Webpage "Patriots Question 9/11" Addressed

[Slayhamlet]

David L. Griscom, PhD
Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society.
Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).
Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).
Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Ok, his credentials are impressive. He is a full blown member of the truth movement, seems to believe the CD theory of the WTC Collapse.

He is on the PQ911 site for the following:

1. April 2007 commentary on his blog Concerning the words of Dr. Manuel garcia and DRG, the section PQ911 quotes, is part of the following section...


http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

2. Is a member of SF911TJ (S. Jones site/group)

I would note that this man is a PhD Physicist, and yet, dispite begging his fellow scientists and engineers to produce papers on the collapses and submit them to REAL journals, he has not, that I can see, done so himself.

His expertise is apparently in Geology Physics, Silica it seems.

His "Political Leanings" are full blown trutherism...
http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html

Feels the 2004 elections were stolen
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_gr_060606_sleuthing_stolen_ele.htm


TAM

On top of being a retired Research Physicist he's also a full-time creep. From his New 9/11 Hypothesis:

An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my earlier Pentagon model was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy “witness protection” programs. This concept is not original to me. It was explored by the CIA in the early 60s as a component of a scheme to fake the shoot-down of an American airliner over international waters as a justification for invading Castro’s Cuba. “The plan [Project Northwoods] was to replace said aircraft with an identical drone, flown by remote control, and land the original plane at an [Air Force] base where passengers, boarded under prepared aliases, would be evacuated. The drone would then fly the route and when over Cuba, emit a distress signal before being destroyed by radio signal.”

I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

 

[beachnut]

On top of being a retired Research Physicist he's also a full-time creep. From his New 9/11 Hypothesis:

That guy is sick.

Happy New Year ---------------------------------------------

 

[T.A.M.]

Griscom is a man with a sick imagination. As for his credentials, if I ever need a rock sample examined, he is my man...skyscraper collapse...not so much.

TAM

 

[Coffee]

David Griscom

I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

A noted Research Physicist makes this kind of statement without any evidence to back it up. That's not very scientific. It's just conjecture and speculation. Actually it's worst than that, it is a disgraceful fantasy that shows total disrespect toward those people who died and to their families. If this respectable Physicist is using the events of 9/11 to promote himself then he is a scumbag. If he isn't using 9/11 for self promotion and truly believes this fantasy then he is suffering from some sort of paranoid delusion and should seek help. No matter how many peer review papers this guy has under his belt his statements are proof that he is a sick individual.

 

[T.A.M.]

Coffee;

What amazes me, is this is the guy who lisabob2 (now on my ignore list) has been touting as an authority beyond all others, while simultaneously calling the NIST report "unscientific". Griscom has a blog post that lisabob2 calls a "paper", called "Handwaving - The Physics of 9/11". find it here...

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

worth a read, just to get into the mindset of this guy. The rest of the blog is a real gem as well.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

On the PQ911 Website for an ALLEGED comment he made, placed in an article by historian Daniele Ganser, that was placed in a PDF file of something called "Jesse Goplen's Public Neural Interface, Wednesday September 27 2006".

“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally
demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis
and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of
Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as
evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”

http://www.danieleganser.ch/zeitungsartikel/pdf/agora_eng.pdf

If we assume the comments are true, that is fine, they are the opinion of a Swiss Scientist based on his observation of the WTC7 collapse videos.

Here are the problems with this...

1. We do not know if he was given any details about the collapse, damage to the building, the fires, etc... (sound familiar, like Jowenko may be).

2. This is a TRANSLATION from an original German file.

3. The person who wrote the original article, Daniele Ganser, also contributed an article to a DRG Book. I do not know who she is, and she may be of the utmost integrity (she is a historian I believe), but there you have it.

Here is the original
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

If anyone knows German well enough to really translate it, the Bachmann comment is in the bottom 3rd of the article.

-----

The other comment made on PQ911 concerning Bachmann's stance, is a quote from Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA", as follows,

"As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative: "In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion." The article went on to say that "Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack." If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice."

See the book for the full quote in context...

Notice, none of the above is an official comment from Bachmann, but rather a Webster Tarpley interpretation of a news article for which Bachmann was interviewed.

The google search reveals nothing but reiterations of the above...nothing much more to find on Prof. Bachmann on this matter.

If someone like Ron, or others wish to email him to get a definite answer to his pov, his email is PUBLICLY available at this link...

http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/Bachmann/about/index_EN

TAM

 

[Coffee]

Coffee;

What amazes me, is this is the guy who lisabob2 (now on my ignore list) has been touting as an authority beyond all others, while simultaneously calling the NIST report "unscientific". Griscom has a blog post that lisabob2 calls a "paper", called "Handwaving - The Physics of 9/11". find it here...

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

worth a read, just to get into the mindset of this guy. The rest of the blog is a real gem as well.

TAM

The way Lisabob2 trumpets Griscom and Jones reminds me of those starry eyed teenage girls who chased after boy bands. It's funny and sad at the same time.
It doesn't matter that Griscom and Jones lack the evidence to back up their claims. Lisabob2 buys it because they are scientists and s/he worships them. There's no helping Lisabob2 with that.

Griscom's blog appears to be a bunch of manic paranoia. It is a good example of how a scientist can be overcome by the power of Woo.

 

[T.A.M.]

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc
Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences.
Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.


This man is on the PQ911 site based on the same article found in the post above concerning Hugo Bachmann...

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html
(original german article, someones translation of it here... http://www.danieleganser.ch/zeitungsartikel/pdf/agora_eng.pdf

The same quote is used here, that was used for Bachmann,

" In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Everything I can see on the web is a simple reiteration of these comments, nothing more.

PQ911 has nothing more on his listing supporting the stance on 9/11.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Jack Keller, BS CE, MS Irrigation Eng, PhD Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, PE, F.ASCE
Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering.
Elected Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

This Agricultural/Irrigation Engineer is on the PQ911 site for the following:

1. Joined ae911truth.org, and so was added to their petition.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Here is his "personal 9/11 statement"

Without any serious study I had simply accepted that the events of 9/11 were as commonly perceived, although I was not happy with the way the disaster was being used to promote what I felt were illegal and self defeating imperialistic policies in the guise of the War on Terrorism. It was not until early 2006 that I stumbled upon sufficient information to become suspicious of the "official" and generally accepted 9/11 storyline. This led me to do my own investigation during which I discovered the demise of WTC 7, which I was heretofore unaware of. Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day’s events. I now feel morally obligated to deal with and expose the "politically unthinkable" issues surrounding the 9/11 phenomena by participating in such undertakings as signing this petition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#998929

2. Alleged Member of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". I cannot find him on any of their lists available at the site. He has been removed, but is now with
Dr. S. Jones Group.
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=35
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
He has no contributed articles at Jones site.

Not much else out there on him wrt 9/11.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Interestingly, I just got a blog reply over at my blog (see link in my sig) from a guy calling himself "motoman"...

So... im sitting here reading TAM pull apart every detail of those who are speaking out publicly questioning 9/11, using their real names. And then, people like TAM also wonder why more arent speaking out. TAM claims to be in his late 30's, yet acts like he is in his late teens by poking a prodding anyone and everyone who questions 9/11 exposing any skeleton he can find. Why isnt there a site called "Debunkerswhoquestion911patriots.com"? I think i know why. They do not want to put their names/faces to their claims because they dont want anyone exposing their skeletons.

TAM, poor form and cowardice. But im sure most would not expect anything more.

SO I figured rather than have his comments limited to my small little blog, let him vent his frustrations with what I am doing over here.

Since the blog post he posted in has nothing to do with the content of his reply, I am assuming he is referring to this thread on the PQ911 site that I am looking at.

Well if he feels by verifying these people said what the site claims, and their connections (or lack of) to the ring leaders of the truth movement is somehow cowardice, then fine...it is his opinion.

Anyone else feel I am stepping over any lines by doing this? please, truthers and debunkers alike, please state as much if you feel this, and tell me why you feel this way?

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

Interestingly, I just got a blog reply over at my blog (see link in my sig) from a guy calling himself "motoman"...



SO I figured rather than have his comments limited to my small little blog, let him vent his frustrations with what I am doing over here.

Since the blog post he posted in has nothing to do with the content of his reply, I am assuming he is referring to this thread on the PQ911 site that I am looking at.

Well if he feels by verifying these people said what the site claims, and their connections (or lack of) to the ring leaders of the truth movement is somehow cowardice, then fine...it is his opinion.

Anyone else feel I am stepping over any lines by doing this? please, truthers and debunkers alike, please state as much if you feel this, and tell me why you feel this way?

TAM

"Exposing their skeletons"? The information you are providing addresses such things as how qualified they are to speak authoritatively about the events of 9/11, how much actual research they've done about the events of 9/11, whether they allow their political biases to color their research, and what other ridiculous, unscientific crap they may promote in the name of science. All these things reflect directly upon their credibility as scientists and professionals.

"Skeletons" would be such things as tawdry extramarital affairs, criminal records, and other personal issues that have nothing to do with their credibility as concerns their pronouncements about 9/11.

Tell "motoman" to stop being a baby.

 

[Coffee]

TAM,

Those people have attached their real identity to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Those people have chosen to use their real identity while accussing people of murdering thousands of others without a shred of evidence. They should be called on it. They willingly put their name out there and they should be prepared to accept whatever comes their way as a result of it. If their life ends up being ruined then they have only themselves to blame.

You're not doing anything wrong TAM.

 

[Slayhamlet]

TAM,

Those people have attached their real identity to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Those people have chosen to use their real identity while accussing people of murdering thousands of others without a shred of evidence. They should be called on it. They willingly put their name out there and they should be prepared to accept whatever comes their way as a result of it. If their life ends up being ruined then they have only themselves to blame.

You're not doing anything wrong TAM.

The thing is, nothing like this is ever going to end up ruining their lives. Instead they'll get the admiration of thousands of Truther drones to bloat their egos, with no consequences to their livelihoods at all. Don't give them a cross to martyr themselves on.

 

[T.A.M.]

Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD
PhD - Materials Engineering
Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.

