Why are there no established acedemics who support the official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers

Question

or WTC7.

When I ask, as an agnostic, for references to peer reviewed papers on the subject, all I get is either abuse, or refs to Popular Mechanics, or NIST, neither of which are peer reviewed in the accepted acedemic sense.

Answer 1

because it's based on voodoo magic- not science.

Answer 2

Who would they be?

Answer 3

In fact, virtually every established academic who has studied it has come to the same basic conclusions as the official report. Just do a search for peer-reviewed 9/11 and you'll see what's out there.

Answer 4

So maybe you should apply your own criteria to the people who claim that the official version is false.

Can you provide a reference to a peer-reviewed article that was published in a recognized scientific or technical journal that disputes the accepted facts?

Answer 5

THE TRUTH,YOU CAN't HANDLE THE TRUTH !

Answer 6

Dude, somethings just don't require any academic review.

The planes hit the towers.

They fell.

The shock caused WT7 to fall

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most accurate.

Answer 7

Which is what?  There were experts detailing what happened seven years ago.  Where were you when they explained it?  Asleep?

Answer 8

Just because you refuse to accept the truth, doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

It's sad that you even have to ask for an "established academic" to verify an obvious truth. It only proves your gross ignorance.

Go back to high school and take basic physics, that is all you need to support the official explanation.