Another of our shows went out on London's Resonance 104.4 FM yesterday

It featured:

The Elephant in the Room: Dean visited the recent Global Peace & Unity Event to gage Muslim opinion on the attacks of September 11th 2001

What the Papers Don't Say (Football Special): Irreverent discussion

An interview with mechanical engineer and contributor to the Journal of 911 Studies Gordon Ross

Plus music

Listen to an mp3 of the show here (60 mins)

Some people are reporting that the video freezes halfway through. Try going directly to video.google and refreshing if it locks up:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&hl=en

"Engineer Gordon Ross MEng. at the Indian YMCA, London on the 8th June 2007 discussing the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001."

Some of the research presented by Ross is discussed in his article;
DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

See? He really exists!

Thanks, Andy!

DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?

Continued after the jump...

From: http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist.

In this article I will deal with some of the responses to my work as presented on this web site and elsewhere. At the end I will, in time, list some of the favourable comments, but firstly I will deal with the criticisms. Please forgive me for dealing with the easy ones first, but when such inviting targets present themselves, it is difficult not to take advantage, and they do provide some very welcome light relief. The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available. The "fact" presented there regarding the absence of any Gordon Ross in Dundee's register of births, would make me at least 120 years old, and I must admit that as I read through the site, I did begin to feel every day of that extended life span. So what was their explanation for my existence, or more correctly, my non-existence? According to the evidence presented there, I am actually Professor Jones masquerading as someone else.

The events of the 5th anniversary 9/11 weekend made it known to the Establishment that 9/11 truth is here to stay, and they are fighting back in full force. James Meigs and his Popular Mechanics propaganda engine have gone on a media tour, often appearing unopposed to scoff at "conspiracy theories".

In addition to our current level of activism, in addition to our street actions, we need to accelerate what we are doing in such a way as to completely neutralize media hit pieces. As the 9/11 media hit pieces increase and government/Establishment hired scientists and engineers are trotted out to explain the impossible, we need to bring a stronger degree of scientific credibility behind the controlled demolition thesis.

A recent Scripps Howard poll stated that 36% believed that it was at least somewhat likely that elements of the government were complicit in 9/11. We need the same to happen in the scientific community with regard to the suspicious collapses of the towers.

Let's initiate a 9/11 Science Campaign aimed specifically at scientists and engineers. Let's reach out to the scientists and engineers, the vast majority of whom probably have little or no memory of what the WTC collapses looked like, the vast majority of whom have probably never heard of WTC 7. Send them copies of "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" and "Waking Up From Our Nightmare".

Why We Need a 9/11 Science Campaign:

1. To not do so would be to ignore the obvious - that fire does not cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically, shred itself into fine dust, create rivers of molten steel, and generate such intense fires and heat that persisted into the winter. It should not take a PhD to point this out, but in the infowar, it raises our stature in the eyes of the general public to hear an army of engineers coming forward.

2. It gives us an accelerated credibility that truly lets us leverage our efforts, especially compared to reaching out to the layperson.

3. To protect and validate the brave scientists and engineers who have already gone public. Engineers and college professors who speak out are being ridiculed and sometimes punished for their 9/11 beliefs. Clearly, the Establishment is trying to make an example of people who dare to challenge the official 9/11 fable. But they cannot do this to the 9/11 truth movement if professors speak out in much greater numbers. Cries of "conspiracy theory" by writers such as Alexander Cockburn will ring hollow against an army of serious scientists (not that he'll stop trying).

I graduated from an engineering school sometime ago (Cooper Union, B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1999). I've started with my Alma Mater, in sending out a copy of Jones' paper to some of my professors, and encouraging them to take a closer look at 9/11, in the hopes that more will speak out. I implore everyone to do the same with universities and companies in the U.S. and abroad.