There have been such articles.

Academic Papers - The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/2001 from a critical perspective.

Title wasn't mean to be deceptive. I truly thought there haven't been any peer-reviewed articles. Thanks for the link. I'll definitely do my homework.

Title wasn't mean to be deceptive.

You're right. I apologize. I've edited that part out of my comment.

Keep in mind that these are only articles that are critical in some way of the official reports. They are cherry-picked for the documentary and it is not clear from the site what the peer reviews said (they could just be nonsense, who knows?) And focusing exclusively on them without reading more vanilla papers will not give an accurate sampling of the academic consensus.

and it is not clear from the site what the peer reviews said

Interesting. When do you think the reviews will come?

Well you could look up the papers outside the site and see the reviews that way. I'm sure at least some of them are questionable, if you look at the universities some of the professors come from. I'm willing to bet the reviews are mixed at best.

Peer reviewed 'scientific' journals are watched over for anything outside of the norm. Is this not accurate?

[deleted]

What? How hard would it be to find controversial articles that were released and peer reviewed? I don't think it would be difficult.

Non-sequitur

There is logic in my comment. You said that the 9/11 info won't be published into scientific journals because of the jews. I'm saying controversial information on different topics have already been released and you're saying that doesn't matter. Again, why hasn't the majority of the scientific community published their evidence against the 9/11 commission report?

These journals are run by committees. If you suggest/put forward a certain paper for publication then your position on the committee and your entire academic career could be at stake. It's just not worth it. Certain things are left well alone.

Whatever "controversial" things you speak of obviously aren't as important as this.

Another redditor just commented and left a link to peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. I'm going to take a look at them. I'd be interested in your take on the matter.

[deleted]

19 Muslims...several of whom are mysteriously alive and well and not involved in any terrorist organization,several more of whom were U.S government contractors at one time, crashed planes into buildings specifically designed to withstand the impact of MULTIPLE strikes airline collisions but instead fell at free fall speeds (not actually possible if they "pancaked" the way the 911 report claims) straight down, much like an industrial demolition and nothing at all like the "falling tree" scenario that happens when any other tower loses a chunk out of its side. You're right, that evidence needed a lot of twisting...to make it seem plausible that it was anything except a well planned demolition accompanied by a hijacking, designed to further the cause of disarmament and monitoring by the government.

there are a few issues with that. Firstly, it was designed to be able to withstand the impact of a boeing 707 (which is much smaller then the 757's that hit the tower), and at much slower speeds (also the multiple strikes were never meant to be simultaneous). Also, and I can't stress this enough the towers didn't fall at free fall speeds. If you look at the videos you can see the debris around the towers falling faster then the towers themselves.

Three towers. Two planes. Hi defiantshill! Glad to see you didn't abandon us.

You seem to have the wrong person, I am not, nor ever will be defiantshill. Also the proper argument would be "Two planes hit two towers, and the debris severely damaged a third and ignited a fire that raged uncontrolled for hours before causing it's collapse"

the debris severely damaged a third

Now you're calling NIST's WTC7 report false. Why don't you believe your government's narrative of 9.11.01?

You seem to be straw manning my argument. The fire was of course the main factor, but it would be stupid to think that the damage from the debris had no effect.

the proper argument would be... the debris severely damaged a third

It's your distorted argument. If you think NIST is straw manning you then you best take it up with NIST.

You again are taking what i'm saying out of context. You seem to think that just because it was never hit by a plane it must have been controlled demolition. The fact is that the fire (the main factor), combined with damage from debris (which is still mentioned too) caused it to fall.

Two sentences dedicated to denouncing me.

One sentence to support your lie.

Try as you might, you can't rewrite NIST's report.

I fail to understand what you're getting at. We know from the past that fire can cause serious structural damage to a building (see 1 meridian plaza). Also, sorry for taking a while to respond, didn't have much time lately.

For eight years after the fire, One Meridian Plaza sat vacant and damaged right in center of Philadelphia's business district. The building was caught in litigation between the owners and the insurance company over how much the insurers would pay the owners and how repairs or demolition would proceed. Businesses near the empty high-rise closed or moved and the city sued the owners to do something with the building. After lawsuits were settled, the building was declared a total loss and began to be dismantled in 1998.

Yea, good comparison. Very apt. Much wow.

There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors.

So yes, it is fucking aplicable. Compare that to what WTC 7 underwent, and damage from debris on top of that. I fail to see how you don't think the fire could cause any damage to the structure.

Compare that to what WTC 7 underwent

24 hr fire vs. 7 hour fire

37 story building vs. 47 story building

Good comparisons. Very intuitive. Much wow

You again seem to be ignoring my point which is that a fire can cause structural damage, which is what the entire "inside job" argument involving WTC 7 fully denies.

which is what the entire "inside job" argument involving WTC 7 fully denies.

Straw man

Not really actually. Over and over I hear the argument "a fire couldn't have done that (when referring to the WTC 7 collapse)". The evidence I presented shows that not only can a fire cause structural damage, but it also doesn't need to be anywhere near as hot as thermite to do it.

You're arguing with yourself.

