OCT was dominant 2001 - 2008. RCTO/CD theory rising 2009 - 2013
Some scientists spoke out for the OCT in 2001 - 2008 when there was no
other explanation for 9/11 on the table,
and most Americans believed that Bush and Cheney would not lie about WMDs.
But more and more scientists see plausible alternative explanations, including Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) and Controlled Demolition (CD) that fully explains the same evidence, plus more. There are even movies with alternative explanations. Fewer and fewer people and scientists defend the Offishy Theory each day.
Look at the dates of the papers, from the list posted on JREF.
1. Go to www.911Experiments.com/OCT
2. Ctrl+F for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and you will find some papers
2. Ctrl+F for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 - No find
The OCT was dominant for 8 years. But the CD theory has been rising its 4th year.
Also notice that the 2001 - 2008 papers have no real life material experiments, no replications, and been largely debunked.
None of the 2001 - 2008 studies explain the beam in the AmEx, or the 2.4 seconds of free fall in WTC 7.
That's why there is no organization of architects, engineers, or scientists defending the official theory any more. The mark of a failed theory is that no scientists defend it any more. It goes the way of the flat Earth theory.
As there are more and more questions about 9/11, there should be more papers defending the OCT.
But no. There are fewer and fewer papers trying to defend the Bush-Cheney theory.
2009 is when the Bentham study came out, (peer reviewed by Dr. David Griscom) and www.NielsHarrit.org
A follow up study to replicate it, at an independent lab, is now in the works. www.MarkBasile.org
Dr. Millette has not published his study in over a year.
www.JournalOf911Studies.org continues to publish papers, right up until March 2013.
It is far more likely that at an investigation, whether it is in the USA, or the International Court at the Hague,
experts from Columbia, MIT, Yale, and Harvard on the AE911Truth list would show up and testify.
Controlled Demolition experts would concur that absolutely, controlled demolition happened on 911.
Former FBI Special Agents would come forward and testify their prosecution of terrorist suspects was thwarted from above, for no good reason.
CIA agents such as Ray McGovern would testify that the Bush Administration encouraged "cooked" intelligence to justify the wars.
All the Columbia PhD can say is that they could not distinguish the seismic signals from debris falling to the ground from explosions many floors above - which make negligible seismic signals. Explosions from higher floors make no seismic signals measurable from Columbia. Think about it. Seismic waves are just vibrations. It is also hard to tell which direction they came from.
Dr. Shyam Sunder would not show up. He has refused to speak about 9/11 since 2009. He did his job, lied, got his raise, got his award, and wants to go on to other things.
Steel going sideways over 600 feet for over 60 mph and sticking in the AmEx building is the smoking gun for anyone who knows basic physics.
More and more members of www.Students911Truth.org, the professors of the future, are challenging what their professors say about 9/11.
No self respecting scientist would risk a perjury charge by testifying under oath for such an obvious bunch of lies, and violations of Laws of Nature, now that they have been pointed out.
----- Original Message -----From: Mr. XTo: RickSent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:10 AMSubject: Re: Steel Truth is not a "majority rules" matter Senator Mike Gravel Experts Speak Out on Colorado PBS
Your first argument: No one has tried to replicate because physical forces don't scale. It makes no sense to replicate steel beams. Tiny model steel beams act differently. However, replication has been done through mathematics and computer modeling, and the math is now considered peer-reviewed science---which is to say it is cited by other scientists and has been used to make fundamental changes in building design.Tellingly, the Codes for building design have not changed much at all. What is to change besides making them more resilient to aircraft hitting them? Do you know of any buildings being restructured or upgraded as a result of 9/11? None.The central argument is: is it possible to wire a building for CD while occupied in seven monthsThe work could have started years before 9/11without any noticing the workSure people noticed men working, an ordinary occurrence.and without removing the non-load bearing walls,Not required. Elevator shafts and above ceiling panels is enough accesswhich is done in every CD?This was not an ordinary CDIf it is, what are those mechanics?Who were the workers? Why were they not interviewed? I can only find 1 guy from Ace interviewed by USA Today on 9/11.Time to cut through 4,000 beams per building,No beams had to be cut through. Just place the thermite and explosives next to themtime to put the plaster and track lighting back and clean up,They had from 10 months to possibly years. One floor per day.get through security locks on individual offices without anyone noticing,SecuriCom had all the keysnumber of deliveries of materials required which no one noticedYes, many trucks coming in between 2:00 am and 5:00am were noticedincluding FBI interviewed security,FBI Agent John O'Neill was killed on his first day at work on Tuesday 9/11If Larry Silverstein let him start on Monday, a more typical starting day,
he may have found the explosives.explain why jet fuel burning didn't burn off charges and fuses so CD would not work,The boxes containing explosives, disguised as "emergency elevator brakes" could be fire proofexplaining why no explosive reside or fuses have been found,Explosive residue has been found - unexploded thermitic material (purpose of www.MarkBasile.org study)Fuses were closest and would be blown to tiny bits.explain away the demolition company understanding that you can't use a remote detanator because the timing is too critical.Wireless remote detonation is just as fast as wired.Evidently they were not as reliable, because we see "squibs" where the detonation was too early, causing small explosions of about 10 floors below the rest of the explosion.>Watching it would answer most of your arguments.I'm relying on you to answer just one of my arguments, since you listen to these people, and so far you haven't addressed a single one, including all the obvious arguments about the steel....so what's the point in watching a video?This shows that many experts do come forward, do more than sign a petition, and speak about Controlled Demolition.Do they reference scientific papers in that video?YesIf so, why don't we cut to the chase and you send me a link to those scientific papers?The Senate will need those papers peer-reviewed. I've lowered the goofy bar, and am requesting anything written that has been reviewed professionally (I'll even take anything submitted for publication if I can get the Journal's response).The goofy bar is pretty low for you.