On the PQ911 site, and famous amongst the truthions for his essay on "blogcritics",
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/04/143308.php

It is worth a read for its LACK OF SCIENCE, in particular, its LACK OF METALLURGIC CONTRIBUTION.

He is a member of ae911truth, so is by default a signatory on their petition...
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Here is his "personal 9/11 statement"

Considering all the negative impacts of the 9/11 event, people worldwide deserve to know the complete truth.

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#999178

He is full blown 9/11 truth believer, no need to do any more research on his investment in it.

Here is some more of his stuff...
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/911-truth-manifesto-by-joel-s-hirschhorn/
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/joel_s_hirschhorn
http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com/
http://www.opednews.com/author/author1900.html (92 OpEd articles for you to read)

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning)
Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University.

He is on the PQ911 website due to his affiliation and statements for ae911truth.

Dear Mr. Gage:

Thank you for taking on the architectural and engineering review of the collapses on 9/11 of the buildings at the World Trade Center site. I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#998881

And of course, as a member, he is also a signatory on their petition.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Nothing else I can find on him on the internet...strange for someone with such a resume as he provides...

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

James R. Carr, PhD, PE
Professor, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada. Registered Geological Engineer.

On the PQ911 site for the following letter to the editor for the Reno Gazette-Journal
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/OPED02/708230319/1100/OPED
(Note, link no longer works).

Here is the quote from the no longer available article,

"Terrorism supplants communism as the enemy our government uses to justify military intervention abroad.

Former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advocated in a 1997 book for America’s domination of the world through military intimidation. He audaciously stated that America’s democracy at home was in opposition to this goal and what was needed was “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Cut to September 11, 2001.

Our democracy, if not by then, was afterward an exoskeleton behind which lurked secret agendas. We were told that terrorists hiding in Afghanistan perpetrated the attack and few questioned our subsequent military response. There are, however, troubling questions about 9/11 that are as yet unanswered by our government. For one, why did our military fail to intercept any of the airplanes on 9/11? Was this failure the result of gross incompetence, or was a stand down order in place?

Many have come forward to sign petitions to Congress to reopen the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, especially the reason(s) for the collapse of WTC7. Please visit PatriotsQuestion911.com to learn more. Together, we have a lot of work ahead to restore American democracy."

Also a member of ae911truth, so is a signatory...
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Not much else on him online, although he strikes up an interesting 9/11 conversation, on this forum at RGJ.com
http://talk.rgj.com/viewtopic.php?p=106959&highlight=&sid=3b8e6bb94f03a9aa5c224146a80c36ac

Here is his bio/cv
http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/carr/index_files/Page358.html

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE
Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney.
Formerly taught at University of Auckland (1993 - 2001), University of Queensland (1986 - 1993), Mackintosh School of Architecture (1984 - 1986).

On PQ911 site for,

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9736
It is a post of an email from him. I will not reproduce it here.

He is a member of ae911truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Here is his "personal 9/11 statement":

The collapse is seen to be too improbable - too 'clean' - to be due to the asymmetrical damage sustained.

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#999481

Not much else out there from him on 9/11, just as usual, the truthers carrying his name around like a banner.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.

Not much to say, as we all know this guy is a full blown 9/11 truth believer. Do a Google search and you will find lots of info on him.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Mary Schiavo, JD
Former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation 1990 - 1996.
1997 inductee into the Smithsonian Institution Aviation Laurel Hall of Fame.

She is on the PQ911 site for:

1. Her comments in this article http://www.observer.com/node/48805

Here is what I can glean she said, or is said to have said, from the article...

"We know what she said from notes, and the government has them," said Mary Schiavo, the formidable former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, whose nickname among aviation officials was "Scary Mary." Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission's hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. "In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything."

In fact, said Mary Schiavo, there is no entity within the administration pushing any consequences.

But as Mary Schiavo points out, "We don't have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

Thats it, that is all Ms. Schiavo said, or is said to have said in that article.

The other quote, is a transcript from a conference she spoke at, prior to the 9/11 commission. It is clear, the intent of the talk was to promote the need for a commission to investigate...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00159.htm#mary

It is a good read, for sure. It's essence, however, is that of LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence and/or Ignorance) as opposed to LIHOP or MIHOP.

Here 9/11 hearing testimony
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing2/witness_schiavo.pdf

Here is a pre-9/11 speech she gave about the FAA/govt etc...
http://www.planesafe.org/safety/schiavospeech.htm

Some more interviews with her about 9/11
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/flight.risk/stories/part1.schiavo.access.html
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_past_20011012_b.jhtml
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2001/1026schiavo.html

Clearly an advocate for the victims, and for questions to be answered. I would hardly call her a 9/11 truth advocate.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Terry Morrone, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University.

on the PQ911 website for his essay submitted to JONES,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

The quote being used for his spot on PQ911, is as follows,

"In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting. ...

Conclusions: Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges."

Also a member of S. Jones Web group, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice",
http://stj911.org/members/index.html

He hasn't produced much else from what I can see...Seems to be in the truther camp though. There is a Dr. Terrance Morrone who is a Green Party advocate, but it may or may not be the same fellow.

TAM