Demolishing the demolition "hypothesis"

[Annie]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Here is a website which examines the WTC demolition "hypothesis" and does
its very best to demiolish it, so to speak. Can we get a volunteer to take
this on by a) visiting the site below, b) examining the arguments, and c)
sending Mr Brumsen a message with your analysis?

Since Brumsen wants to appear "scientific," it looks like he wants to go
head-to-head with us - a wonderful opportunity to repair any weaknesses in
our arguments.

If you decide to do this, please copy me on your correspondence.

Cheers,

Kee


----------
From: Michiel Brumsen <m.brumsen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:05:07 +0100
To: akd@uwo.ca
Subject: 9/11 controlled demolition hypothesis

Hello,

I hope to be able to interest you in the following page:
http://911hypothesis.blogspot.com/2006/02/update.html
It is an attempt at scientific consideration of how strong the case for
refutation of the controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2 is. (The jury is
still out).

best wishes,
Michiel Brumsen

[Jane]

Hi

I will "have a go" at this - but I won't just "copy you in" - I shall send my attempts to you "for approval" before forwarding!!

Surely this can not be too hard (witness my outburst last night!) it must be like trying to "scientifically prove" that the moon is not, in effect, made of cream cheese, to a group of "rational scientists" who have all been brainwashed into believing it is!

Just having a go at this will be a good exercise for me!

[andrewwatson]

I'm going to have a look too, Jane . See you there?

[ian neal]

The discusion on this blog appears to be an extension of the debate on the uk indymedia thread and focuses around some of the papers found on the 911myths site.

This is a challenge not just to us as a British network but to the global 9/11 truth movement (or at least the vast majority of the movement that relies in part on the case for controlled demolition of the towers to make its case) and hopefully we will get some well argued responses. We should watch other forums/sites to guage the response

It is to be welcomed. What I would hope happens is that the debate gets centred on a professional site (that is sympathetic or atleast not antagonistic to 9/11 truth) where we can invite expert opinion to gather. The nist review site has the potential but as yet there is little traffic

Those that are taking up this challenge need to connect and collaborate

[Sinclair]

I also came across this (Finnish) site dealing with WTC7, which provides some useful references etc.

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/

Ian, as you stated, the WTC Independent Peer Review Committee site athttp://nistreview.org/ has had little traffic (I increased the post volume 10% when 1 made a couple of posts there myself!!), but nevertheless, the site should be publicised.

I would suggest that this is a good place to point academics & those with an indepth knowledge of engineering analysis, i.e. the delegates attending the forthcoming ICE Conference in London on March 27th.

It is essential that any such industry experts & professionals (whom we NEED to get involved) i.e. such as delegates who may visit the website, do not feel that they are engaging with 'Conspiraloons', but rather engaging in a rational debate where anomalies are expressed, researched & investigated & commented upon, even anonamously, if considered necessary.

The forum at WTC IPRC site should, I believe, be referenced upon the Info pack which Andrew has said he will prepare for the London ICE Conference

To quote from the WTC IPRC site

The Independent Peer Review Committee is a growing collective of professionals and academics who are evaluating the procedures and conclusions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology World Trade Center investigation.

As members of the building and research communities, we realize the importance of learning from the massive destruction of the WTC complex and applying relevant lessons in practice.

[Andrew Johnson]

I will include this info in the information I put together. I will post it back here for review.