Well we are working on it.

 

Slimland said:

Slim, we couldn't have nuked the Taliban without killing the innocent Afghani's that they oppressed. And, how do you know UBL wouldn't have escaped BEFORE we dropped 'em? I'm just a little surprised at your answer given Jesus' admonition to "turn the other cheek." But, still, you make an interesting point. What if we HAD just popped up one day and bombed Mecca or something and killed an equal number of Muslims? You think the world would consider that taking the "high ground?"

I have never said we shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but you unwittingly make my point. You say LAW-ABIDING citizens should be allowed (if not compelled) to own them. But, without proper registration, how would you guarantee that?

 

Useless said:

I'm just a bit surprised you believe this, Useless. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about both attacks, and I just can't buy them.... at least not totally. I have nothing but contempt for Dubya, but I just can't believe that those Americans around him (or Roosevelt) would let innocent civilians (or brave American soldiers/sailors) die JUST because they didn't think they could "mobilize" American support for a war without the motive of revenge.

Yes, and I believe it is clear that Bush had plans in the making to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and would have done so without it. His concentration on Iraq is, as I"ve said, a personal agenda. His lack of response to Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia are more evidence of his ignorance and tunnel vision. But, it does cause one to think!

I DID when he first declared it!! Our leaders have had "ties" to foreign families of influence for years. I just don't think that is the rationale here.

I LOVE Carlin! He makes you "think." But, in the day of the Internet, I believe that if the police or military came for our guns, news would spread so fast that they wouldn't get more than a small pickup truckload before they were collecting bullets.... ONE AT A TIME! :lol:


I just don't understand where this "Orwellian" fear is coming from in America. I JUST can't see it happening... meaning the militarization of America, and the suspension of our Constitution.

All I know is that it is used consistently as an argument against SOME form of gun control, and can, in some way, be blamed for such incidents as Va Tech.

 

Ahh crap I guess this is how I really feel.

Nuke the whole bunch of them and don't give a crap about what the rest of the world thinks.

 

Well this looks like the political mosh pit so lets jump in. Ok y'all...watch this....6'6" 345lbs jumping in....

Guns, just another of man's inventions that can be used for good or evil. I'd very much like to keep them out of the hands of the evil types and the nutcases but am very reluctant to trust those who currently make those decisions. I love target shooting and like Slimland would love to own a full auto. Yeah, I don't need it but then again I don't need a car that can go 150mph but I would like one of those too. Dodge Viper in silver.

Moral Decay, yes there is moral decay and will continue to be. In general terms the human heart loves the darkness and avoids the light. What causes it? It's the nature of man ... it's in his heart and only one thing will change it. But what is funny is that in the middle of our moral decay will still cling to ideas of right and wrong that may very well be our undoing in the current (and continuing) war.

Jihad, the toughest test to our idea of civilization. In the past when you fought an enemy it was about land, resources, nationalism, or even political ideaology. But most will not fight to the death (meaning martyr, suicide attacks, etc) for those beliefs. After a certain level of fighting one side or the other will submit & surrender. Even the Japanese surrendered. Because while they may have to possibly give their life for their cause they still believe it is better to live and survive.

Jihadist will never surrender because they believe it is better to die. They exists in a culture of death. What we are fighting against is as close to those horror movie zombies, that you can not kill, as we will ever get. They will keep coming and coming and never stop. General Patton said make the other guy die for his country (cause). Would he handle this the same way? In all honesty we as a country are not prepared to fight this type of enemy. Even after 9/11 we do not understand it. Our idea of bitter fighting is between our political parties. Jihadist idea of bitter fighting is to kill all your enemies and will not stop till they have cut off our collective heads. If I were a betting person, and placed a bet on the outcome of this current conflict with Jihadist, I would reluctantly have to say we will loose this one. :sad:

So what are we to do? You tell me.

 

[quote="golfhobo"]Useless said:

Quote:

Useless:
Well, Golf!!
I agree with you in some respects, but I disagree in others.

For one thing, the attacks of 9/11 were no more a surprise to Bush & his criminal cohorts than the attack on Pearl Harbor was to The Roosevelt Administration. More and more evidence points not only to the Bush Administration's knowledge of 9/11, but also their hand that they played in it.

Golf:
I'm just a bit surprised you believe this, Useless. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about both attacks, and I just can't buy them.... at least not totally. I have nothing but contempt for Dubya, but I just can't believe that those Americans around him (or Roosevelt) would let innocent civilians (or brave American soldiers/sailors) die JUST because they didn't think they could "mobilize" American support for a war without the motive of revenge.

Useless:
On Pearl Harbor, better think again, Golf!!

One of the Generals who was the Fall Guy" for Pearl Harbor was posthumously pardoned. His family lives in San Antonio, and it was all over the newspaper & T.V. The fact that Roosevelt looked the other way at Pearl Harbor is well documented.

What is largely not known by many people is that there was NOT a sence of unanimity in the belief that The U.S. should enter WWII; quite suprising though it may be to many, the largest resistance came from The Republican Party, who wanted the U.S. to remain an Isolationist Nation.

Regarding the attacks; Jet fuel is basically Kerosene; Kerosene can not burn in an uncontrolled environment for very long. Also, the burning temp of the kerosene was far below the melting point of the steel beams. The fuel, nor the materials used to construct the twin towers was not hot enough to cause them to give way at all, much less equally, which is the ONLY way the towers could have imploded so perfectly.

So, a jet hits the twin towers, and the towers implode in such a perfect way that would make the most highly proficient demolition engineer proud?? BOTH TOWERS, implode perfectly?? Then there is that troublesome WTC Bld.#7, which tumbled perfectly, but was not struck at all!!

Combine that with the fact that when a B-52 Bomber (a much larger plane) collided with The Empire State Bldg, which at the time, was the tallest bldg. in the world, the building remained in tact.

Then, go check out The Pentagon; Where are the plane's engines?? Nowhere to be found!! Jet engines that size do not simply burn up without a trace. look at the strike point of The Pentagon; what happened to the wings?? could not have penetrated the building for two reasons;

1.) The gap at the strike point was no where NEAR wide enough,
2.) They would habe been ripped right off of the plane's fuselage; only problem is, they are NOWHERE to be found!!

They wouldn't be able to burn up either; again, the kerosene would not be able to burn for very long in an open atmosphere.

Then, of course, there is also the disturbing matter of Dubya's brother, Marvin Bush, leaving his job as head of security for WTC just THREE DAYS before the attacks.

Now, one little tidbit to chomp on; this afternoon, I had some business to take care of at Randolph Air Force Base, just o/s of San Antonio, the 1st time I've entered a military base in about 5&1/2 years. Randolph, BTW, is where the Air Training Command is based. So concerned about our nations security that we need The Patriot Act, Constitution be dammed!!

So, in our days of tight security, so tenuous that we need The Patriot act so that the government can spy upon it's own citizens, and deprive suspects of due process, who should be there to greet me at the Air Force Base main gate entrance??

A private, unarmed security guard in his 60's!!

Not an armed soldier in sight!! What could he have done to me?? Shine his flashlight at me??

Quote:

Useless:
Remember, we invaded Iraq, but Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We know that Yemmen, Syria, and Saudi Arabia had their involvement in 9/11, but we have done nothing about it.

Golf:
Yes, and I believe it is clear that Bush had plans in the making to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and would have done so without it. His concentration on Iraq is, as I"ve said, a personal agenda. His lack of response to Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia are more evidence of his ignorance and tunnel vision. But, it does cause one to think!

Useless:

Quote:

With the Bush ties to the Bin Laden family, which extends back over several decades, did ANYONE ever believe that we were ever going to apprehend Osamma Bin Laden??

Golf:
I DID when he first declared it!! Our leaders have had "ties" to foreign families of influence for years. I just don't think that is the rationale here.

Useless:

Quote:

Personally, I no longer own a gun, but that was my choice, and it was made for personal reasons, not for political reasons. I do support the right of the individual citizen to own and use firearms as long as they are owned and used properly.

Even George Carlin once rhetorically noted that we can turn to the police for protection, but then, without the right of the citizen to own guns, who will protect us from the police??[/

Useless:

Care to take a short ride in my plane with me Golf??

We can zipp about 100 miles away from my home to a little town called Taylor, Tx., and I'll show you a "detention Center" that was suppposedly supposed to be used by FEMA as a place to house refugees from hurricanes or natural disasters; only problem is that it is shrouded in barbed wire, and it was never used to house any people from Hurr. Rita or Katrina!

I've also seen this place up close as well; although it is on the internet, this is no "internet legend".

Well, then the govt. suddenly changed it's story; now its supposed to be used to house immigration detainees.

 

The part in bold reveals a mindset on the part of radical Islamic

Fundamentalists--they have, are, and will continue to target innocents

and military alike in their quest to dominate the world per the will of

their god. Here's bin Laden's fatwa. I don't know about you but

that sounds like war to me. I believe it's only a matter of time before

another terrorist attempt will happen within the United States.

I agree with you to a point. However, so far, our "stealthy" and

"strategic" response to finding bin Laden has netted goose eggs. I find

it remarkable that a conventionally trained military like ours has

adopted as well as it has in fighting an unconventional war. It's very

hard to turn a top-heavy bureaucratic organization around on a dime.

Have mistakes been made? Sure--happens in every war. Are we learning

from our mistakes? Yes--but not as fast as we would like....

Of course the fox that we are hunting is foreign and living in another

land that is openly hostile to westerners....

I know I'm gonna catch h@!! for saying this--but--President Clinton

certainly had the stealth/secrecy advantage to catch him in his

administration. Yeah I know--hindsight is 20/20. Nevertheless, the best

time to catch bin Laden was before President Bush took office. BTW,

Here's a link

to the actual transripts of the infamous conversation of President

Clinton talking to Chris Wallace.

Here's another link that has

Harry Smith and Michael Scheuer discussing what the previously mentioned

conversation.

We have declared war on terrorists--of all stripes--especially radical

Islamic Fundamentalists. The problem lies in the fact that Teddy

Roosevelt (a Republican) was elected to office at the turn of the 20th

century. 100-years later, a lot has changed in the world. No longer can

one nation carry a big stick and go club someone else properly--the UN

will make sure of that. President Bush has had to tred a fine line

between unleashing his Texas whoopass on bin Laden and negotiating

through the proper bureaucratic channels thus signaling his intent on

what the United States will do to catch a thug and his band of followers.

Welcome to the 21st century of Polical Correctness! It just ain't as

easy as it used to be to get things done that needed to get done!

Personally, I do.

Every leader--including every President of the United States who has been

Commander-in-Chief during a war--makes mistakes and has stupid management

moments. To say that President Bush has failed on an apocalyptic level

in terms of managing an unconventional war is over the top.

Are you sure a draft is even needed?? I don't think so.

BigWheels said:What is new is the announced intent ahead of time.

BigWheels said:Yes it was a declaration of war. It's a holy war. It's an unconventional war. It's war.


BigWheels said:The Crusaders were well-intentioned individuals who screwed up big-time.

What they did was wrong--dare I say terroristic in nature. As you said,

Muslims had every right to declare war on the Crusaders who were trying

to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

BigWheels said:Here's an article that explains "true believers" from the more moderate Muslims.

Radical Islamic Fundamentalists desire to eliminate you, me, infidels.

Period.

I say it's both.

Negotiating with moderate Muslims might work--probably would. However,

the problem is with the radical Fundamentalists (the terrorists). The

moderates are scared poopless of them. Negotiate with a terrorist and

you will likely lose...your life or someone elses.

Yes it is...and water...and spirituality!

 

Not true#1;
Not true #2;
Not true#3.

Not true.

 

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 on July 28, 1945. Not a B-52. A B-25 is much smaller and slower than the planes that hit the WTC. Comparing a WW2 prop driven aircraft to 757 and 767 is apples to oranges.

CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[/quote]

 

The above info was taken from Popular Mechanics website.

Here's the link.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1

Here's a list of their experts they consulted with.

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology