ANYONE can sign the petition at www.AE911Truth.org. -- Please sign...and encourage others to also sign. -- http://www.ae911truth.org/ Support "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

I don't write here often, but I found this interview was really impressive, I'd like to thank Dr. MacQueen for his excellent, focused presentation, without exaggeration. Dr. MacQueens professionalism is something to be admired.

Thank you Dr. McQueen. You were brilliant. Your points are valid. You did a great service to the movement. I am so glad you are part of the Truth seeking team.

I have a few questions and an observation.

Why didn't UL just make computer models for their tests? They did actual physical tests and then tried to cover up the results. Could this be why Dr. Sham didn't do physical tests? Why wouldn't you test the thermal expansion hypothesis by building a scale physical model of the building? Are physical tests better indicators than computer models? Isn't it true that when computer models are used, one can massage the input numbers to get the desired results? Could we FOIA their models and their data entered?

After the building came down, were there long pretzel like columns wadded up in the debris, or were there beams cut in truck trailer length pieces like is reported about WTC 1 and 2?

Observations:

The NIST published on their website a picture showing a tall stack of papers representing the so called study. So for Dr. Sham to say that his job wasn't to convince skeptics is bogus. The photo is a classic PR tactic trying to emphasize by showing the quantity of paper, that this report is thorough and above reproach. Unfortunately for them, quantity doesn't necessarily translate to quality.

As I have stated before, if there weren't criminal implications to the CD conclusion, they would have come to that conclusion in a very short amount of time. CD by thermate wasn't on their menu and could not be their conclusion. Imagine the fallout for Dr. Sham if he came to the conclusion that WTC 7 was demolished by controlled demolition. Would he keep his job? Would his life be in danger? You see, CD was not an option for him or any of the other NIST tools that worked on this project. That, my friends, is what you call extreme bias and nullifies the objectivity of the study.

You see Dr. Sham works for NIST. NIST is under the Department Of Commerce. The Secretary of the Department of Commerce is a cabinet position under Cheney/Bush.

Since many of us believe that the US is a Corporatocracy, it seems fitting that the coverup report would come from the Department of Commerce.

Bullshit! Why wasn't there thermal expansion enough to cause collapse in any other building fires? Especially the ones that burned longer.

1) Dr. Sunder never answered the very logical point by Graeme that points 2-12 were hypotheticals, not evidence. Not PHYSICAL evidence.
2) Dr. Sunder attacks this criticism by noting -- disingenuously, I believe -- that modern aircraft are designed on computer and then fly.
No one is suggesting that computer modeling is not useful, it is simply NOT the best evidence. Models could have been built of the
assemblies and heat tested.
3) If the steel members had been preserved then there would have been HARD evidence of the temperatures obtained and the stresses
experienced.

If NIST had wanted to, they could have developed a computer model that showed CD brought the building down. Hell, they could have probably developed a computer model that showed that energy beams brought it down! As Mr. MacQueen cleverly pointed out to them, their theory is based on zero evidence. NIST chose to cherry pick the evidence that was available to them, ignore all evidence that was contrary to their hypothesis, and develop some wacky computer model to confirm it. I really fear for the future of science.

Very solid job by Dr. MacQueen..............but......why in the holy heck didn't he ask Dr. Sunder about the "rivers" of moleten metal that existed for WEEKS under the rubble of collapsed WTC 7? Why didn't he ask about the USGS thermal images that showed temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees F at the collapse site for WEEKS after the collapse even though tens of thousands of gallons of water were continuously applied to it?

As the NIST already admits, the temperatures of the fires in WTC 7 came nowhere near the extreme temperatures required to melt steel.

Where then, did this extreme heat come from? Where did all the molten metal come from? Where? How is it possible?

People have to know about the molten metal. The government stooges, of course, will never so much as whisper the phrase. They have to ignore or deny its existence at all costs or they are cooked. It can't be explained away.

Lots and lots of molten metal at all 3 collapses sites (and NONE at any of the sites of buildings that were pummled by debris and burned but didn't collapse).

Where the hell did it come from? It is a simple and obvious question that NO ONE from the government side has ever addressed.