" ... The renowned U.S. critic Noam Chomsky had pointed out in correspondence with 9/11 'truth activists' that 'since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers' ... "
Also see: "Chomsky Manufactures Consent on Official 9/11 Cover Stories"
Two papers were accepted for publication out of six submitted to peer-reviewed technical journals after advice to do so from Noam Chomsky
The 6-page paper that was published however emphasizes the points of agreement between those independently researching the 9/11 terrorist incidents and the official versions as published by FEMA and NIST. It was authored by Anthony F. Szamboti, Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, James R. Gourley and Kevin R. Ryan and can be downloaded and freely copied from the Open Civil Engineering Journal.
While the paper has aimed at highlighting 14 points of agreement, it is evident from a study of those agreed facts that several questions are raised which the official U.S. pronouncements have been unable to answer.
The renowned U.S. critic Noam Chomsky had pointed out in correspondence with 9/11 "truth activists" that “Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”
"We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives" the paper concludes.
The authors also state their intention for "our investigative team... to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007): '…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse'. We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it."