Harry G. Robinson III, FAIALic: Architect 2667, Washington, DCB Arch and MCP Harvard U. / MCPUD Harvard, Washington, DCDennis R. Holloway, ArchitectLic: New Mexico Architect License #002569B.Arch., Univ. of Mich., MAUD, Harvard GRio Rancho, NMEdward Ussery, EITBSME-UCLA, MMS-Harvard Medical Sch.Irvine, CAWilliam S. Gravely, ArchitectLic: AR 92452M.Arch, Harvard University Tallahassee, FLEason Cross, FAIALic: Virginia and Maryland BA Harvard, MArch. HGSDAlexandria, VADeane Rykerson, AIA NCARB LEED APLic: MA 8400BArch Boston AC MDes Harvard Cambridge, MAWellington Wells, ArchitectLic: ARC10000875 ME, 1976; Arq. 8612 PR, 1965M. Arch. Harvard Peterborough, NH
Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIALic: MASSACHUSETTS 2754MArch, Architecture, YaleSanta Fe, NMAndrew Wolff, Architect, AIA,LEEDLic: 30395 CAM Arch, Yale UniversityLos Angeles, CADavid A. Johnson, Dr., FAICP, PhDBA (Arch) & MCP, Yale; PhD, CornellAsheville, NCRichard N. Yale, EngineerLic: 040023 CABE Civil Engineering Univ. of So. Calif.Desert Hot Springs, CARonaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng & M.ArchBS Yale College M Arch Columbia Univ.Santa Rosa, CA
Gabrielle Von Bernstorff, Architecte SIAMaster of Architecture Princeton UniversVevey, Vaud – SwitzerlandWilliam F. Stubbeman MD, MD, BSE (Physician, Mechanical and Aerospace EnginLic: Medical License # G079364, CA, (no eng license)MD, Columbia BSE, Engineering, PrincetonLos Angeles, CA
Erk Erginer, Dr.MSc. Tech. U. Istanbul; Ph.D. Brown U.Winston-Salem, NCDavid Griscom, PhD Brown, Physics, Naval Research Lab, NASA, Instructor of Engineering, Tuczon AZ
Joao Cardoso, EngineerM.S., Engineering, Columbia University Palo Alto, CANina Le Baron, Architect AIAM.S. Historic Preservation-Columbia UnivFriday Harbor, WA
Ronaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng & M.ArchBS Yale College M Arch Columbia Univ.Santa Rosa, CA
Arman Chowdhury, architectural staffMs . Arch UPenn B.arch BUET Philadelphia, PA
Rex W. Ingram, ArchitectLic: 20220M. Arch., UPENNSalem, MA
Albert Skane, Systems EngineeringBSEE & BS(Sloan), MIT; MA Econ, UofMDBoston, MAJohn Schaefer, Consulting EngineerLic: CA EE 9215PhD Stanford; MS San Jose State; BS MITArcata, CADonald W. McGrathB.S. Metallurgy, MIT Saint Helena, CACynthia Howard, AIALic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MABiddeford Pool, MEGeorge Owen, AIALic: IL 1018627,B.Architecture, MIT Wallingford (Philadelphia), PADavid Anthony Dorau, P.E.Lic: 023647 MOB.S., Iowa State U., M.S., MIT Lenexa, KSMichael T. DiMercurio, P.E.MS, Mechanical Engineering, MIT Newtown, PARobert J. Randall, P.E.Lic: 52752 NY, 10089 CT, 32741 NJ, E-25587 WIBS,Nav. Arch. & Marine Eng., MIT Mohegan Lake, NYGeorge Everett, 9/11 Truth SeekerBS, USCGA; BSEE, MIT.Edmonds, WARobert J. Walter, P.E.Lic: Connecticut - lapsed/retired SBME MIT Rochester, NYOlga Kahn, ArchitectLic: #7382 MAM. Arch., M.I.T. Wellfleet, MAJohn Edward Anderson, PhD ProfessorPh.D. Astronautics, M.I.T. Minneapolis, MNS. Kay Kuhne, ArchitectLic: FL AR #12498M.Arch AS, Architecture, M.I.T. Tallahassee, FLBenjamin Erwin, B.S. EngineeringB.S. Aerospace Engineering, M.I.T. Cambridge, MAJoseph L. DeClueB.S. EE M.I.T. Santa Ana, CA
Peter Dale Scott. McGill 1949, Oxford University 1952, PhD McGill 1955 Canadian UN Ambassador
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD from CalTech (the "Ivy League of the west")
Niels Harrit, PhD, Chemistry, published over 50 papers in peer reviewed science journals.
