Dr. Frank Legge in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Showing Explosive Demolition without Mathematics
Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"
The paper begins:
"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 Centre on 9/11. 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. "
Also discusses motivations... Read it here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf
- ProfJones's blog
- Login to post comments
lacrossetribune.com: We need a 9/11 Inquiry
Published - Monday, September 24, 2007
We need a 9/11 inquiry
By CHIP DENURE | La Crosse
Yes, we need a real 9/11 inquiry, as was suggested in a recent letter to this page. The eminent scholar and theologian David Ray Griffin has listed 115 omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission, whose executive director was a Bush operative.
We now know that 36 percent of Americans believe the current administration was complicit in the attacks (Scripps/Ohio University poll; August 2006). Even Time magazine concedes that disbelief in the government explanation has become a “mainstream political reality.”
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2007/09/24/opinion/letters/01let...
This letter makes false statements
Like references to the absence of plane parts at the Pentagon or in Shanksville. There were plane parts at both crash sites. People need to stop repeating these misrepresentations, if we want to be taken seriously.
Spreading the Truth.
Well if this guy is honestly trying to bring attention to the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack. It is our job then to contact him and fill him in on what is the best evidence we have against the official story. We are going to have to guide the responsible journalists and members of our society to the truth that we have researched so diligently over the preceding years. I mean this is LaCrosse Wisconsin. It is one of our communities. This is great news and a great opportunity to help spread the truth and our movement. Get after it.
letters@lacrossetribune.com
Attn: Chip Denure
Now if this guy proves to be uninterested in the truth or continually spreads disinfo, we should not waste our time, but until then, let's help the dude. He probably hasn't studied all the information to the degree that we have. Amen.
The wrong parts
No 757 parts at the pentagon identified. Please no links to the shreaded aluminum or the little roter by the fire fighter's foot. I want to see a man swallowing titanium roter jammed into the side of the pentagon.
I can't tell you how many times people have sent me the same links to the same two pictures.
Where's the fucking plane already!
You are never going to see
You are never going to see anything that confirms 100% that a plane hit the Pentagon, not because no plane hit it, but because it is better to have skeptics like us debating on whether Flight 77 hit the building or not.
It is better to keep us entangled in debate with ourselves, for if we were to ever move past these little orchestrated sink holes, we might actually move to get the criminals prosecuted.
So again keep that in mind, and also add this, Nothing should have hit that building.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team
I've never seen 1%
I've never seen one cintilla of evidence that a commercial airliner collided with the pentagon. Who are these forces that keep us entangled . . . hasn't worked with me . . I'm not entangled.
The forces working against us stick to broad stroke ad hominems like calling us "Nut Jobs". Asking questions about things that can easily be confirmed is dangerous for them.
They try to associate 9/11 Truth with the Neo Nazi movement and the ever favorite of truth spikers, "Holocaust Deniers".
Nothing hit that building
The statement that the fires
The statement that the fires did not break windows on the north side of WTC7 is wrong, as can be clearly seen in this video. Hoffman and Griffin get this wrong too.
This footage was broadcast at 4:48 PM, it can be verified here: http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109111609-1651
Here are some shots of the south side. Notice the gash that runs down from the roof down to around the 20th floor. NIST does not describe this gash. Why? Because they don't want to detract from Capt. Boyle's statement
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we?ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
They need that statement to support their large hole in floors 1-10 (for which there is absolutely no evidence...none)
Broadcast at 1:45 PM, footage can be verified here: http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109111323-1404
To be frank, i think this article is not very good, relying on old images when much better and more recently discovered material is available since the release of the 911 archive at ar archive.org.
If anyone needs the high quality versions of these i will upload them later today (gotta run now).
Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
I would like to see a more in depth white paper.
I would like to see a more in depth White Paper from the Scholars, using this premise:
The logic that most people do not get past mathematical analysis is very true. Serious questions and misconceptions can be pointed out by strict visual reference alone. One thing I keep running up against in my research is that photos which archive the WTC 7 collapse do give much credible explanation for the SYMMETRY. This was in fact a Building that fell in it's own footprint. This is confirmed by many overhead photos(which are not used as frequent as should be) and satellite images taken soon after it's collapse. This "own footprint" theory is NON- DEBUNKABLE.
So we move on to the "gouge". A few White Papers have put forth the hypothesis of how this gouge could have affected the structural failure. I haven't been impressed by these attempts, and would like to see a counter argument against the dynamics of that theory, in a more evolved white paper. As there are not many clear photos of the gouge, I would press agencies and research teams that have more of these images to release them, for further study.
There is the question of the black/blue smoke encasing the back side of the Building. I'm not an expert on fire signatures, and would like to know what "kind" of fire this appears to be causing it. I am not able to conclude that this smoke is representative of the fire's totality, as I do not, in any photo, notice fire signatures through the windows or huge scattered fires that many "debunking" sites claim too show. Smoke volume is not always indicative of the spread of fire. If this were the case, then judging by the smoke on a purely visual basis, would have us believe that a raging fire was on every floor in WTC 7 prior to collapse. I have not seen such evidence.
These facts tied together with the anecdotal evidence and the FREE FALL speed of collapse have me seriously stumped in favor of a Conspiracy or Coverup. The interesting part of the visual analysis is that THIS collapse even appears to be MORE SYMMETRIC than most professional demolitions I have seen on video. Very bizarre to me, and excludes an element of randomness in my mind even more. If this was a demolition, this was a clean job done by someone that took their time.
I think that the "squibs" in the upper east back corner(assuming you're looking from the front) are inconclusive. There was damage to that corner giving the appearance of "punch out" points in the old JPEG and GIF images commonly floated around. Richard Gage addresses this in his lectures. I think it's a loose piece of "evidence, but to each his own.
P.S. The theory put forth by "debunkers" is that these three Buildings (WTC1,2,7) all were victims of odd circumstance because of their special " design". That could possibly explain the off chance that they all suffered the same fate, it seems all too convenient, but sometimes physics can surprise us.
*****Note: I do not know yet how to upload images to these comment sections, if I did I would source my comments better in the future. I'll learn it soon so I can be more concise in what I'm trying to convey.
Just upload your images to
Just upload your images to http://www.imageshack.us/ and paste the proper code into your posts.
You can use the "Thumbnail for Websites" code for a clickable thumbnail
Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
On the debunkability of the footprint theory
Of course, WTC 7 didn't collapse *totally* within its footprint, which debunkers like to emphasize. Many cite serious damage to especially one of the surrounding buildings -- see also the Wikipedia article on WTC 7. The damage can be seen from the aerial photos, as in the one that I have on my own WTC 7 page at
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Yes agreed ...The metaphor is used loosely.
The metaphor is used loosely about the "falling in it's own footprint". I still use it after all these years too. Of course, no building can really "fall in it's own footprint", unless the dimensions give room for the inward collapse, meaning height less than width. And the dimensions of Building 7 make that feat nearly impossible..
But my point is that the "debunkers" (note quotations) speak as if the damage was wayward like the Twin Towers. I have seen absolutely no definitive evidence of this claim, and much evidence to the contrary. The papers that have been written by their best also pose the hypotheses as a best guess at POSSIBILITY of what happened. These papers do not show a high level of probability, only possibility. There are in a sense alternative explanations on their own, just in the Converse , and some seem to speak so definitely about a low probability end result. Practicing denial maybe? Who knows.
Also, many of the lessor known "debunking" websites archive things very well with photos. The trouble is that many of the sites end up debunking themselves outside of the usual straw men theories they attack. And their investigations also point to bigger questions right in front of their faces. It's been strange to watch.
And Kudos on your web page. I'll take a better look at it later. Nice work from what I see so far.
As you're interested...
... here's my more concise page as well -- a kind of "proof in a nutshell" (or, as an evil "debunker" might say, in a conspiracynut's shell):
http://www.wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
Erroneous statement here also, and a big one . .
"The metal had also been thinned . . . . . far hotter than could have been reached in a fire of office contents and jet fuel"
If the professor is aware of the fact that no plane hit Building 7, why would he use jet fuel in his arguement? It's a crossover quote from WTC 1 & 2 research, not the result of independent study.
The secondary fuel load in WTC 7 has been attributed to DIESEL fuel that was in a ConEd back up generator storage tank housed in the building.
This isn't dis-info, but it's weak research. Better clean this paper up if you plan on going anywhere with it. We don't need any built-in Straw Men.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry
Excellent comments
Excellent comments -- I will pass them along to Dr. Legge. Like another round of peer-reviews, well documented also.
One more
I haven't read the whole thing to the end yet, but from what I have read one gets the impression that defenders of the official theory resort to a "fire alone" argument. Of course, NIST is likely to postulate both structural damage from falling debris and fire as the cause.
Speed of collapse
Has always been an elemental key, to me. It appears to be a logical argument.
Generally, the American public has been led to believe that jet fuel traveled down elevator shafts and melted the base structure, causing the buildings to fall. Even that same understanding, with building 7, somehow, regarding the diesel generator.
If they were really 'burning' down to the ground, wouldn't it be a raging, huge, conflagration of flames, and then to more slowly, crumble, and buckle?
Also, all of the 'explosions' testimony has to be ignored, to completely accept our leader's assertion.
How many millions look forward to Rudy G. being that next leader?
The detective work goes on.
The Public Tries Not To Think About This
I spent the evening at my local coffee house showing youtube videos of building 7. BBC reporting the collapse early, Aaron Brown doing the same . . Larry Silverstein reporting that he had the building pulled . . Dan Rather and Peter Jennings saying that building 7 looked like a controlled demolition.
No one had ever heard of this this!
Don't assume that others know what you know. The administrations lies are bubbling to the surface of the body politic. Now is the time to redouble our efforts to get the word out!
The claim from Hoffman and
The claim from Hoffman and others is that if a large inferno was raging rather than just the fires on the floors we see in the photos then at least the windows should have been broken on the floors where there were no other signs of fire. By far the majority of the windows are not broken.
update
The paper referred to appears to have been updated to take into account the comments re the fires low down on the north face. The conclusion remains the same - controlled demolition was the cause of collapse.
Supporters of the official fire theory often claim severe damage from falling debris assisted the fire. The damage however is on the south side, the same side as the fire, so this supports the demolition theory.