I don't believe I have seen this site posted before, excuse me if it has.

http://911summary.com/science.php

There is a list of quite notable people calling for AT LEAST a new investigation, which MOST of us want. The scientist list alone is truly AMAZING.

Oh, besides NIST and a science magazine who controls who is allowed to write articles, WHERE are the lists of NOTABLE people in their field calling for the halt of any investigation and proclaiming the NIST study to be the most perfect study of any major crime in history??? (or thereabout?)

Gotta linky dink?

Same argument.

on edit: here it is:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

Why am I not surprised, I am so damn sad that is my ala mater, at least my degree was in History and not what the college calls science.

Why is that place still accredited?!?!?

you get a lot of - "The majority of scientists and engineers are with us" - bullshit from the OCT. Truth is, the majority of scientists have made no official statement regarding 911.

to creationism quoting scientists who dispute evolution, whether some part or completely?

Do you understand that regardless of who questions creationism, despite any of their credentials, evolution is and remains an actual fact?

Do you understand that a poster then listed creationist scientists in some misguided effort of showing the argument to be wrong?

The majority of scientists and engineers ARE with the collapse of the buildings. Have you heard of the ASCE? Don't you think if actual scientists could tear the NIST reports apart, they would if only to demonstrate that they should be getting the money and prestige of the posts instead of the people there right now?

Do you understand that the collapses have been studied and the lessons learned applied to the construction of buildings ever since?

in the entire time you've been in here.

"Do you understand that the collapses have been studied and the lessons learned applied to the construction of buildings ever since?"

Can you provide some links to academically peer-viewed articles and specific implementations in building codes from the research?

A list of academically peer-reviewed articles:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Scholarly+Papers

Also, the recent discussion about the CCTV building fire uncovered that the building's designers specifically studied the WTC building and incorporated lessons learned into their design. That building did not fall because the designers studied these buildings that did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x234108

has no problem accepting building code changes stemming from the NIST investigation. Why would they do that if they are so obviously flawed?

http://www.gostructural.com/article.asp?id=3352

And since the recommendations are being incorporated by the actual experts, it seems that the facts do not bear out your opinion.

and I officially think these conspiracy theories are an insult to my intelligence!

which burned off in first ten minutes ---

:rofl:

I'll definitely look through it. Also, don't worry about the hecklers from the "psychic spoon benders club." They hate anything that questions the official story.

There is no 'retired professor of psychology at Oxford University' with the name of Graham Harris.

This could be an isolated instance, but it does call into question the care with which the authenticity of these names has been checked.

Haven't had time right now to read the article -- but overall agree -- new investigation.

Subpeonae power ...

Swear 'em in ...

Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0800818

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767

Lessons Learned From 9/11: The Report of the World Trade Center Building Code Task Force
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0510561

evidently we'll be building no more steel frame buildings ...

cause they can be brought down by jet fuel which burns off in the first ten minutes?

Again -- we need an intense, honest, government investigation --

not run by insiders involved with 9/11 White House "terrorists."

Ignore, Ignore, Ignore...

I provided you with links to an forensic engineering investigations of the collapse. The investigations were not done by insiders, they were done by engineering professors and professionals. You choose to ignore them becuase you can't seem to handle reality. You deflect away from the issue at hand and spout nonsense such as suggesting that there is a claim out there that the buildings were brought down by jet fuel, when in fact no one is making that claim.

You would think that with all the straw men building you do you would have gotten better at it by now.

...and presumably, 9/11 truthers are "insiders" . . . ?

There is far too much circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11 to suggest that

these towers fell because of jet fuel fires!


Or are you suggesting some other source for the fires?

... that the WTC collapses had any other cause than the one described in the NIST investigation. When examined closely, the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses bore absolutely NO resemblance to a "controlled demolition," while the WTC7 collapse only superficially resembled a CD, but without the unavoidable explosive noises and seismographic evidence. There is NO credible hypothesis for how CDs could have been done in any of the buidings, and even if you accept the premise that neocons would plot a "false flag attack" it makes absolutely NO sense that ANYONE would have attempted such a complicated and risky scheme when any number of alternate plots would have been much simpler, easier, and less risky.

No "independent investigation" is going to change any of these facts. You guys need to give it up and either find a conspiracy theory that makes some sense, or just get on with your lives. You're beating a very dead horse, and this is NOT an invitation to run around the barn and beat it again.

And I mean, absolute. The NIST report is a lie. And I mean, a big, fat, stinking, grotesque and shameful lie.

Case closed. Run along now.

I am tired of truthers telling me about all this "absolute proof" but are completely unable to put forward a detailed theory that accounts for all this "proof".

If you can't tell me how, why am I to believe you?

do you really expect us to believe that the ''perps'' somehow got devices that bulky past security and no one noticed them doing it nor noticed the devices afterwards? just how many of those devices would it have taken? can you provide the math behind your claim?

.. that knocked one truss out, causing the whole building to collapse.

And then, just for shits and giggles, can you use the audio of the towers falling to identify a single one of those explosions?

as well as no EMP, no loud explosion, no shockwave?

in the air on 9/11 and forward?

The EPA simply didn't report them on White House instructions -- !!!

The belief the President can make anything happen.

For instance, it seems that the White House instructed the bomb to be silent.

the White House wanted the information not to be released.

Will check that later --

but the complications of it suggest military work.

of course, actual demolition experts like brent blanchard or mark loiseaux say it wasn't controlled demolition.

what a preposterous notion!

And, only someone desperate to deny the reality of 9/11 would suggest the collapses weren't
controlled demolition which is visible to the naked eye!

There were evidently a number of different means used to bring down the towers --
including demolition and Thermite which is used by military!

And, gee, why would I accept the premise that neocons, or corrupt government, wold plot
"false flag" attacks? We have only the examples of Operation Northwoods and Nixon's
Huston Plan to argue for them? Not to mention the fake "Gulf of Tonkin" attacks!!

Makes no sense . . . ? Unfortunately, capitalism supplies a yardstick based only on the
dollar bill. "Complicated and risky scheme" . . . ? How about lying us into a war in Iraq?
Was that complciated and risky? The WTC was not going to be permitted to use demolition to
bring down the WTC towers which had many problems. Scaffolding was going to have to be
built to dismantle the buildings at huge cost.

And -- yes -- as we all continue to push for accountability and prosecution of criminal
elected officials, we will all continue to push for real investigations of 9/11.

could construct a 110 story scaffold. talk about silly and preposterous...

The fucking planes themselves plus the fire.


Without the planes...no collapse.

Without the fire after the planes hit...no collapse.