Mark Basile - in process of replicating study of Dr. Niels Harrit by sending WTC dust to an independent laboratory.
----- Original Message -----From: Mr. XTo: RickSent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 9:35 PMSubject: Re: Jody Gibbsof Yale, Harvard and Professor at MIT. In his own words
Your PhD boy admitted on one of the radio interview links you sent me that there is not a shred of evidence that nano-thermite even exists and that there is no evidence that thermite in any form can separate two steel beams. He says Ryan got made at him when they had this conversation over lunch.
Why should I care what some MIT architect thinks about 911? The guy running the Creationist lab in KY is an astro-physicist with a PhD from Univ of Berkeley. (I would care if some MIT civil engineer or physicist from MIT had your opinion about 911 and wrote down what he thought and why---the specific details the 911 Truthers avoid--in a white paper that others could then examine).
The whole thing is so fucking goofy it blows my mind.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM Rick wrote:
You can contact Jody Gibbs, who organized an AE911Truth event in Tucsonindicating that this Yale and Harvard grad, and MIT Professor is into 9/11.Mr. Gibbs got accepted to 2 universities we did not even try to apply to.He taught at one of the world's top universities, one we could not qualify for.
He is better to talk to than Tom McLaughlin. Mr. Gibbs is retired and hisaddress is PO Box 1870, Tuczon AZ 85702-1870. RGibbs@AE911Truth.orgYou can hear him in his own words on this video shown on Colorado PBShttp://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/ One of their longest running featured videos.Mr. Gibbs is not just "signing a petition at a mall" but coming forward and
speaking out, along with many Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers.
He says "Gravity works vertically, not laterally." (see transcript of MP3 below)
The S.E. degree is even more relevant than a C.E. to office building collapses.www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4 around the 43 minute pointIf you want, I can give you the weekly Verification Team conference call number.You can dial in, don't say anything, and just listen. You can hear theirdiscussions about candidates for the petition list, for example things like:"I called Joe Jones and asked him to fax his civil engineering degree.Mary Smith has not faxed hers in 3 weeks, so I'm skeptical about her."Intelligent people are outraged that some people committed mass murderthen lied to us, to get Americans to accept pre-emptive wars and drones?
Interview with Jody Gibbs, Architect
1. Background and Credentials
I'm Jody Gibbs, I'm a registered professional architect. I was licensed for general building and heavy construction as well as architecture over 35 years ago. I've practiced in the United States and in other countries. I was educated at Yale University, the Harvard Graduate School of Design, the Yale Graduate School of Art and Architecture, I was honored with a midcareer fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and I taught at MIT as an adjunct faculty for a number of years in the Graduate School of Architecture.
2. Reasons We Need a New Investigation
(0:30) My reasons for looking and demanding and urging people to see that we get a judicial investigation are really very simple. Among many of the reasons are one, we have no explanation of how the concrete was pulverized. It takes an enormous amount of energy, way beyond what we have in aviation fuel. Secondly, aviation fuel does not melt steel and no high-rise steel structure has ever been destroyed by a fire in the history of construction. Third, we have eyewitness testimony (1:00) of firemen, policemen, news reporters and occupants of the building to explosions--an enormous number of eyewitness testimonies. Fourth, the buildings fall at a speed which can only occur if the structure has been removed, the vertical structure. We have ample evidence of that--large multi-ton beams were hurled hundreds of yards laterally. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. We also now have now the evidence of thermite and thermate explosives.
3. The 9/11 Commission Was a Bunch of Politicians
(1:30) There are many other reasons we need an investigation. Most of these things were not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. I would remind people that was not a judicial body. There were no rules of evidence. They were the same group of politicians which have sent us to war, mismanaged our economy, and the many other things. It is for this reason I urge all architects and engineers to look into the matter, look at the evidence that is available and sign on to the demands of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 (2:00) Truth in demanding that we get a judicial investigation.
4. An Investigation Following Judicial Practice is Necessary
(2:06) Judicial investigation is--we've never had one. Judicial investigation means you have rules of evidence, you have a prosecutor. You see, when someone is hurt in an accident in this country you don't hand money and say "just be still," you don't have politicians talk about it. You have a prosecutor, you look into the evidence, they bring charges accordingly. It's a process; it's a long-developed process, it's a judicial process. A commission is merely a group of politicians talking. It means nothing.----- Original Message -----From: RickTo: Mr. XSent: Friday, March 01, 2013 5:16 PMSubject: Jody Gibbsof Yale, Harvard and Professor at MIT. Joshua Blakeny, PhD scholarship recipient for research on 9/11
JODY GIBBS - HARVARD, YALE, MITHere again is the info on Jody GibbsYale B.A.Yale, Masters in ArchitectureHarvard, Loeb Fellow, Graduate School of DesignMIT, Adjunct Faculty, Graduate School of ArchitectureAE911Truth petition signer andfeatured in Experts Speak Out (one of the top videos on Colorado Public TV)