ALEX BEAM’S portrayal of “architect truthers” is yet another disappointing example of a journalist resorting to ad hominem attacks and avoiding the facts when discussing the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on Sept. 11, 2001 (“The ‘truthers’ and 9/11,” Opinion, Nov. 16).
Sadly, not one sentence of Beam’s column examines the evidence for or against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. Instead, he devotes 600 words to revealing his own ill-founded bias.
He cherry-picks the appearance of three nonexperts from the 15-minute video “Architects & Engineers — Solving the Mystery of Building 7,” but doesn’t highlight any of the film’s “various experts.” Noting that some Americans think that what happened that day hasn’t “been fully explained,” he declares, “I don’t agree,” but gives no evidence-based reason for disagreeing. His position rests on his revulsion at the idea that someone — “our own government,” he supposes — consciously demolished the World Trade Center.
As building professionals, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth try not to let personal feelings interfere with investigating the three worst structural failures in modern history. Nearly 2,400 architects and engineers, not including the 109 who signed our petition at the recent annual trade show ABX, have joined us because we stick to science.
The physical evidence shows that scattered office fires could not have caused the 47-story WTC 7 to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. (Imagine Boston’s 52-story Prudential Tower completely collapsing in seven seconds from small fires — it’s hard to, isn’t it?) The evidence also shows that the twin towers were not leveled by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires.
The implications are indeed far-reaching, and that is why we urge people to study all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The writer is the founder and CEO of the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Did you know that a 3rd building fell on 9-11? That bill board is today over Times Square. It was placed there through donations to a campaign called Rethink 9/11.
In fact, that group has placed posters and signs across the world, from Australia, to Canada, from San Francisco to right here in New York City.
So what is Rethink 9/11? Wouldn’t only a fringe group of people would still question 9/11? Perhaps not, because today we will tell you about new polling that shows a majority of those polled either question the official 9/11 story or don’t believe it at all. Is that possible?
The first step toward truth, is to be informed.
Here in New York City, today at the site of the 9/11 Memorial, promises to never forget what happened the morning of September 11th, 2001. But never forgetting doesn’t mean that you don’t rethink what you have been told.
Rethink 911 is the first ever global 9/11 anniversary campaign. Sponsored by a coalition of more than 40 organizations, ReThink911 is placing ads in 11 major cities around the world this September 2013.
But what is there to rethink? According to a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, you need to start by rethinking the third building that fell that day.
Building 7, behind me. That rectangular building is the new building 7. It stands a little smaller but in the same place where the original World Trade Center 7 once stood.
To be fair, the collapse of building 7 has long been the claims of conspiracy theorists. In 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology or (NIST) released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7. The lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists, “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.”
But that claim has been taken on by that rapidly growing group known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Today, more than 2,000 progressional architects and engineers from around the world have joined together to say that the NIST claim that Building 7 came down because of office fires is not only untrue, it is not possible. That no skyscraper in history has ever come down that way.
That the way Building 7 fell was without the building tipping or rocking and that in order to fall like this, a building could only come down IF all the internal columns supporting building were to give way at the same time.
Enginneering is a technical field but most of us would know this as a controlled demolition.
To better understand the claims of AE for 9/11 Truth, I talked with Tony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with 27 years of experience in the aerospace and communications industries and one of the 2,000 engineers calling for an a new, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 and the World Trade Center towers.
Swann: “So you look at this image of the building falling, again NIST says that its office fires that have caused this. You say.. ‘give me another example?’”
Szamboti: “There is no other example.”
Swann: “No other example in the world?”
Szamboti: “They have no other example,”
Swann: “So this has never happened? This would be the first building in the world to come down this way?”
Szamboti: “And they say that. They say that thermal expansion caused it. What I say caused it and you can cut this out or leave it in, but I think they took out the core columns for 8 full stories, and that pulled in the exterior. When you have controlled demotion, and when take the core out, you pull in exterior and it comes down. When you take out 8 stories it all comes in.”
Swann: “What happens if you leave half of them? If it is not a controlled demolition and you have a failure of some columns?”
Szamboti: “Then you have a partial collapse.”
And there is another issue of how NIST says Building 7 came down. The say it was normal office fires. The technical explanation is that floor beams expanded because of heat and ultimately pushed a single column, column 79 off of its seating. That, NIST says, caused the entire collapse of the building. But what NIST told the public in 2008 was the reason these columns were pushed loose is because they were unrestrained.
What was discovered last year in 2012 after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was granted, that claim was not true, that the columns were not unrestrained. In fact there were 3,896 shear studs holding those columns in place.
Szamboti: “One is, the beams could not expand far enough and if they could expand enough, those stiffeners would stop that girder from falling off. They were bonded.”
Swann: “But for the person that say, so you have so disagreements on some technical things.”
“9/11: Ignoring the Evidence is No Longer an Option”
Join ReThink911?s main event in Times Square this September 11, 2013 right below our Times Square billboard at 5:20pm (47th street and 7th avenue). Special guests include Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Dr. William Pepper, Bob McIlvaine, Reverend Frank Morales, Richard Gage, AIA. More VIP guests to be announced. Be there!
NYC activists at Times Square for the unveiling of the ReThink911 billboard.
An All-Day Tour Culminating with Times Square Rally:
Do not miss this historic day of events.
Richard Gage, AIA and the ReThink911 campaign are bringing the message straight to New York’s political leaders and national media outlets with an all-day tour culminating in a rally at ReThink911’s towering Times Square billboard at 5:20pm—exactly 12 years to the minute since Building 7 fell.
Join us on this whirlwind tour as we deliver AE911Truth petitions and ReThink911 VIP Packs, request on-the-spot interviews, and conduct our own interviews of the media establishment that continues to ignore the evidence. Then we complete this thrilling day of anniversary activities with a rally to include esteemed speakers Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, William Pepper, Bob McIlvaine, Frank Morales, Richard Gage, and other VIP speakers to be announced.
See Website for Full Schedule of New York 9/11 Activities
NYC’s committed supporters came ready on September 3rd, 2013, to hand out brochures and educate the public immediately upon the heralded installation of the gigantic billboard overlooking Times Square (47th Street and 7th Avenue).
At least one million people will see this 54’ x 46’ billboard each day throughout the month of September, bringing unprecedented attention to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.
We in the ReThink911 campaign would like to thank everyone who donated and worked so hard to bring this billboard to Times Square. (source)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Gregory Szuladzinski*, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns
1-FIEAust, Analytical Service Pty Ltd, Northbridge 2063, Australia 2-Mechanical engineer, aerospace industry performing structural and thermal analyses and design 3-Langara College, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
Received on 22 Dec 2012, Accepted on 8 March 2013
International Journal of Protective Structures – Volume 4 · Number 2 · 2013
ABSTRACT This article elaborates on variables associated with the collapse of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The previously published quantifications of inertia, column capacity, and the assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion, are examined and corrected. The reasons for false conclusions reached in several previous analyses are presented. Key words: Large Deflections, Plasticity, Collapse
1. INTRODUCTION This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be the mode of the ultimate destruction. The previously published material is quoted and the new points are brought up. Appendix C can be of interest to those who want a broader description of facts associated with the collapse. The available information relating to the kinetics of the collapse is summarized first.
NOTE: The publisher will release the paper for free use on Jan. 1, 2014 and there is currently an 18 GBP ($27.00 USD) copy fee charged for those without a subscription to the journal. However, copies can be sent to individuals for personal use by the authors and anyone they send it to. If you would like a copy, please send a request via: http://911blogger.com/contact
The U.S. government has turned to 9/11 again in order to justify its program of spying on all Americans and to support a new, expanded war in Syria. Yet as Americans are distracted by these ongoing crimes, the deception behind the origin of the War on Terror is being more fully revealed.
Were the crimes of September 11, 2001 solely the work of Osama bin Laden and nineteen troubled young Arabs, or were more powerful people involved? After a decade of investigation Kevin Ryan, the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, offers an evidence-based analysis of nineteen other suspects.
With the support of victim’s families and leading 9/11 researchers, Another Nineteen looks at who was in position to accomplish major elements of the crimes that have yet be explained. Detailed evidence is presented that reveals how each of the alternative suspects had the means, motive and opportunity to accomplish one or more aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
“Finally a comprehensive and meticulously researched book that thoroughly details what occurred before and on 9/11. Without a doubt, Another Nineteen should be required reading for those who want the real story.” – Robert McIlvaine, father of Bobby McIlvaine, who was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11
“Kevin Ryan has written a book that reminds us that the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their details have never really been investigated. Kevin has laid out the historical framework in a way that has never been done before. The importance of this cannot be overstated.” – Lorie Van Auken, member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission and widow of Kenneth Van Auken, who was killed at the World Trade Center
Starting with what should have happened that did not, and what should not have happened that did, Another Nineteen reveals that certain powerful people had the means, motive and opportunity to make 9/11 happen exactly as it did. Those people represented private networks and government programs that came together in surprising ways on 9/11.
A new website, www.scientificmethod911.org is now up and running. Its primary purpose is the discussion of scientific papers on the events of 9/11. In order to maintain dialog at the level of principles inherent in the scientific method, the discussions will be moderated. After evaluation, comments and responses will be posted on the website in a discussion page. Authors are invited to submit their writings, both old and new, for discussion and feedback from the wider community of 9/11 researchers. Send papers to firstname.lastname@example.org. The community at large is invited to read the listed papers and provide comments and feedback.
“Since publication of my paper, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” questions have arisen about some statements made therein, specifically those concerned with the clock evidence for the event time. This paper reviews the evidence and finds that it is much more convincing for an event time around 9:38 am than for a proposed earlier time around 9:32 am. It is shown, by experiment, that the minute hand of the Heliport clock could easily have moved from a time around 9:38 am back to a time around 9:32 am because of the abrupt deceleration that occurred when the clock hit the ground after falling off the wall.”
You can find this paper on the above-mentioned new website at:
On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor’s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.
What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn’t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.
Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn’t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?
The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared
in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.
The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.
The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.
I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn’t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble.
Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.
When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?
These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.
The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.
Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.
As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.
As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.
Layered Failures of NORAD: The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started.
NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.
Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government’s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.
It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.
But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the ‘mastermind’ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 “I, as a member of the Commission, cannot look any American in the eye… It is a national scandal… this White House wants to cover [9/11] up.”
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.
One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.
All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O’Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”
The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O’Neill’s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.
As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.
If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?
I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.
Prof. Steven Jones
The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU’s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones’ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we’ll get you.”
Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.
Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition.
I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).
None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government’s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government’s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.
The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.
The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration.
Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.
In 1967, Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters off Egypt’s Gaza Strip, killing 34 Americans.
Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty’s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.
What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”
Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.
Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington’s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.
If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.
If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government’s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government.
The government’s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. Dr. Roberts has held academic appointments at Virginia Tech, Tulane University, University of New Mexico, Stanford University where he was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, George Mason University where he had a joint appointment as professor of economics and professor of business administration, and Georgetown University where he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
President Reagan appointed Dr. Roberts Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and he was confirmed in office by the U.S. Senate. From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. After leaving the Treasury, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
He is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World.