New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops
"Independent" study financed by Feds
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 22, 2007
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...220607study.htm

A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as "a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O’Donnell", Prisonplanet.com has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:

"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"


In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence?

From the ASCE web site

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

from the above article-

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

and more from the above article

In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence?

Maybe not.

Maybe they considered Mr. Sozen a specialist on the kinds of engineering issues involved in buildings collapsing due to terrorist caused explosions. (No Graham, I'm not admitting anything. When the planes hit the WTC towers their impacts resulted in explosions.) He had experience with OKC, so they figured that he would be good on the WTC towers.

As far as the credibility of this study goes, there is a way of checking this out that is pretty straighforward. Nancy Drew need not apply for this particular job.

Presumably this study has all sorts of evidence that it refers to and technical analyses and calculations to support its conclusions. So what would independent structural engineers think about it? If the study were skewed as Prison Planet and others think, then good structural engineers should be able to spot the BS and flaws and holes in the analyses.

So is there a roster of structural engineers who have done this? Is it more impressive than the rosters of experts supporting Intelligent Design and trashing global warming theories?

If there isn't such a roster it would seem to be about time that the skeptics of the "official" theory worked on assembling it, one would think.

it's like a cat
A human talks
the cat hears

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Are you describing your understanding of engineering?

Don't take this as an insult, this would be the level of most people's understanding of engineering, including my own.

But I have a basic understanding about what engineering is, and what engineers do. And so I think I have a simple and basic, but still valid, notion of how one might adress the issue of the credibility of a study conducted by engineers.

This is a convincing answer Graham. Makes me more sure of all your other assertions don't you think? Maybe this should be part of your sig?

When are you gonna get a grip? Eh?

Cats are smarter than humans.

The did not elect Bill Clinton or Hillary Rodham Bush Clinton or George Bush to office.
They did not create the Cat-astrophe that has occurred
And they were not cat-atonic while Bush/ClintonBush/Bush stole all our rights

And they need more than arguably dubious associations to dismiss the analysis of trained experts. They need someone to demonstrate how that analysis is flawed.

(If we assuming that cats are so smart. Let me make clear that I am not anti-cat, my daughter loves them and draws them all of the time.)

"Remember that the first rule of propaganda is that if you can slide your premises past people, you've got them."

And we can use the obverse of this constructively by paying attention the process of Concept
Development in adult education.

Is this an argument for being careful not to be too quick to accept certain premises, or to reject some premises and buy others unexamined, depending upon whether or not one likes the resulting conclusion?

Graham's implied premise was that Sozen being on both the OKC and 911 inquiries is indicative of a set up, that "they" own Sozen and he can be relied on to support government lies. I offered an alternative explanation, which I think is no less plausible.

Anyway, I would hope that people not ignore my other point, that if the analysis done by these engineers is basically BS, due to them being compromised, then independent engineers should be able to poke holes in their analyses.

All supports for a Premise can be traced back to a set of Assumptions that are thought to best explain a set of observations about the real world, and to suggest testable hypotheses in that domain, at that level of specificity. At the level of social discourse it is probably more important to be attuned to the Assumptions you are making and the assumptions the Others appear to be making. When we meditate on these maters or try to construct a research methodology,we
get into arranging these assumptions into major premises. I see no way arround participating
in model building if one wishes to pursue human Self-actualization and Human Socialization.

PS. Good to see you back g4a. I was beginning to wonder if someone shot you.

I agree with this.

The thing is that in discussing the issues regarding what happened with 911, we cannot simply look at sociological and psychological issues. We need to look at technical, engineering and scientific issues, which is difficult for the vast majority of us who lack the expertise to make much in the way of considered judgment. But those issues cannot be ignored because of such difficulty.

It is for this reason that the battle needs to be joined at the point of insisting on Openness at every goverment Time/Place intersect. In order to do this, we must be a Nation of Open,
Trusting and Trustworthy Citizens with a strong Rights Bearing Attitude. A good starting place is to appeal all laws that create criminals without directly and significantly creating a particular victim and make our classification of information laws more functional and less dependent on
secrecy and to make, "Hypocracy" the dirty word it deserves to be.