List of Research Papers

cicorp said:
Think again. Try Google. :)
Here is a list of Dr. Niels Harrit's 55 papers published in respected scientific journals,
not counting #56 in the Bentham journal.
http://NielsHarrit.org
Click to expand...
Is the failure of Harrit due to being antisemitic, or due to lack of knowledge and evidence on 911? Where do these crazy 911 conspiracy theorists come from? Do you think Jones went mental, he thinks the United Stated caused the earthquake in Haiti. Due you also support the earthquake claim? Jones made up thermite out of the blue. Why have Jones and Harrit failed?
 
Last edited:
ergo writes,
>Right, because we must ignore the 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed their names to a petition, over 300 former and current military personnel, 200+ pilots and aviation professionals, over 400 academics, over 400 medical professionals, as well as scientists, lawyers, professors, firefighters, politicians, researchers, and media professionals. And these are just the people who have publicly stated their support. But yeah, no professional representation.

1) The list of 1400 architects and engineers has never been independently audited so we actually have no way of knowing how many names are on this list. Could be 1400. Could be 2. There are no statements from lawyers and other professionals.

2) Organizations ranging from PETA to the NRA to the AAA, measure support not calculated by names on a list, measuring those who signed after 20 seconds of though, but by the number of dues paying members. When PETA lobbies Congress it is based on membership, people willing to put up a $25 annual fee. Truthers don't do that because then we'd find out the real level of support.

3) Most architects do not have the knowledge or professional background to understand how buildings fall and unless an engineer has a P.E. or PhD in civil engineering, a name on a list or 1400 names is meaningless. There are NO, not one, PhD or P.E. in civil engineering who supports the Truther theories for WTC demolition. Think about that. Out of more than 10,000 architects and engineers working in the US, not one has put ten paragraphs on a piece of paper to explain how it is that they believe the WTC buildings fell from CD. There is not one physicist in the US with a University affiliation willing to argue the Truther position.

4) Many of the names on your list are from people who are calling for an investigation of the 9-11 Commission, the whitewash of Bush and Ascroft incompetence, not about an investigation as to who caused 9-11. Wesley Clark is on one Truther list, but he was on the front page of yesterday's NYTimes writing about al Qaeda as the cause of 9-11.

But all of this is a f***ing waste of time because if Dick Cheney or some government group wanted to bring down the WTC buildings and kill lots of people, they would enter the buildings and place a bomb in the basement, something that takes ten minutes. They would not take eight months to attempt to wire occupied building so it might collapse gracefully in their own footprint. And they certainly would not attempt to wire a building that was occupied by the CIA. We can argue all day about how competent the CIA is, but there is no way on God's earth, you could wire WTC7 for demolition, ripping up walls and floors to place explosives in thousands of positions while the CIA occupied the building.

If you want to kill people and you have a building wired, you blow the building while it is full. You don't fly a plane into the building and then wait 90 minutes for everyone to get out and then blow it.

There is a level of earth-shattering stupidity beyond which you cannot reach people. We have hit that level.
 
Gee, I wonder who Frank 3373 is.

frank3373 said:
1) The list of 1400 architects and engineers has never been independently audited so we actually have no way of knowing how many names are on this list. Could be 1400. Could be 2. There are no statements from lawyers and other professionals.
Click to expand...

This is a moronic statement. The list of names is right online. It always has been. You've had plenty of opportunities to verify it yourselves. Some JREF bedunkers were even going to try and do this. I don't think they've even started. You have every way of knowing what names are on the list. And there a many, many statements from other professionals on this matter.

I don't mind correcting bedunkers to a certain degree, but when you're trying to pretend that certain information doesn't exist, when in fact it's right in front of your face, or a mere google click away, it's obvious there isn't much point engaging such laziness and/or dishonesty.


2) Organizations ranging from PETA to the NRA to the AAA, measure support not calculated by names on a list, measuring those who signed after 20 seconds of though, but by the number of dues paying members. When PETA lobbies Congress it is based on membership, people willing to put up a $25 annual fee. Truthers don't do that because then we'd find out the real level of support.
Click to expand...

Since you don't seem to be aware of very basic information about who has signed their name to a petition calling for a new investigation, you will likewise have no clue what campaigns truth supporters have already funded and are continuing to fund. 9/11 truth isn't a private club that asks for membership dues. It's not a single group. Your comment here is misinformed and irrelevant.

3) Most architects do not have the knowledge or professional background to understand how buildings fall and unless an engineer has a P.E. or PhD in civil engineering, a name on a list or 1400 names is meaningless. There are NO, not one, PhD or P.E. in civil engineering who supports the Truther theories for WTC demolition.
Click to expand...

There are 1,460 who have publicly stated their disagreement with the official story. So, yes, there are many, many, professionals in these fields who are asking for a realistic explanation.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.
 