NIST didn't release the computer simulation data that would have shown how they made WTC7 fall. Their analysis is incomplete.

You on the other hand are arguing with yourself. Good luck with that.

Firstly, they released quite a bit of data regarding how and why the towers collapsed. Secondly, your original argument was that it was a controlled demolition, which I disagreed with.

NIST didn't release the computer simulation data that would have shown how they made WTC7 fall. Their analysis is incomplete.

It's what NIST didn't say which proves they can't use science to back up their conspiracy theory, which is that fire alone can bring down a 47 story skyscraper with 48 core columns cut nearly simultaneously to show free fall in the demolition process.

Two issues. Firstly, I just explained the fire thing. Secondly, none of the buildings entered free fall. WTC 7 fell around 40% of free fall speeds. Also, out of curiosity, what do you think took WTC 7 down, and why take it down?

I just explained the fire thing.

You aren't NIST. I give a flying fuck what you think you explained.

Secondly, none of the buildings entered free fall.

Now you are disagreeing with your government's version of WTC7's improbable demolition. You sure you want to go that route? Now you're doubting the scientists that you supported a comment ago...

Now you are disagreeing with your government's version of WTC7's improbable demolition. You sure you want to go that route? Now you're doubting the scientists that you supported a comment ago...

Actually;

• In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics? In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.

Source: NIST

You aren't NIST. I give a flying fuck what you think you explained.

Also, you think NIST is wrong, but anyone who isn't NIST is wrong too? Also, I quoted from NIST itself in my previous comments involving fire, meaning it is worth giving at least some care to what I say.

Pay more attention:: The entire 18 floors fell at 3.87s (pure free-fall duration), not 5.4s (+/- 0.1s).

NIST fabricated a 1.5s start time that does not exist.

Really? Because the videos do tend to back them up. Or are they wrong too? Not to mention you can see debris falling faster then the structure itself (although it's much more apparent on the WTC 1&2).

NIST admitted this.

Why don't you understand NIST's corrections to their original FALSE narrative of the collapse times?

NIST has corrected their work. Why haven't you?

Can you show me where NIST mentions that the structure fell entirely in free fall? There was a small period where it was in free fall, but not much.

Yeah yeah yeah. Write a paper on it.

Have it peer reviewed.

Come back then.

I'm not about to waste the time on it between now and my next deployment, but I'll be sure to give a shit about your peer review later on

Check out the times bhq sticks up for moparornocar. It's the same person.

Conspiracy theorists form the picture first and then try to twist the evidence to fit.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. I really think that we are all just trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together and when our gov't isn't transparent and they have a lot to be gained from 9/11, it draws attention. Conspiracy theorists' job is to ask questions. We want to find out what happened.

We want to find out what happened

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report yet? That's a good place to start. It was a pretty straight-forward event. Pretty much exactly what Skyhawk1 said.

I haven't read the whole report yet, but I now will. I have, however, looked at pieces from the report that are controversial (i.e. the third tower collapse, only certain footage released, and the buildings falling at almost the rate of gravity etc...).

WTC 7 collapse conspiracies have been completely debunked countless times. They basically amounted to non-experts watching footage and saying, "Why did that building fall so fast when it wasn't hit by a plane? Looked like a controlled demolition to me." It looked like a controlled demolition, of course, because in both cases a building collapses. Popular Mechanics did a series debunking the most common claims that is a pretty easy read. In particular, check out the WTC 7 section.

The only thing truly suspicious about the event and reports on it were the sections made classified that (apparently) implicated high-ranking Saudis as conspirators (Saudi Arabia is an ally, for better or probably worse).

Conspiracy theorists seem to not want to believe the "government story" because they think that "propaganda" necessarily involves lying. This is inaccurate--propaganda can be true. You can bet that when something happens that bolsters a government's positions on something, they are going to report the shit out of it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen to begin with.

Do shills have rank? Cuz you'd be a private first clAss!

Where do I pick up my shill check? Our reptilian overlords seem to have forgotten to mail it

Don't hold your breath.

I haven't read the whole report yet, but I now will. I have, however, looked at pieces from the report that are controversial (i.e. the third tower collapse, only certain footage released, and the buildings falling at almost the rate of gravity etc...).

These journals are run by committees. If you suggest/put forward a certain paper for publication then your position on the committee and your entire academic career could be at stake. It's just not worth it. Certain things are left well alone.

Whatever "controversial" things you speak of obviously aren't as important as this.

Another redditor just commented and left a link to peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. I'm going to take a look at them. I'd be interested in your take on the matter.

For eight years after the fire, One Meridian Plaza sat vacant and damaged right in center of Philadelphia's business district. The building was caught in litigation between the owners and the insurance company over how much the insurers would pay the owners and how repairs or demolition would proceed. Businesses near the empty high-rise closed or moved and the city sued the owners to do something with the building. After lawsuits were settled, the building was declared a total loss and began to be dismantled in 1998.

Yea, good comparison. Very apt. Much wow.

Really? Because the videos do tend to back them up. Or are they wrong too? Not to mention you can see debris falling faster then the structure itself (although it's much more apparent on the WTC 1&2).