9/11 Poll for Scientists, Engineers and Architects
Please answer the following very simple poll, in order to help people understand the events of 9/11. People without a scientific background sometimes have trouble understanding which theories are likely to be true and which are not. This poll is not intended to reach a preconceived result. Instead, I am just trying to get a sense of what the scientific, engineering and architectural community believes.
Please give your honest opinion, based upon your scientific, engineering or architecture knowledge and experience.
For each theory listed below, state whether you think -- given the available evidence and the laws of science -- such a theory is likely or unlikely to be true:
1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally
demolished.
2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate.
3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.
4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.
5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.
6. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and no airplane crashed into the buildings.
7. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and aircraft other than Boeing planes crashed into the buildings.
Please post your answers -- including your name and background (so that we can assess your credibility) here.
Thank you.
Postscript: Someone asked my view of the above-described questions. My view is not particularly important, as I am not a scientist, engineer or architect. However, I have compiled the views of many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers. For anyone who believes the government's version of events, I invite you to see what these world-class scientists say.
Please give your honest opinion, based upon your scientific, engineering or architecture knowledge and experience.
For each theory listed below, state whether you think -- given the available evidence and the laws of science -- such a theory is likely or unlikely to be true:
1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally
demolished.
2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate.
3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.
4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.
5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.
6. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and no airplane crashed into the buildings.
7. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and aircraft other than Boeing planes crashed into the buildings.
Please post your answers -- including your name and background (so that we can assess your credibility) here.
Thank you.
Postscript: Someone asked my view of the above-described questions. My view is not particularly important, as I am not a scientist, engineer or architect. However, I have compiled the views of many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers. For anyone who believes the government's version of events, I invite you to see what these world-class scientists say.
26 Comments:
In answering GW's poll, I cite for evidence and scientific reasoning the papers published in the Journalof911Studies.com, and related studies and research.
1. Very likely
2. Very likely
3. Very unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. Very likely
6. Very unlikely
7. Very unlikely
Dr. Steven Jones, retired Professor of Physics with over fifty peer-reviewed publications.
I am no scientist but i cant resist sharing my common sense-based observations:
Q 1&2: Yes. As part of toroughly orchestrated psy op.
Q 3&4: very unlikely.
Q 5: Yes, remote controlled to ensure fail-safe, accurate and timely hitting the towers. ("Hijackers" of any kind would have been an extremly unreliable method)
Q 6&7: No. original video and photos of the planes show evidence of their being large airplanes with some sort of extra equipment attached to it.
1. No doubt.
2. Very likely
3. Zero evidence suggests this.
4. Very unlikely
5. Very likely
6. Very unlikely
7. Very unlikely
Justin Keogh
Physics Undergraduate
Tucson, AZ
http://governmentterror.com
1. Agree
2. Yes, likely
3. No evidence for this
4. No evidence for this
5. Agree
6. No evidence for this
7. No evidence for this
Victoria Ashley, Bachelor of Architecture, Masters in Psychology Research, STJ911 committee member.
There are a number of scientific papers which can be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com and which provide a basis for the following answers to this poll.
1. Very likely
2. Very likely
3. Very unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. Very likely
6. Very unlikely
7. Very unlikely
Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer.
1. Very unlikely
2. Very unlikely
3. Very unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. Very unlikely
6. Very unlikely
7. Very unlikely
All professional studies, all credible evidence, and Occam's Razor agree with these conclusions.
Shawn Leitch
Engineering Undergraduate
Toronto, Ontario
1) With certainty.
2) Very likely.
3) Very unlikely.
4) Very unlikely
5) Very likely
6) Very unlikely
7) Very unlikely
Scott Page, M.Arch, U.C. Berkeley
37 years design/building experience.
1. Yes. Controlled demolition (CD) is the only hypothesis that fully explains (most of) the observed data. And/or is a bad choice for a question.
2. Yes. Evidence for cutting charges and other explosives is documented. The collapse data matches with CD.
3. Not known. But data exists that suggests there were far more powerful explosions or reactions than those typically produced by conventional CD. See pyroclastic clouds of pulverized concrete.
4. Not known. But estimates of the energy needed to demolish the central columns of WTC 1 & 2 outruns that available from typical CD explosives. See Bali and Oklahoma City for other examples of explosive destruction that do not match the official explanation.
5. No forensic evidence has been released that would identify the planes. They appear to have been airliner-size jets in the videos.
6. Unlikely that the video was faked. It would be (was) easier to do it for real at WTC and suppress all video evidence at the Pentagon. Real planes hit the towers, but no-one has yet found out which planes.
7. Not a logical question. What is the difference between faked videos and faked tail numbers? Is this question designed to elicit information or confuse?
Your request for qualifications is meaningless. Anyone familiar with the rules of evidence, the principles of the scientific method, and a high school education in physics should be able to answer the questions. But Very likely or Very unlikely are not answers, only unsupported opinions. Whether the person spouting them is qualified is irrelevant.
One of the most common mistakes of popular thought is to believe that when a scientist speaks or writes he/she is stating scientific facts. Scientists are just as idiotic as the rest of us, which is why there is peer review.
Your poll will prove nothing because it is poorly worded and, in scientific terms, is a badly designed experiment that can only produce false or useless data. But it's step in the right direction.
1. Very likely
2. Very likely
3. Very, very unlikely (and my first post-Ph.D. job offer was from a laser weapons contractor)
4. Impossible, based on the evidence
5. Likely
6. Unlikely
7. Unlikely
Kevin O, Ph.D., physics professor for 10 years, tenured, industrial experience, other positions
1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally
demolished. CERTAIN.
2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate. VERY LIKELY.
3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.
UNLIKELY BUT POSSIBLE.
4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.
UNLIKELY BUT POSSIBLE.
5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.
CERTAIN, BUT NOT THE PLANES THAT WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE FLOWN IN. EG, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS 737S RATHER THAN 767 AND 757.
6. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and no airplane crashed into the buildings.
UNLIKELY.
7. The video and photographs of Boeing airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were faked, and aircraft other than Boeing planes crashed into the buildings.
UNLIKELY, EXCEPT AT PENTAGON, WHERE BOEING FLEW OVER AT SAME TIME A MISSILE DEVICE WAS LAUNCHED HORIZONTALLY.
1. No. There is no evidence that has ever been presented to demonstrate the existence of explosives. ALL of the studies done of the dust beginning in October 2001 have never shown any trace of any explosive.
2. No. Ditto.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes. However, as we all know, there are no government "claims." There is only the convergence of evidence from hundreds of different sources that demonstrates this conclusion is correct.
6. No. It is absurd to think that independent photographs and videos taken by idependent photographers could all be faked to show the same thing.
7. No. Ditto
There is no credibility to claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, none of which have yet been demonstrated much less been able to refute the massive evidence from hundreds of independent sources.
I agree with Dr. Jones, I would also like to bring up the point that timing and probabliity has alot to do with making the case for intentional demolition. It isn't that we see Molten metal dripping that makes the case for thermite use, it is we see molten metal dripping and a few seconds late the building collapses. The 2 are tied together, the probablity of these two events being independant events is remote. DHill, Industrial Engineer and expert on Statistical Applications
1.substantial evidence - yes
2.substantial evidence - yes
3. no evidence - no
4. no evidence - no
5. substantial evidence of Boeing brand planes, but not of the two planes claimed to have hit the tower. Govt needs to release plane debris recovered from ground zero site
6.evidence to the contrary - no
7. insufficient evidence - no
I am a trial attorney with 29 years experience. You must have "substantial evidence" to prove a fact to allow an issue to go to the jury or to withstand a challenge on appeal.
The request for qualifications IS reasonable in fighting fire with fire. Much of this whole campaign against truth has been to marginalize everyone who does not agree with the newsfeed version of events and discredit us as unthinking bumpkins and kooks not having any authority to question the story. Court cases are regularly decided on the basis of "expert witnesses"
I'm willing to bet that you do not trust any needed medical procedures to "...Anyone familiar with the rules of evidence, the principles of the scientific method, and a high school education in physics..." No, you'll want someone who is demonstrably qualified to answer your question about that chest pain or toothache.
With all due respect to YOUR opinion on the matter, which I happen to share, the public and those in decision making positions are much more likely to be swayed by "Steven Jones Ph.D.-Physics" than "chris".
-kevin
1. Definately True. The symmetry and speed could not have been caused by random damage/fire.
2. Insufficent data. May have played a part, but do not explain all observed phenomena.
3. Insufficient data. Cannot be ruled out and is a valid and commendable line of inquiry. It required enormous energy or unknown methods to reduce those buildings to dust!
4. Insufficeint data. (Though I would put nothing past these bastards!) Though capable of large amounts of energy, it does not fully explain all phenomena.
5. a. True. The videos shown repeatedly on TV depicting the crashes of FL175 were not real. The 2 FL11 videos don't have enough detail for me to make a determination.
b. I did not witness what hit the towers myself, and video is not reliable, so I cannot answer what if anything hit the towers.
6. a. True, videos I have seen of the crashes do not seem real, or depict real world events.
b. As in Q5b I did not witness what hit the towers, and the video evidence is not reliable so I cannot say.
Ken Inglima, BSEE
1. Yes.
2. No. I see no reason to take Steven Jones' word on thermate evidence. Jones pushes molten metal, but the lack of steam explosions at Ground Zero proves the molten metal to be a hoax. In addition, the molten metal "evidence" has been debunked piece-by-piece here.
3. Yes. The evidence for this is overwhelming. In addition, NIST contracted with two manufacturers of directed energy weapons for the NIST report. See here for full information.
4. No. The blast may appear nuclear, but it was some type of classified directed energy weapon.
5. No. There's no verified airplane wreckage. Airplanes certainly did not make those cookie-cutter cutouts in the steel girders. The WTC Task Force Interviews (from the New York Times) recently went under a new analysis to determine how many of the First Responders reported airplanes. Turns out, only a small percentage did. Even fewer reported hearing the airplane. (A Boeing 767 at that altitude would be louder than front row seats at a rock concert, 120dB.) However, many of the First Responders reported hearing the fighter jets later on!
6. Yes. Those videos violate Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, therefore they are fake. Even Peter Jennings on ABC knew it was fake. Note his nervousness when they play it back in slow motion in this news clip.
7. No. It was a projection using advanced classified technology.
I have no advanced degree, just the urge to get the TRUTH out.
I will take these questions by assigning a percentage of apodicticity to my answers. I think this is appropriate methodology.
1. 99.9999 certainty that at the very least, the pilots or control systems of the airliners showed intent on striking the buildings. That there were supplimental actions present in their demolotion I will assign 99.999% certainty.
2. 99.999 certain there were these types of systems used in the demolition as a form of redundancy. I think thermate may well have been used, though there is evidence to suggest that aluminum from the cladding, iron oxide from galvanic corrosion of the underlying outer steel structure mixed with sulphates from the drywall, permiting a sustained thermitic or thermatic reaction that resulted in the sustained iron fires in the building pans.
3. 51% certain. This number may seem high. Having considered Judy Wood's research, other evidence, and some knowledge of the state of this art, this number may actually be low. Remember, redundancy for a critical operation combined with access to the state of the art.
4. 51% certain. For reasons stated in answer 3, elevated tritium levels, and the color and shape or the dust plumes as the rose from all 3 buildings. Also, those in charge of this operation had these mininukes available. What's to stop them from using them?
5. 99.999999 'Nuff said.
6. 0.000001 Do the math with Q5
7. 0.000001
Peter J. O'Leary
Engineering Technoligist
29 years experience
1. Probably. I do not believe total destruction can be explained without explosives. Several well-articulated proofs on 911Research.WTC7.net and NIST's admission that it cannot account for said destruction harden the controlled demolition hypothesis.
2. I do not know. It is possible.
3. No. The evidence presented by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds is flawed.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. No.
David Ó Laigheanáin
Undergraduate, BSc. software engineering and computer science
1 & 2: Every single skyscraper, football stadium, or other building that I know of has brought down by controlled demolition. Conventional explosives, thermite, or thermate is how controlled demolition is accomplished.
3. I don't even know what directed energy weapons are.
4. Very unlikely, unless they were very small weapons. But even then, you would think that there would be reports of radiation exposure by first responders.
5. I agree that planes crashed into the towers. Were they Boeing planes? I don't know.
6. Highly unlikely.
7. This question seems irrelevant because tail numbers on an airplane generally indicate the manufacturer. So if the tail numbers were faked, then the real planes would (presumably) still exist. Furthermore, can TV accurately capture the tail number of an airplane in the air moving at least 150MPH? If so, it could have been edited.
Why do you need my name to access my credibility?
The ability to rationalize the big picture of 9/11 is not dependent so much on one's education as what one is programmed/conditioned to believe. A competent junior high schooler could ascertain the basics of that awful day and understand how ridiculous the official "spin" is. Details of how the towers were demolished or what actually hit them have been debated for years, which basically has amounted to a waste of time. I'm a chemical engineer with an advanced degree, and I have intelligent engineering friends with the same or higher degrees who adamantly refuse to consider the possibility of our government betraying us. It's purely the phenomenon of one's emotional side eclipsing their rational side.
In response to Kevin's note above.
"Anonymous said...
The request for qualifications IS reasonable in fighting fire with fire."
I disagree. Just because my propaganda is better than your propaganda doesn't mean we've resolved a dispute. When R. Feynman led the Rogers Commission to conclude that the Challenger disaster was due to the failure of O rings, his theory was accepted because it matched the evidence and could be repeated, not because of his title and qualifications (which had little to do with space flight).
I agree that 9/11 Truthers have been marginalized and vilified, but mounting a counter-campaign based on the same rhetorical tricks and flawed arguments (straw man, appeal to authority, begging the question, etc.) is not helpful. Yes, "court cases are regularly decided on the basis of "expert witnesses"", but as recent exonerations due to DNA evidence have shown, many expert witnesses are shills and frauds -- or are simply mistaken.
Yes, "the public and those in decision making positions are much more likely to be swayed by "Steven Jones Ph.D.-Physics" than "chris"", but that does not make their beliefs any more rational.
If you cannot argue for a rational and logical examination of the evidence, then you cannot argue for 9/11 Truth.
1. Absolutely not
2. Absolutely not
3. Absolutely not
4. Absolutely not
5. Absolutely
6. Absolutely not
7. Absolutely not
Credibility....oohh...how about an IQ of over 180 and going on 6 years of studying everything there is to study about 9/11.
Facts are facts. Speculation and conjecture do not establish facts. The mere concept of a "Cover up" or "Inside Job" negates itself instantly due to the impossible demands of such an "Operation".
In todays' society of instant information and information dissemination, if would be IMPOSSIBLE for such an "OP" to have remained undisclosed in some way, shape, or form.
The 9/11 "Truth Movement" is nothing but a fad spread by the Internet and fueled by weak minded simpletons who hate GWB specifically and the US in general.
There is no "PROOF" that substantiates ANY of the "evidence" spouted by Jones, Reynolds, Wood, or any of the other pseudo scientists.
This "Poll" is a poor excuse to elicit the desired answers and show false/fraudulent results that will be turned into "proof".
...and...Avionics Installer/Service Technician, D/A Circuit Designer, Explosives Technician, Construction Engineer, Video Producer/Engineer, Broadcast Engineer/Director, and a lot more.
What happened on 9/11 is exactly what happened...no more, no less.
That last post is case in point of Chris' post.
This anonymous poster is sure the cat's meow,
yet brings very little to the table.
If we are dealing with facts, I'll stick with the laws of physics, rather than what "OPs" are capable of.
The "evidence" cited by Jones, Reynolds, Wood, is certainly supported on their sites. Why is it that supporters of the official line cannot cite any scientific proof?
To be fair, I'm not a PE, but an electronics engineering student. May not sound very relevant but I know statics (and understand yield strengths, ultimate strengths, safety factors, etc.), mechanics (energy and work principles are most relevant probably), and most of the same math that civil engineers have to learn, on top of having to understand electronic systems. :P
1. True. I cannot believe that sagging trusses could have exerted even near the required force on the exterior columns for the tower. WTC7 hardly even needs to be analyzed scientifically, which is why there is still no report explaining it.
2. Disagree.
3. Disagree.
4. Not sure.
5. Not sure.
6. Disagree.
7. Boeing is heavily-contracted by the military. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't flights 11 and 175, but they were probably still Boeings.
I'm a chemical engineer with an advanced degree, and I have intelligent engineering friends with the same or higher degrees who adamantly refuse to consider the possibility of our government betraying us. It's purely the phenomenon of one's emotional side eclipsing their rational side.
EXACTLY.
The facts are what they are, they cannot be refuted. They can be ignored, however. And they usually ARE ignored by those who refuse to even begin considering the possibility that 9/11/2001's events were intentional.
Some people just cannot accept reality. They prefer their own fantasies, and they will defend them as if their own existence depends on it -- and in many ways, it does!
One doesn't need to be a PhD-bearer or even an MS-bearer to know that the official story is a lie. Here's why.
1) metallurgy.
structural/architectural steel of the type used in a building such as the WTC 1, 2 and 7 buildings cannot deform or melt at the temperatures achievable with jet fuel fires.
2) physics.
a multi-story structure that is sub-structurally supported (i.e., not made of earth, peat bricks, thatch, straw, or the like in a frameless construction) building cannot fall on itself without the utter disintegration of its structural support. weakening of that support causes a building to deform, to sway, to bend, to fall apart piecemeal and perhaps even to break in some places.
These two points alone refute the "official story."
What's my expertise? BS in biology, certified steel tubing brazer (custom bicycle frame builder), law degree, eternally inquisitive mind, scientifically oriented thinker.
As someone who brazes steel tubing with oxy-acetylene torch heat, I know first-hand what causes steel to deform, and it takes a hell of a lot more heat than simple jet fuel and jet & building construction materials burning.
Post a Comment
<< Home