“Whoever in their right mind would have thought that the World Trade Center would ever fall down...Nobody in the world, nobody ever would ever have thought those buildings were coming down.” (EMS Captain Mark Stone, 9110076)
“Hundreds of first responders reporting explosions and flashes in the basement levels before collapse; multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph; mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking; massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds; and several tons of molten metal found underneath the towers” (“Architects”).
Several published studies conclude that the highest temperature possible inside the towers could not have been over 495 F, but temperatures must exceet 600 F before steel is even weakened. A study done on an 8-story building was found that steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700 F had no collapse found ("Architects").
If the temperature of the fires could not melt the steel or even weaken it, what cause the steel to fail?
9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations
Dr. Frank Legge
There are several reasons why a large proportion of the public is resistant to looking at the scientific evidence that explosives were used in the demolition of three buildings at the World Trade Center on the 11th of Sept 2001. The reason for some is that they do not trust their own calculations, or find calculations tedious, and instead rely on a trusted authority. The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument that explosives were used which does not require any calculation. The hope is that readers will be curious to see how this can be done and will read on and discover, perhaps with some surprise, that they are able to rely on their own judgment. The argument is based on material readily available for all to study, namely videos and photographs. To read more click here
____________________________________________
Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe, University of Iowa
Claims have been made that there is no direct proof that explosions occurred in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but there are in fact visible photographs of collapse results that provide that proof. One such photograph posted in late 2005 is shown in Figure 1, which shows the rapidly expanding cloud of the North Tower that directly exhibits explosions shattering material with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying in the air at the edge of the dust cloud. However, there is also a whole set of photographs posted on the web which can be shown through physics calculations to graphically exhibit the direct effects of explosions in the World Trade Center towers, yet these facts have not been previously investigated. Read more
9/11 – Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Examination of the official reports of the events of 9/11 reveals serious deficiencies. A particular deficiency is the failure to identify some of the participants. The reports produced distortions in the public perceptions of the events and resulted in deflection of the political process. Some comments are provided on trends which have developed which are detrimental to democracy and personal freedoms. Further investigation is urgently required.
One of the greatest mysteries of September 11, 2001 is the collapse of the Twin Towers. Claims that explosions contributed to the collapses were made on 9/11 and have persisted, but studies supportive of the U.S. government’s account of events have ignored or denied these claims. A great deal is at stake in this debate. If explosions were critical to the collapses, the official al Qaeda narrative may need to be radically altered or abandoned altogether.
____________________________________________
Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe, University of Iowa
Claims have been made that there is no direct proof that explosions occurred in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but there are in fact visible photographs of collapse results that provide that proof. One such photograph posted in late 2005 is shown in Figure 1, which shows the rapidly expanding cloud of the North Tower that directly exhibits explosions shattering material with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying in the air at the edge of the dust cloud. However, there is also a whole set of photographs posted on the web which can be shown through physics calculations to graphically exhibit the direct effects of explosions in the World Trade Center towers, yet these facts have not been previously investigated. Read more
9/11 – Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. flegge@iinet.net.au
Abstract
Examination of the official reports of the events of 9/11 reveals serious deficiencies. A particular deficiency is the failure to identify some of the participants. The reports produced distortions in the public perceptions of the events and resulted in deflection of the political process. Some comments are provided on trends which have developed which are detrimental to democracy and personal freedoms. Further investigation is urgently required.
The tragic events that have come to be known as 9/11 remain unresolved to this day. On September 11, 2001 the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre (WTC), New York, were hit by hijacked planes and collapsed some time later at near free fall speed. The government of the United States of America does not withdraw in any way from the conclusions set out in the three reports it authorized.1 All three reports attribute the collapses entirely to the damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires. These reports assert or imply that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks alone. Numerous writers and organizations have pointed to the immense scale and complexity of the attack, and also to a series of extraordinary events after the attack, and assert that these show that al-Qaeda must have had help. Read more here
118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
Graeme MacQueen August 21, 2006
One of the greatest mysteries of September 11, 2001 is the collapse of the Twin Towers. Claims that explosions contributed to the collapses were made on 9/11 and have persisted, but studies supportive of the U.S. government’s account of events have ignored or denied these claims. A great deal is at stake in this debate. If explosions were critical to the collapses, the official al Qaeda narrative may need to be radically altered or abandoned altogether.
In January, 2006 an article by David Ray Griffin appeared entitled, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories.”[1] Drawing on a collection of oral histories from the New York Fire Department (FDNY), Griffin argued the case for controlled demolition of the towers. I found myself intrigued by the data he had used and impressed by his method, but I decided there was room for further research. I wanted answers to two questions.
(1) Are the roughly 31 witnesses to explosions quoted by Griffin the total of all witnesses to explosions in these sources, or are there others he does not mention?
(2) Are there witnesses in these sources whose testimony supports the non-explosive collapse of the Towers—the U.S. government’s perspective? Read more at this link
References
“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
References
“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
Grabbe, Crockett. “Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage.” Journal of 9/11 Studies. 14 (2007): 1-7. Web. 11 April 2010.
Legge, Frank. “9/11- Evidence Suggests Complicity: Interferences from Actions.”
Journal of 9/11 Studies. 1 (2006): 17-27. Web. 11 April 2010.
Legge, Frank. “9/11 Proof of Explosie Demolition Without Calculations.” Journal of
9/11 Studies. 15 (2007): 1-8. Web. 11 April 2010.
MacQueen, Graeme. “118 Witnesses: The Firefighets’ Testimony to Explosions in the
Twin Towers.” Journal of 9/11 Studies. 2 (2006): 47-106. Web. 11 April 2010.