My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972.

Dr. Grabbe has also published a notable book providing his scientific analyses of the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC7. Loaded with photographs, this is his fourth book written for the general public.

"National Swindle on the World Trade Center" challenges the official story of 9/11 with scientific data and analysis. Initial pages are available free here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098JOSJS#reader_B0098JOSJS

The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.

Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Yesterday, I went to a town hall meeting with an aid to US Senator Mike Lee (UT) and expressed my concerns regarding NIST's report on WTC 7. The Senator's aid was open minded and well aware that some felt strongly that events of 9/11 were allowed by the US government or even “orchestrated” (his term).

It seems to me that a new investigation by Congress would be most unlikely at this stage. Instead, I requested that NIST's computer model for the WTC7 failure and fall be released to us so that independent testing can proceed (my letter below). The aid to Senator Lee assured me that he would pass this request along to the Senator and include my concerns in his report to Senator Lee.

Do you think this approach has merit? Could we successfully apply pressure to NIST to release their WTC 7 computer model, via Senators, Congresspersons, polls, etc? Is this a worthwhile goal for the 9/11 Truth Community? Could AE911Truth engineers run the model if it were released?

To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)
From:
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, Ret.
[address given]

1. The key to good science is independent verification.

A friend and fellow 9/11 researcher recently wrote to me that he has cancer. I wrote to him regarding alternative treatments, with summaries of articles by Dr. Mercola, MD, an advocate of alternative health approaches. As my friend replied, "Once having seen the truth about 9/11 it becomes easier to see that other authorities may be concealing important truth. I have been suspicious of "big pharma"... for some time. "

In December 2006, Dr Mercola sympathetically addressed the 9/11 Truth issue. He wrote:

[quote]"According to a poll conducted by Scripps News Service, a full one-third of Americans think that the U.S. government either carried out the 9/11 attacks themselves, or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.

The government's pattern of deception on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, and illegal wiretapping has allowed alternate theories about 9/11 to flourish....
...it's a fact that one-third of Americans believe in some variation of the 9/11 Truth Movement...

Mike McAuliff collected a sample of the WTC dust on 9/11/2001, and a few weeks ago sent it to a lab for analysis.

He writes:  "very fine fragments of photographs, fingernails, bones, hair, and tissue."  What Mike does not ask is: What agent reduced human bone, fingernails, and tissue to very fine fragments (as he notes from lab reports)? Will pancaking floors have this effect -- if so how?  It seems to me that pancaking floors would tend to trap bones, not fragment them as explosives would do.  Centimeter-long human bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, about 200 meters (or yards) away from the WTC complex.  What force splintered human bone and hurled it hundreds of yards?  Are not these observations evidence for the use of explosives?  I hesitate to speak in scientific terms of of such a sensitive matter, but victims' relatives (including Bob McIlvaine) have asked that I, as a Professor of Physics, speak out on these issues. 

A long article regarding 9/11 and challenges to the official narrative appears today in the Brazilian “Ultimo Segundo.” I was interviewed by the author, Marsilea Gombata. A Google translation appears below.

Link to the article in Portuguese: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+ainda+rondam+o+11+de+setembro/n1597197211446.html

SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 11 - TEN YEARS
“Unanswered questions still surround the September 11
Ten years later, scientists urge new investigation into the attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania”

Marsilea Gombata, iG NY | 09/07/2011 08:00

Ten years later, on Sept. 11 is still shrouded in mystery, explanations that do not suit everyone and many questions unanswered. In the midst of several theories that raise the possibility the attacks were masterminded a plan by American authorities - because of coordinated actions by terrorists have been released without much technical knowledge and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) had a hurry to invade Afghanistan less than a month later -, academics and experts based on scientific evidence for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks.

During my career as a physicist, I have done research on muon-catalyzed fusion and metal-catalyzed fusion (both of which are examples of cold fusion and are published in the journal NATURE), on the dust generated on 9/11, on solar energy and non-conventional alternate energy; and on earthquakes. I have and will speak publicly on all of these research areas, except that I decline to say much at all publicly on earthquake research. Recently I was asked why this is the case.

When confronted with an interesting claim, I generally ask – What is the physical evidence and what experiments have been done? And -- Has the claim reached the level of a peer-reviewed publication? Not that such a publication is a necessity prior to discussion, but if there is a refereed publication, I would start with that.

Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

      I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com )  Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.

She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?

                 When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper.

 Let me know what you think -- I find evidence that Glenn Beck in the last few weeks is raising questions about the government "creating a situation" -- a false flag event.  

Exhibit 1:  "if you ever got an oppressive state, if you ever had people who didn't respect the Constitution at the top, the fastest thing they could do to take over is create a situation and then have the Army march into these states.” http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/48957/ 

As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as a peer-reviewer.  I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system,  I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here:   http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html .  The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom.   Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS.  I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:

After a period of several weeks, Bentham Scientific has restored access to our "Fourteen Points" paper, but the link has changed -- please update your links to this paper:

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction"
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F.
Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 (April 2008)

The new link is: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf

(The old (defunct) link is:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM )

I am incorrectly quoted (to put it mildly) in http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/steven-jones-on-wtc-7-collapse-we.html :
"Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."

No, I never said that. The blog goes on with its despicable misrepresentations, putting words in my mouth that I never said:

"Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse. 'We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.' "

Checking today, the count of architects and engineers calling for a new, serious 9/11 investigation is 1197:
"1197 architectural and engineering professionals and 8178 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. The petition is open to everyone."
Note that the total membership approaches a significant milestone: 10,000 members!
This calls for an effort to get a few hundred more to sign up -- and then for a big celebration. I am inviting people to sign up on forums that I frequent (including 911blogger).
Perhaps you will be #10,000 ;)