100 Professors Question 9/11 Commission Report

100 Professors Question The 9/11 Commission Report


You think you know about the events of Sept. 11, 2001?

You think by watching the TV and/or by reading what it says in your newspaper you can discover all that you really needed to know?

Could it be that the pre-packaged “news” presented by the mainstream media on these shocking events is an amalgam of distortion and outright deceit?


Here below is a link to a list of 100 college professors who contest the validity of the official story promoted by the Bush administration. Included also is some biographical information. There is included a brief summary of the position each individual takes along with supporting supplementary material by way of web links.


Among so many provocative and interesting contributions the following have caught my attention:



David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist. USA

I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the WTC collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, [and] repudiation of the Geneva Conventions.



Steven Jones, PhD – Former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. USA. Retired in October 2006 to devote more time to 9/11 research.

“On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7, in favour of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled demolition hypothesis."



Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus, former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Switzerland

"In my opinion the building WTC7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. "



Niels Harrit, PhD – Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Denmark

"Two official explanations of the events in Manhattan on 11 September have been put forward by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

In the final FEMA report, WTC7 is hardly mentioned. They note that there were fires in the building, but do not attempt to explain the collapse. The final NIST report was released in September 2005, but the section covering WTC7 was left out, with the promise that a final version would be released later. Publication has been delayed several times, and we are still waiting for it.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a tragedy for the people in the towers and in the airplanes, and a tragedy for their families. It also marked the beginning of the tragic war on terror. The current trends in Western society towards greater surveillance and the loss of civil rights can also only be called tragic. If we have also been lied to, the tragedy is complete.

How did WTC7 collapse? We are not asking 'why'. Some extremely simple observations have been made, and we want to hear an official explanation that is consistent with elementary physics and chemistry."



Terry Morrone, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University. USA

"In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting.

Conclusions: Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges."



Mike Hawryluk, BA, MAT – Professor Emeritus of Physics and former Division Chairman, Suffolk County Community College, NY. USA

"My wife and I, transfixed in front of a TV as the horror of 9/11 unfolded, watched as the topmost, undamaged floors of the WTC South Tower started to gradually lean (rotate) in the direction of the damage due to impact. In an instant, the rotation stopped, and that which was rotating began to fall, as if only under the influence of gravity! The fulcrum was no longer there!

I blurted out, "My god, they wired the building."

I haven't been at peace with myself, or the world, since then. I had no idea who the "they" in my utterance was, and to this day still do not. Since learning more about the events leading up, and subsequent to the tragedy, I have become firmly convinced that the conspiracy being sold to the world by the Government, the media, and debunkers is the greatest Red Herring of our time, if not in history. Those of us who are seeking the "Truth about 9/11" face a formidable but not insurmountable challenge: to convince those who don’t want to know to join us in applying a continuing and increasing pressure on the media to force those who don’t want us to know into the light of day."



Michel Chossudovsky, PhD – Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, Canada.

"What I've done in my writings is to show that the official narrative or explanation regarding 9/11 can be refuted, namely that the official narrative is a lie.

"What the 9/11 Commission Report has submitted is an extensive narrative of what happened on that day and what happened on the planes. And the evidence suggests that the 9/11 report is a lie. It’s fabricated."



Bruce R. Henry, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science, Worcester State College. USA.

"It is clear extraordinarily powerful explosives were used to destroy the WTC Twin Towers. Careful scrutiny of video of the collapse of the South Tower (WTC2) shows the upper segment (above the airplane strike) listing, then dropping, then disintegrating or pulverizing. There was a massive explosion near ground level immediately before those events. The tilt-then-drop sequence shows the building's central structural steel core ... had by some agency been made insubstantial and unable to bear weight. Putting that together with the ground level blast and the subsequent pulverization it is clear very powerful explosives had to have been in play. The airplane strike was a mere smokescreen.

Who planted the explosives? What kind of explosives were used? When were they planted? And for what reasons would someone destroy ... the Twin Towers? Simple logic requires of a credible account of the 9/11 events that it explain ALL details clearly shown in documentary footage, together with all other known facts. The Official Story does not even come close to meeting that standard."



Paul Zarembka, PhD – Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo.

"The peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Business by Allen Poteshman (2006) trumps casual new remarks about whether the stock market and/or airline stocks were going down before 9-11 as an explanation for rising put-option purchases. .. it goes beyond anecdotal comments ... . It is a complicated statistical exercise ... Poteshman finds ... these purchases [of options on American Airline stock] ... had only 1 percent probability of occurring simply randomly.

We have focused on option trading in AA [American Airline] and UA [United Airline]. But there is a lot more to be discussed in a more complete study. For example, Mathewson and Nol (2001) report: At Morgan Stanley ... put options jumped between Sept 6 and Sept 10 , almost 27 times a previous daily average ...

We are not surprised that the Commission avoided any and all such types of information."



For more information link to:


 http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911


Truth_Shark