Interesting discussion. I and colleagues have done a number of experiments on the dust produced by the falling WTC Towers using scanning electron microscopes and other tools, and we have published our results and conclusions.
Take a look at this...here.
I'll tell you what. I've seen things that are either naturally unexplainable or artificially impossible in my life. This cop cruiser sticks out in may mind: The front 2/3 thirds is well!
blistered, but the back 1/3 is relatively undamaged.
Here's a point: There are pros and cons to the conspiracy debate. http://www.AboveTopSecret.com
has many threads devoted to this 9/11 conspiracy, or there are others to be further debated. Perceptions are key to this issue. Anyone can see what they want or not. Personal opinions, beliefs, and past experiences can color the situation. I can't convince anyone I'm correct in my opinion on something as contentious as 9/11, so I hardly try. Some information I may have been given by those who were capable of knowing any truth in, say, related fields of either experience or investigation will have to remain with me. I will say: The conspiracy theorists and the debunkers can both not necessarily be precise in their findings. Why? There are things they can assume on the basis of their training and experience that can be insufficient to analyze precisely the actual situation. Others with different,
training can know more. I'd compare it to animals and children merely looking and casually observing their surroundings without being able to comprehend and discern why
whole scene is the way it is. Some of what I've been told, and also the way my mind functions, disallows my saying more in terms of detail. I've been asked not to. Both sides of the debate aren't looking close enough or aren't "thinking outside the box" with respect to this issue of what happened on 9/11. You'll have to try and figure it out on your own.
(I'm being "long-winded", so to speak because I'll have a job shortly where I'll need to be fully explanatory to make sure my point is made clear. My correspondents will give me all the time I need in discussion.)
...Also, we have made measurements of the acceleration of WTC 7 during its dramatic fall-- this is the 47-story building that was NOT hit by a plane yet collapsed to its footprint on the afternoon of 9/11/2001. ...
Four of my peer-reviewed published papers are referenced here, near the top of my web page:
You might want to take a look at the HARD EVIDENCE which challenges the official government narrative of 9/11.
Alright, I can take a look at your research papers. I've read many papers on different subjects in my time as an informal researcher. This may take some time in the future, and I may or may not have the time to spare at leisure. I'll try and get back to you on that. This forum is being sidetracked, but until recently, I was the main contributor to the threads. I at least will also try to get back on topic whenever possible.Reedit:
First off: Not all papers are available to me. SpringerLink is a reprint archive for papers dealing with a variety of subjects. Without a personal subscription, or my having to travel to the local university, I get no free downloads. However, I was able to download the paper on "Active Thermite Material..."
by Harrit, et al.
I supose I can read that first, but the others need to be on a free download archival service or else the likes of a university archival library site for myself and others to download a printoff.
« Last Edit: 2011-11-27, 01:14:32 by the_big_m_in_ok »
"The truth comes from wisdom, and widsom comes from experience."
--from the Matrix series of books
"Whosoever speaks or otherwise acts, has no secrets."