AE911Truth.org list is verified, and takes 1/2 hour to get on

frank3373 said:
ergo writes>the 1400+ architects and engineers who have signed their names to a petition...

1) The list of 1400 architects and engineers has never been independently audited so we actually have no way of knowing how many names are on this list. Could be 1400. Could be 2.
Click to expand...

I agree the PatriotsQuestion911.com lists people who have not signed up, and just made some statement questioning the 9/11 Commission.

But the http://AE911Truth.org Petition to Congress, from 1462 architects and engineers, is verified. Volunteers call each potential signer personally and check them out. It takes about 1/2 hour of conscious effort. They have to find their license or diploma, and fax it, to get on the list. The Verification Team knows that if a false name gets on, that "bad apple" will be used to discredit the whole list.

AE91Truth has a separate list of over 10000 regular folk and students, that does not go through this time consuming process. As an experiment, I pretended to be an architect and signed up, but the Verifier called, asked tough questions, and required me to fax certification.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129163

There are no statements from lawyers and other professionals.
Click to expand...
http://LawyersFor911Truth.org
http://PilotsFor911Truth.org
http://FireFightersFor911Truth.org
http://MilitaryOfficersFor911Truth.org etc.
 
Last edited:
This is the statement attributed to Wesley Clark on the Patriots Question site:

We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
This is the statement attributed to Wesley Clark on the Patriots Question site:
Click to expand...
... loads of ... no evidence. Wesley Clark almost started a war with Russians, and 911 truth marches on with nonsense. Ignoring issues they missed due to ignorance.

911 truth ignore reality and brings in failed politics for their evidence. Clark has no idea he is on a page of idiots who can't figure out 911. Are Gage's morons willing idiots on 911 issues, unable to think for themselves? How can Gage make 70k a year pushing lies?

Why can't you be on on topic? No evidence to back up your delusions on 911? Did Clark fail to do a paper? Not a single paper from Gage's failed group or Patriots. Sad. 10 years of failure assured - 911 truth. No list of papers for 911 truth. Fantasy side - 0, reality - 100.
 
Last edited:
>This is a moronic statement. The list of names is right online. It always has been. You've had plenty of opportunities to verify it yourselves.

Actually, my friend, this is ******** because I have attempted to contact a number of people on several of the Truther lists by email, to date I received one single response. Some of the email bounced. Further, many of the names on some of the lists include people, such as Wesley Clark, who support an investigation of the 9-11 Commission's whitewash of Bush-Cheney-Ascrofft incompetence, but who do not support the Truther claims for CD.

I believe an independent audit would show that of the 1400 names, a good 900 are ********, and of course a simple way to disprove me would be an independent audit. You know, some proof.

Truther's claim that they want a new government investigation. You think Senator Kerry or Barney Frank are going to give you an investigation because you've got some unaudited list in your hand with names written on it? It is ridiculous. More ridiculous, is how low the number 1400 is, were it true. You could get more names than that for Bigfoot believers. Certainly the Creationists have millions. What does that prove? That Adam ate an apple 6,000 years ago.

To have any hope of a government investigation, you will need a team of engineers and physicists, and I have been unable to locate not one, not one civil engineering P.E. on any of your lists who will write ten paragraphs in support of CD.

>9/11 truth isn't a private club that asks for membership dues. It's not a single group.

There is not a single group of animal rights activists either. There are dozens, but guess what? They all allow for membership and dues. Why? It raises money, important to accomplish anything. Any group that wishes to lobby Congress has to establish their membership beyond making claims about some unaudited list. That is what gets people's attention. Paying dues means you are serious.

The only reason I can think of for Truther's not collecting dues is that they understand no one would pay.
 
Beachnut: Wesley Clark was quoted on the front page of the New York Times this past week as saying that al Qaeda caused 9-11 and that our Afghan response was appropriate. Clark's issue is with the 9-11 Commission Report, not NIST or who caused 9-11.

Truther's attempt to conflate the two issues as both involve 9-11 and they are hurting because out of some 6,000 physicists affiliated with American Universities, none will support their CD theory. There is no press support. When the press does report on Truther claims, it is to ridicule and criticize (see Scientific American, Rolling Stone, the NYTimes). There are no P.E. civil engineers who support CD, anywhere out of tens of thousands.

What you have are young kids living with Mom and people walking around with an unaudited list pretending they have professional support. (Oh...and that one journalist, what's his name? Jesse Ventura).
 
>There are 1,460 who have publicly stated their disagreement with the official story.

When you get that list independently audited, do let me know. I hear that the fee is around $1200, which should be chump change for a group with so many professional adherents. LOL.

