Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has on its rolls over 3000 certified architects and engineers. I am involved with Scientists for 9/11 Truth, which has ~100 scientists on its rolls. (A number of other scientists who were on our roll have withdrawn their names because of threats to their employment.)
My article, Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics, is the article I mentioned above that was rejected administratively prior to any peer review at two journals before being peer reviewed (by competent professionals) and published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
The seminal paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/7TOCPJ.pdf was peer reviewed and published at the Open Chemical Physics Journal. The publisher subsequently had to step down because of the political furor over allowing it to be published. It was removed from their web site, which is why the link is to where it is mirrored on my own site.
A recently completed 4-year study by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.com/archives/2182) modeled the collapse of WTC Building 7. It cites my work, which, as I have pointed out, was verified by NIST in their final report. The conclusions of that study are that it is impossible that the building came down due to the mechanism proposed by NIST and impossible for it to have come down under any scenario due to fire alone, which was NIST’s contention.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis, http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf, was peer reviewed and published by the International Journal of Protective Structures. Among its conclusions are that if the North Tower had started to collapse the way NIST proposes, the collapse would have been arrested within one floor of descent.
The bottom line is we are dealing with politically sensitive subject matter, where we find that the perpetrators were likely high level officials within the administration and security agencies. Powerful people aren’t going to stand by and allow their authority to be challenged, so demanding that our work be approved through the usual channels is an unreasonable demand.
