`s not a paper.

"It is not a scientific paper,"

Define "scientific paper".




"... it is a leter making statements without any data to back up any claims nor is there any science involved."

It uses the reports by FEMA and NIST - are you saying that those reports are not "scientific" and contain no "data"? If so, then the government is neglecting their duty to issue scientific reports, and you should welcome other voices weighing in on the subject. If not, then the data within those reports is fair game for analysis.




Furthermore, your inability to call into question any of the findings or conclusions of the letter except for dismissing it all as "unscientific" is proof enough that the logic contained in the letter is airtight - neither you nor anyone who writes for that Journal has been able to find holes in the logic. If it really was unscientific you could find at least one point of contention ... but you don't because you can't.




"... 9/11 Dupe."

Ha! You're the one that believes kerosene can melt steel columns ... and you call ME the dupe!

"(1) scraping of much of steel insulation by flying objects during aircraft impact
(without which the towers would not have collapsed, as concluded by NIST)"


But WTC 7 wasn't hit by any aircraft ... and yet it fell straight down. Why did the NIST report conclude that WTC 1 and 2 would not have fallen down without the aircraft impact but not go on to explain why WTC 7 didn't need an impact to collapse?

" Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a HUGE HOLE. I would say it was probably about A THIRD OF IT, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day".

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very HEAVILY DAMAGED." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/sh...part=1&vc=1

WTC BUILDING 7 APPEARS TO HAVE SUFFERD SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]


"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see THE WHOLE BOTTOM CORNER OF THE BUILDING WAS GONE. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they "PULLED" us out. They said all right, GET OUT of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. THEY PULLED us out of there

The OP is a Fecking Douche!

New York has no love for you.

"Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a HUGE HOLE. I would say it was probably about A THIRD OF IT, right in the middle of it."

The hole would have to be on one side of the building - falling debris doesn't create a hole UNDER a building.

Yet the building doesn't fall OVER, it falls - as all WTC 7 videos clearly show - STRAIGHT DOWN.

Explain why WTC 7 falls straight down and not over to one side.

David, honest to fuck,if it fell over on its side you nutjobs would be asking how it could possibly not have fallen straight down with a hole 20 stories tall in the middle of the building?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.


Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

"David, honest to fuck,if it fell over on its side you nutjobs would be asking how it could possibly not have fallen straight down with a hole 20 stories tall in the middle of the building?"

1) Honest to fuk Mr. Hand, even if it was dead center in the middle of the building, there would still be an asymmetrical fall unless all the columns failed at the same time.

2) Every description of the hole has it TO ONCE SIDE of the building - a side scooped out - maybe it was scooped out in the middle of ONE SIDE but it was still to the side.

3) "Fire" - not a scooped out side - was given as the reason for the failure of the building. The fire wasn't hot enough to cause a failure, and even if it was it wouldn't heat each column exactly the same amount and melt them at exactly the same time.








"Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?"

If he meant the team and not the building he would have said "them" instead of "it".

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people.

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys,we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event.

Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". [/quote](Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

Another fire fighter used te"Pull"to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

You dont know what the hell your talking about , you are way the fuck in Canada,you have never been to ground zero and your not an expert!