I happen to be a member of PETA, and I know such audits are important because I was called and questioned one year so they could, in addition to my membership dues, represent my position and provide evidence. Makes sense if you are trying to get somebody in Congress to take you seriously. Or if perhaps you are trying to get anybody to take you seriously.
 
Here you go, ergo, a fellow Truther admits names are made up.

>I agree the PatriotsQuestion911.com lists people who have not signed up, and just made some statement questioning the 9/11 Commission.

So just how many followers do you have? More than Bigfoot? I guess I'm asking what number you've made up for your unaudited list? Let's start with that. How many unaudited folks are you claiming as members.
 
frank3373 said:
Beachnut: Wesley Clark was quoted on the front page of the New York Times this past week as saying that al Qaeda caused 9-11 and that our Afghan response was appropriate. Clark's issue is with the 9-11 Commission Report, not NIST or who caused 9-11.

Truther's attempt to conflate the two issues as both involve 9-11 and they are hurting because out of some 6,000 physicists affiliated with American Universities, none will support their CD theory. There is no press support. When the press does report on Truther claims, it is to ridicule and criticize (see Scientific American, Rolling Stone, the NYTimes). There are no P.E. civil engineers who support CD, anywhere out of tens of thousands.

What you have are young kids living with Mom and people walking around with an unaudited list pretending they have professional support. (Oh...and that one journalist, what's his name? Jesse Ventura).
Click to expand...
That is what I said: Gen Clark's comments are political claptrap, and that forum is over yonder. Clark's comments have no bearing on a new investigation, almost as bad as 911 truth.

911 truth failed to read and comprehend the many investigations already complete. The request for a new investigation is moronic.
 
frank3373 said:
Beachnut: Wesley Clark was quoted on the front page of the New York Times this past week as saying that al Qaeda caused 9-11 and that our Afghan response was appropriate. Clark's issue is with the 9-11 Commission Report, not NIST or who caused 9-11.

Truther's attempt to conflate the two issues as both involve 9-11 and they are hurting because out of some 6,000 physicists affiliated with American Universities, none will support their CD theory. There is no press support. When the press does report on Truther claims, it is to ridicule and criticize (see Scientific American, Rolling Stone, the NYTimes). There are no P.E. civil engineers who support CD, anywhere out of tens of thousands.

What you have are young kids living with Mom and people walking around with an unaudited list pretending they have professional support. (Oh...and that one journalist, what's his name? Jesse Ventura).
Click to expand...

This is a very clear way of putting it. The problem with this description is that it negates the the way the Truth Movement really operates. AE911T and Dick Gage pretend it's a lobby group that serves educational functions. It clearly is not this kind of thing. It is better conceived of as a missionary organization that has a cosmology and a goal of conversion.

I don't think most Truthers are at all interested in coming here to talk with us. In fact, most of the large number of Truthers I know have never heard of the JREF. And if they knew what was going on here, they wouldn't care. What they do as part of this Truth Movement thing is talk to people, hand out videos, put up videos on Youtube, etc. They spend a lot of time talking with each other about 'tyranny' and all these imaginary technologies being used by the New World Order. Knocking down Gage and humiliating our JREF Truther buddies is increasingly unimportant as a way of reaching them.
 
Regarding 9-11 scientific papers: I had an offline exchange with CICorp in which he claimed that the large increase in the level of stock market "puts" purchased on Amer and United airlines stock prior to 9-11, demonstrates prior knowledge of the planes crashing into the WTC buildings. That is people who planned 9-11 shorted those two airline stocks causing significant increases in put volume.

When I challenged CICorp for evidence--I can't imagine people in the US planning 9-11 and being so crazy as to make large trades to short the market and call attention to themselves--he referred me to several news articles, including CBS News, that said that people affiliated with trading institutions (Chicago Board of Exchange, Fidelity, etc.) were making these claims. The time of this reporting was all within 30 days of 9-11 when speculation was rampant.

I noted to him that these news claims did not establish that the shorting existed. There was no examination of the actual numbers, only speculation. However, google reveals others sites where people have posted numbers suggesting a large increase in Amer and United puts in the week prior to 9-11.

I also noted that such shorting could have been done by Saudis or members of al Qaeda since it is clear THEY knew about 9-11 in advance, especially the four members convicted in Germany (the Truther claim is that a German bank was used due to its connection with a former CIA director, which in and of itself is pretty nutty).

Does anybody know if any attempt was made to examine the trading volumes on Amer and United prior to 9-11, and if these results were published in a paper?
 
frank3373 said:
Regarding 9-11 scientific papers: I had an offline exchange with CICorp in which he claimed that the large increase in the level of stock market "puts" purchased on Amer and United airlines stock prior to 9-11, demonstrates prior knowledge of the planes crashing into the WTC buildings. That is people who planned 9-11 shorted those two airline stocks causing significant increases in put volume.

When I challenged CICorp for evidence--I can't imagine people in the US planning 9-11 and being so crazy as to make large trades to short the market and call attention to themselves--he referred me to several news articles, including CBS News, that said that people affiliated with trading institutions (Chicago Board of Exchange, Fidelity, etc.) were making these claims. The time of this reporting was all within 30 days of 9-11 when speculation was rampant.

I noted to him that these news claims did not establish that the shorting existed. There was no examination of the actual numbers, only speculation. However, google reveals others sites where people have posted numbers suggesting a large increase in Amer and United puts in the week prior to 9-11.

I also noted that such shorting could have been done by Saudis or members of al Qaeda since it is clear THEY knew about 9-11 in advance, especially the four members convicted in Germany (the Truther claim is that a German bank was used due to its connection with a former CIA director, which in and of itself is pretty nutty).

Does anybody know if any attempt was made to examine the trading volumes on Amer and United prior to 9-11, and if these results were published in a paper?
Click to expand...

Frank.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

911 commission report said:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on
September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview

(Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Footnote 130, Chapter 5, 9/11 Commission Report
Click to expand...

The SEC quickly discovered, however, that a single U.S. investment adviser had purchased 95 percent of the UAL put option volume for the day. The investment adviser certainly did not fit the profile of an al Qaeda operative: it was based in the United States, registered with the SEC, and managed several hedge funds with $5.3 billion under management. In interviews by the SEC, both the CEO of the adviser and the trader who executed the trade explained that they—and not any client—made the decision to buy the put as part of a trading strategy based on a bearish view of the airline industry. They held bearish views for a number of reasons, including recently released on-time departure figures, which suggested the airlines were carrying fewer passengers, and recently disclosed news by AMR reflecting poor business fundamentals. In pursuit of this strategy, the adviser sold short a number of airline shares between September 6 and September 10; its transactions included the fortunate purchase of UAL puts. The adviser, however, also bought 115,000 shares of AMR on September 10, believing that their price already reflected the recently released financial information and would not fall any further. Those shares dropped significantly when the markets reopened after the attacks.
Click to expand...

and

A single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.
Click to expand...

So there is nothing to see here....But like most truthers Cicorp doesn't bother to check his "facts."
 
Many on the Research Paper list do not deal with WTC collapse

moorea34 said:
Articles:

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse ?
.......
Rini, D., Lamont, S. Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design Structures Congress 2008
Click to expand...

This long list contains many questionable studies and many that do not deal with the core issues of the WTC collapse. The emphasis of this list seems to be quantity, not quality, or relevance of the research papers.

Many studies are listed merely because they mention "World Trade Center" anywhere in the text, for any reason. For example, Kuligowski's study has to do with modeling how people react in a building, during emergency evacuations. This proves nothing about why the WTCs collapsed.

Other studies that are listed actually support the need for a New Investigation. For example, in the Materials Science study Cherepanov writes "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree.

An ongoing analysis and commentary on these studies may be found at http://911Experiments.org/OCT
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
...For example, in the Materials Science study Cherepanov writes "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree...
Click to expand...

Does he write how much slower?
Do truthers claim any building collapsed in free-fall time on 9/11?
Do YOU claim any building collapsed in free-fall time on 9/11?
Or do you agree that all buildings collapses SLOWER than free fall?
 
TruthersLie said:
"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. "
Click to expand...

So, if the buyers of the Put Options on AA and UA had "no conceivable ties to Al Queda" then what, Critical Thinkers?

Hello! Maybe there is another possibility here!

That's like Keystone Kops investigating a 7-11 robbery with the foregone assumption that Gang X did it, based on a tip. They stop a fleeing suspect with a Slurpee, and find stacks of money on him, but conclude "Well, he's not a member of Gang X, so we gotta let him go!" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You're right in some sense, as is ergo that this list has not been completely screened. It appears you have not read the whole thread as one of originators of this list commented on this issue.

Regardless, I have not read the paper by Kuligowski that is on this list. I have read other papers which she helped write and it is clear in these papers and in abstracts of papers I have not read that the assumption is large planes hit the WTC and ignited catastrophic fires. There is no question in them that planes and fires are the issues of the day. There is no mention in her papers of thermite, explosive demolitions or of the security issues these imply. In fact, I have read a number of papers about fire at the WTC. There are NO papers in major fire science journals that talk about thermite and its contribution to these fires. In fact, you could - as I have - read many, many of articles in fire science about the WTC fires and have no idea that some people believe thermite was involved.

And you know why? Because none of the people who publish in fire science journals believe this. Not even one of them.

So you can believe there's a gigantic conspiracy that involves scientists and other authorities on relevant fields, and that might even be true. But this hogwash about how some scientists and engineers who believe this, well...it's just hogwash. And until your AE911 experts publish something in a real fire science journal, it will stay just hogwash.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom