DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Thank god i don’t have a job- got rightsized in Greenspan’s mortgage meltdown- full time student this semester, studying Communications, Sociology and Network Administration. Come summer I’ll be looking.
Unlike Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of DailyKos.com, I will not be going thru any 6 month or longer interview process with the CIA ; if you ever catch me doing some bullsh!t like that, please pull my covers.
Commonwealth Club 6-2-06 - Kos CIA comments 11:54”-16:25”
The Truth About Kos (DailyKos)
As a result of my flexible schedule, today I was able to:
1) Post the Fourteen Points article on IndyMedia
2) Respond to posts on my OpEdNews.com Diary (thanks to all who posted, especially Tom Murphy)
Announcing 9/11 Truth: "14 Points of WTC Destruction" Media Visibility Week
3) Scour the web for coverage of “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”. I’ve set up Google and Yahoo comprehensive search alerts to catch new coverage daily; if you haven’t used those, check it out; search News on google or yahoo, and somewhere on the page you’ll see an option for creating an alert for your search term. Don’t rely on it; it’s just handy.
Mathaba.net: 9/11 Revisionist Science Published in Civil Engineering Journal
Week of Truth (includes Fourteen Points plug/link, other commentary) - by Carol Brouillet
This OpEdNews Diary comes up in the Google News search as well.
On the Web searches, I came across some very thoughtful comments from others who were posting the links and comments; if you think it’s a good idea, grab and paste both the Digg link and the Direct Journal link at the same time, like this:
DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Also, if you think the publication of this 14 point letter (a simple outline for productive discussion of facts already asserted by NIST and FEMA) in a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal deserves media and Congressional attention consider posting a Diary entry here at
Rob Kall’s liberal editorial policies in support of People, Community, Truth, the Constitution and First Amendment Rights FOAVC.org are the reason this website is popular to the point of 600,000 monthly visitors. You’ll have an instant audience, plus your posts turn up in web searches. Go ahead and say something dumb in support of the Truth; I’ll bet you’ll be surprised at how many of the People lurking you enlighten, and you’ll generate more visibility for the Journal article, Digg link and the issues during this crucial one-week media visibility window.
4) Write this update, post here and at 911Blogger.com
"Fourteen Points" Media Visibility Update 4/21/08
5) Draft and blast a rougher version of the following to my personal email list, listserves and alternative media/bloggers that I thought would/should want to publish about the Fourteen Points:
DIGG LINK!!! If you're tired of waiting over 6 years for the NIST WTC 7 Report, have questions about the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2 and want the scientific community to know about and address these 14 points, then please Digg the Journal article here:
DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Dear Friends, Family, Bloggers, Journalists, Reporters, Editors, Publishers, Producers, Professors, Universities, Members of Congress and other Public Servants, NIST, FEMA and Who Else?
A letter has just been published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific engineering journal; this is significant because the authors are known for hypothesizing that on 9/11 WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition. In their letter they seek to reach agreement on grounds for “productive discussion” on the subject of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, based on the 14 points outlined in the letter Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction , which are based on assertions of fact already made by NIST and FEMA.
Given that the authors agree with the NIST and FEMA reports on all 14 points listed in the article, what’s the issue? The issue is that the NIST and FEMA reports appear to be grossly inadequate, contradicting both their own conclusions and established facts. Read and see for yourself whether or not you agree; now that this has been published, the scientific community will be debating it.
Can you forward this link to Noam Chomsky? Preceding the actual article, I’ve pasted some of Dr. Jones commentary on the publication, which includes a short Chomsky quote:
Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!
"With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me: “You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”
Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history."
September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
August 1, 2006 Scripps News Poll "16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40, published by Bentham.org
DIGG.com: Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction
