Magda,
Clearly there have been presentations - CDs DVDs, Youtubes and even acedemic style papers produced to present the 9/11 truth claim. I would assert that these are presentations undertaken to demonstrate or make the case for the author's preconceived belief about the subject. There are much fewer of such presentations on "other side" often referred to by the truth side as "debunkers". The term -debunker- is loaded and carried with it the presumption that the 9/11 truth presentations are factual and accurate and the response is an attempt to destroy false claims.
"A
debunker is a person who attempts to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated or pretentious.[SUP]
[1][/SUP] The term is closely associated with
skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as
U.F.O.s, claimed
paranormal phenomena,
cryptids,
conspiracy theories,
alternative medicine,
religion, or exploratory or
fringe areas of scientific or
pseudoscientific research."
I suppose the problem concerning conclusive technical presentations in academic journals is that some of the science is simply settled. In that sense there is no need to drill down into the levels of mechanics and physics because there is nothing new there, but it would be a very complex set of occurrences. Take a multi car accident. This is much simpler to analyze, but it's hardly necessary to look closely at all the material failures which make up the totality of the accident. There are all sorts of failures which might and probably were in play... such as slippery road conditions, old worn tires, worn brake components, loss of hydraulic fluid, weak mechanical connections and of course forces exceeding the specs of the material making up the cars in mechanical collisions.
It is settled engineering that a floor system which is designed to support a "service" load of 50 pounds per square foot will fail when it is subjected to a dynamic load exceeding 1,000 PSF. There is no need to do an academic study of this as it's been already done. All mechanical and chemical properties of building materials have been derived from empirical tests. In fact, during construction samples of the concrete are taken and tested and logged to make sure that the concrete has the required properties... and this includes how it is cured.
There is no need to produce academic papers about the mechanical destruction of a plane impacting a steel facade and frame moving at X mph. These interactions are trivial calculations. Of course to a naive person it makes no sense that weaker aluminum could destroy stronger steel. But this is simply ignorance incredulity. (calling Professor Fetzer)
There is no need to produce academic papers about the strength of steel when subjected to heat stress.
The problem with the WTC collapses is that analysis requires accurate and extensive data. In the case of the destruction of the WTC buildings we are very data starved. It's like doing an autopsy to determine the cause of death from some photos of a car crash. We know the victim died... but what was the precise cause of death? Loss of blood? severing of a vein or artery? We need to examine the victim and then it may be possible to determine the precise cause(s) and the sequence which led to the death.
Free fall or acceleration close to free fall does not equate to a CD. This is pure nonsense. Symmetry or seeming organization of the debris of a collapse does not equate to CD as much as it does to the distribution of mass of the structure. In fact most of the so called evidence claimed to support CD does not. Molten metal does not equate to CD if it was there.
The proponents of CD make a stellar fail because they can't produce a coherent explanation and mechanism for CD which accounts for ALL the observations. Just because we see unusual things does not equate to CD. The buildings collapsed... regardless of the cause and virtually all the artifacts (evidence in the debris) is related to the basic collapse of 1.5 million tones of materials from as high as 1/4 mile in as little as 15 seconds in 3 separate occurrences. The fact that there were 3 and consistency does not equate to CD.
NIST was supposed to explain how fire caused the collapse. They came up with what appears to me to be implausible explanations of how the heat acted and where it acted. The evidence for explosives was really not there. The explosions heard were attributed to electrical systems and other systems in the towers. Of course considering people understood the event to be a terrorist attack.. all explosion sounds were reported as sounding like bombs. Witness testimony is not reliable and this is a perfect example of why.
Most people are not interested in the technical details and NIST was able to skate by with their poor work (in my opinion) because they concluded it was heat weakened steel which initiated the collapses. They got the cause right but the locations seems to be wrong.
And hence no one seems to be interested in taking this on... in anything more than theoretical ways such as Tony and Bazant... both of whom are not modelling the actual event... because of their assumptions.