KTBS - He claimed he met three of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Shreveport a year before the attacks. Now, that man, Shreveport dentist Dr. David Graham, is dead.
His family says he was poisoned more than two years ago. At the time, Graham was trying to publish a manuscript about meeting three middle easterners in Shreveport, men he feared were plotting to bomb Barksdale Air Force Base. Graham wrote that he warned the FBI. Then after Sept. 11, he saw their pictures among the hijackers.
Before Graham was poisoned, he was supposed to testify at a deportation hearing against a Pakistani man, Jamal Khan, who hosted the men Graham believed to be the hijackers. Graham's brother, Edwin Jones, told us Wednesday night the family believes someone slipped poison into his drink, plunging him into a deadly illness.
quote:
KSLA - SHREVEPORT, LA
Who Killed Dr. David Graham? Complaint filed with DOJ
Who killed Shreveport dentist and 9/11 researcher David Graham? That's the question at the heart of a complaint filed with the Inspector General's office at the U.S. Justice Department. It comes a year after Graham's death that was never investigated.
Up until his death in September 2006, Dr. Graham insisted someone poisoned him two years earlier, likely with propylene glycol (anti-freeze) as he tried to publish a book. That book claimed he met two 9/11 hijackers a year before September 11th and feared the men intended to target Barksdale Air Force Base.
Shreveport attorney John Milkovich, a friend of Dr. Graham, explained, "he documented in his book that he had reported them to the FBI some ten months before 9/11 and of course that you know, the FBI, federal authorities never detained these individuals, and that he had received a threat." Graham told those close to him that threat came from a federal agent.
Milkovich is the man who gave the eulogy at Graham's funeral. He said that there's no question about whether or not someone poisoned Dr. Graham. The question has always been who did it. Milkovich continued, "I personally don't know who poisoned him but I think that it's very important that the truth come out."
9/11 researcher Sander Hicks is the one who just filed a complaint with the Inspector General's Office at the DOJ, asking for an investigation into Graham's death because, among other reasons, those close to him still live in fear. Hicks told us, "the family has been worried that there's going to be some kind of reprisal."
Fear ran so high, said Hicks, that the family did not ask for an autopsy, even after Dr. Graham's 27-months of paralysis and organ failures before his death at a Shreveport nursing home. Hicks added, "If Dr. Graham can be taken out so easily without an investigation from law enforcement you know, people are scared."
The Department of Justice told Hicks to expect a reply within the next 6-months. I spoke by phone with Special Agent in Charge Mike Kinder in the Shreveport FBI office. He told me, there is no evidence those terror suspects, Nawaf Al-Hazi and Fayez Banihammad, were ever in Shreveport and said Dr. Graham only mentioned them after 9/11. Kinder also said the FBI did not investigate Graham's death because there was no evidence of any connection between Graham's writings and his illness.
Story by Jeff Ferrell
http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?s=7229970
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 07:53:
Here's a good montage showing many people who witnessed explosions
None of that is evidence of a bomb. None.
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 21:17:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
None of that is evidence of a bomb. None.
You can keep telling yourself that all that you want because to those of us who choose to perceive instead of deceive (as you seem to be so fond of doing), it sure sounds like there's a lot more to the story than we've been told.
Heck, even our President talked about intelligence relating to bombs being planted in the towers. It's just that you keep glossing over it in the effort to keep everyone misinformed.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Don't dodge my words! Hehe, the list was not meant to distract you, sorry.
Today is day three of Krypton's dodging that one. lol
Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 21:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
You can keep telling yourself that all that you want because to those of us who choose to perceive instead of deceive (as you seem to be so fond of doing), it sure sounds like there's a lot more to the story than we've been told.
Spare me your rhyming rhetoric bullshit. Show me the bomb fragments. The explosives material. All you have is people saying they though they heard a bomb. Many things sound like a bomb when they explode. It's not fucking rocket science.
Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 21:35:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Today is day three of Krypton's dodging that one. lol
Hehe, good one, are you always that funny? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a fucking comedian!!Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 21:36:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Spare me your rhyming rhetoric bullshit. Show me the bomb fragments. The explosives material. All you have is people saying they though they heard a bomb. Many things sound like a bomb when they explode. It's not fucking rocket science.
No, my ill-witted friend, we have described a scenario in which could only have occurred through a controlled demolition. Remember that whole free-fall thing that you haven't addressed?
Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 21:43:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
No, my ill-witted friend, we have described a scenario in which could only have occurred through a controlled demolition. Remember that whole free-fall thing that you haven't addressed?
Funny thing is, the towers fell TOP-DOWN. Controlled demolitions...DOWN-UP.
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 21:53:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Spare me your rhyming rhetoric bullshit. Show me the bomb fragments. The explosives material. All you have is people saying they though they heard a bomb. Many things sound like a bomb when they explode. It's not fucking rocket science.
How many things that sound like bombs actually blow people across the LOBBY, UP stairwells and across the sub-basement of the WTC towers (which numerous people reported upon)?
They actually arrested men who had a van full of explosives on 9/11 so why exactly is it that you don't think that we should have an independent investigation looking into these things?
Graeme MacQueen, Founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies (McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario) reads testimony from New York Fire Dept. firefighters:
Angel Rivera: "When we hit the 19th floor, something horrendous happened. It was like a bomb went off. We thought we were dead. The whole building shook."
NYFD Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory: I thought that I saw...low level flashes...I saw flash-flash-flash, and then it looked like the building came down. You know like when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."
Firefighter Daniel Rivera: "At first I thought it was... Do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear, 'pop-pop-pop-pop-pop'? That's exactly what, because I thought it was that, when I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."
NYFD Captain Karin Deshore: "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash kept popping, all the way around the building, and that building had started to explode."
Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 22:01:
Well considering how fucking perfect the whole thing went off, I'm sure taking into effect that collapsing it from the bottom first would be a huge mistake and surely spoil the next 7 years of pre-planned foreign policy.
Here you can see the tower start its ascent, breaking off from the stable lower half of the building. How does the rest follow suit, collapsing under what is clearly a favourable weight distribution to the remainder of the building. Yet the rest collapses in uniformity. Notice the flashes of light just prior to collapse, on both faces of the building.
Perhaps the street level view, with blatant thermite reaction coming from where the buiding wounded will alleviate any concerns on what brough the towers down. lol
Naturally, I don't believe this will be the case.
You haven't addressed my dissection of that awful propaganda tear-jerker you put up for my amusement either.
Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 22:14:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
How many things that sound like bombs actually blow people across the LOBBY, UP stairwells and across the sub-basement of the WTC towers (which numerous people reported upon)?
They actually arrested men who had a van full of explosives on 9/11 so why exactly is it that you don't think that we should have an independent investigation looking into these things?
Once again, nothing but conjecture. A van with explosives in it. Oh gee. Must be the 9/11 bomb squad! You've just made a giant leap in that assumption. As for the "firefighter" testimony, once again, hearing explosions does not necessarily mean a bomb is going off. And once again, show us bomb fragments, who set the bombs, who ordered the bombs laid, what are the orders, what explosives material was found? You guys are just repeating yourselves, "there was was bomb there was a bomb there was bomb, believe us or you're a troll believe or you're a troll believe us or your a troll."...Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 22:14:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Here you can see the tower start its ascent, breaking off from the stable lower half of the building. How does the rest follow suit, collapsing under what is clearly a favourable weight distribution to the remainder of the building. Yet the rest collapses in uniformity. Notice the flashes of light just prior to collapse, on both faces of the building.
quote:
"My wife and I, transfixed in front of a TV as the horror of 9/11 unfolded, watched as the topmost, undamaged floors of the WTC South Tower started to gradually lean (rotate) in the direction of the damage due to impact. In an instant, the rotation stopped, and that which was rotating began to fall, as if only under the influence of gravity! The fulcrum was no longer there!
I blurted out, "My god, they wired the building."
I haven't been at peace with myself, or the world, since then. I had no idea who the "they" in my utterance was, and to this day still do not. Since learning more about the events leading up, and subsequent to the tragedy, I have become firmly convinced that the conspiracy being sold to the world by the Government, the media, and debunkers is the greatest Red Herring of our time, if not in history. Those of us who are seeking the "Truth about 9/11" face a formidable but not insurmountable challenge: to convince those who don�t want to know to join us in applying a continuing and increasing pressure on the media to force those who don�t want us to know into the light of day.
- Mike Hawryluk, MAT � Professor Emeritus of Physics and former Division Chairman, Suffolk County Community College, NY
quote:
In that instant, the force opposing that of gravity, at the center of rotation appears to have gone to zero. This in itself should refute the 'pancake collapse' hypothesis. To be credible, the basic assumption of this hypothesis is the simultaneous application and even distribution of an equal force spread over each successive floor. The available visual evidence contradicts this hypothesis:
neither the sum of the vertical forces nor the sum of the torques is equal to zero, since there is clear evidence of both angular and translational acceleration, and
at the instant of an unexplained event (apparent explosion) the angular acceleration appears to go to zero, and the translational approaches that of 'free fall.'
The only physical explanation for this observable phenomena is the instantaneous removal of the force(s) opposing the motion of the falling, rotating upper structure, which is (are), the force(s) applied by the remaining structure beneath it, whether damaged, or undamaged.
That can only be accomplished by putting the damaged supporting structure into a "free fall" condition, i.e., controlled demolition. It should be obvious to everyone that the impact times and velocities of the falling upper block on the supporting floors would be a function of the horizontal distance from the instantaneous center of rotation which was at or near the western face of the tower.
- Mike Hawryluk, MAT � Professor Emeritus of Physics and former Division Chairman, Suffolk County Community College, NY
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 22:18:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Once again, nothing but conjecture. A van with explosives in it. Oh gee. Must be the 9/11 bomb squad! You've just made a giant leap in that assumption. As for the "firefighter" testimony, once again, hearing explosions does not necessarily mean a bomb is going off. And once again, show us bomb fragments, who set the bombs, who ordered the bombs laid, what are the orders, what explosives material was found? You guys are just repeating yourselves, "there was was bomb there was a bomb there was bomb, believe us or you're a troll believe or you're a troll believe us or your a troll."...
Man, you really work hard to try and discredit the thousand pieces of evidence that are contrary to the "official" conspiracy. I'll give you that much but at the same time I can't even fathom how many lifetimes it's going to take for you to work all that nasty karma back out of your soul. lol
Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 22:44:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Man, you really work hard to try and discredit the thousand pieces of evidence that are contrary to the "official" conspiracy. I'll give you that much but at the same time I can't even fathom how many lifetimes it's going to take for you to work all that nasty karma back out of your soul. lol
You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence. You have no direct evidence.
Again, if your case is so strong, then you should be able to prosecute those responsible. 7 years after the fact, you guys are here in a forum screaming "believe us or you're a troll", and just wasting everyone's time. Talk is cheap. I want to see someone arrested and charged with 9/11. Oh forgot...Khalid Sheik Mohammed was already arrested. Oh, but our government did the attacks...hmmm...I guess Mohammed was set up huh?
Posted by {b.s.e.} on Oct-26-2008 22:51:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Again, if your case is so strong, then you should be able to prosecute those responsible. 7 years after the fact, you guys are here in a forum screaming "believe us or you're a troll", and just wasting everyone's time. Talk is cheap. I want to see someone arrested and charged with 9/11. Oh forgot...Khalid Sheik Mohammed was already arrested. Oh, but our government did the attacks...hmmm...I guess Mohammed was set up huh?
LeeHarveyWho? Posted by Krypton on Oct-26-2008 22:54:
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
LeeHarveyWho?
Are we going to change the subject again? 9/11 or Kennedy? WTF are we going to talk about? Or is 9/11 somehow connected to the Kennedy assassination? I'm dying to hear this new conspiracy...let's hear it...Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-26-2008 23:49:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Are we going to change the subject again? 9/11 or Kennedy? WTF are we going to talk about? Or is 9/11 somehow connected to the Kennedy assassination? I'm dying to hear this new conspiracy...let's hear it...
I don't think he was changing the subject as you either naively or ingenuously seemed to imply, Mr. Twister. I think he was probably trying to make a correlation between Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Oswald as both being patsies.
Am I right, b.s.e.?
Posted by Krypton on Oct-27-2008 00:07:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
I don't think he was changing the subject as you either naively or ingenuously seemed to imply, Mr. Twister. I think he was probably trying to make a correlation between Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Oswald as both being patsies.
Am I right, b.s.e.?
We again come to, who is your prime suspect? You have none. The day you can make a case worthy enough to prosecute someone for treason, is the day you've won me over. I want somebody brought to justice.
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-27-2008 00:56:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
We again come to, who is your prime suspect? You have none. The day you can make a case worthy enough to prosecute someone for treason, is the day you've won me over. I want somebody brought to justice.
So in other words, unless I'm somehow able to do what a team of lawyers (with the power to subpoena public officials) are able to do then the entire mass of evidence which has been brought up that disputes the official conspiracy theory is somehow without merit? lol
By saying that, don't you realize that you're now placing the weight of your argument on the Burden of Proof and Argument from Ignorance fallacies?
Posted by Krypton on Oct-27-2008 01:32:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
So in other words, unless I'm somehow able to do what a team of lawyers (with the power to subpoena public officials) are able to do then the entire mass of evidence which has been brought up that disputes the official conspiracy theory is somehow without merit? lol
Oh, but apparently, as you've demonstrated in past threads, one doesn't need to be a lawyer to do what lawyers do. Or be a doctor to do what doctors do. Now, it's different huh? You claim someone can become a doctor with accrediation or most importantly, a university education......So what, are you admitting you're not qualified to develop a rational case worthy of a court room? Is this the day trancer admits he doesn't know it all?
The burden of proof is on you. Are you telling me it's not? You make outrageous claims, you better damn well support them with verifiable, indisputable evidence. My standard for your evidence is the same standard used in a court room. Here you bring about this case and I analyze as a jury would in determining guilt or innocence. First, you've yet to even name a primary suspect(s), so there goes your trial, if you don't even know who to prosecute. Secondly, not that this point matters (b/c you can't even get past the first point), but you have little to no direct/circumstantial evidence of bomb fragments, organization, plot, etc. etc. Your entire case has gaping holes, and here, you expect me and others to accept your case without question or critique, or otherwise we're trolls or brainwashed. Guess that's how it goes in the holy church of conspiracy. To question your dogma is to be with the Great Satan, the NWO, oooooo...Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-27-2008 02:27:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Oh, but apparently, as demonstrated in past threads, one doesn't need to be a lawyer to do what lawyers do. Or be a doctor to do what doctors do. Now, it's different huh?
The burden of proof is on you. Are you telling me it's not? You make outrageous claims, you better damn well support them with verifiable, indisputable evidence. My standard for your evidence is the same standard used in a court room. Here you bring about this case and I analyze as a jury would in determining guilt or innocence. First, you've yet to even name a primary suspect(s), so there goes your trial, if you don't even know who to prosecute. Not that this point matters (b/c you can't even get past the first point), but you have little to no direct/circumstantial evidence of bomb fragments, organization, plot, etc. etc. Your entire case has gaping holes, and here, you expect me and others to accept your case without question or critique, or otherwise we're trolls or brainwashed. Guess that's how it goes in the holy church of conspiracy. To question your dogma is to be with the Great Satan, the NWO, oooooo...
Your ability to twist people's words around is unparalleled. Hats off to you for being such an amazing bullshitter!!
In all seriousness, you can do whatever you want to do without having to have those accreditations. You just can't do everything legally. It's like in building, you can build whatever you want but it's not legal unless you've acquired the right permits. But have there been people who've built things without permits? Without a doubt but I think that it has to do more with bureaucracy than anything else. So while noone's preventing you from doing anything, that doesn't mean you're not subject to certain codes and laws.
Anyway, my claims are hardly outrageous. They just sound outrageous to people like yourself who are living under the blanket of ignorance which the establishment perpetually casts over us in the form of indoctrination, social conditioning, and propaganda.
The fact that you feel the need to continually twist my words to make it sound like I'm saying something which I never even said is quite telling in regards to how adept you are in manipulating the truth, though. That's probably part of the reason why some people think you're some kind of agent - maybe even a socialist change agent.
I never said that I was taking anyone to court, so why do you need to continue to bring that up as a straw man? Heck, even if I was a lawyer and wanted to try and take those responsible to court based solely on the overabundance of circumstantial evidence, I probably wouldn't have a chance because even the 9/11 Commission members themselves (who were just about all government insiders beholden to the Bush administration) had a hard time getting Bush and Cheney to testify in front of them. And even when they finally DID manage to get them to agree to it, they refused to be questioned separately and wound up appearing in front of the panel together. I mean, if that alone doesn't wreak of complicity or coverup then I don't know what else does - but of course that was just one of the NUMEROUS instances of stonewalling that the commission dealt with. But that's just one of the hundreds of issues that you so conveniently overlook in your attempt to maintain the status quo.
Of course, you still haven't answered b.s.e.'s question regarding the Conservation of Energy but I guess I should expect that you never will - given that Law alone is enough to refute the official "pancake collapse" theory.
BTW - why are YOU so highly critical of some anonymous messageboard poster's alleged "conspiracy theory" when it was the official one that served as the lynchpin that unconstitutionally got us into two wars, got us the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the unconstitutional Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and all kinds of other, assorted unconstitutional police state legislation which has since been directed at the civilian population here in America while further destroying our economy at the same time? Maybe you should think long and hard about that (and I think that everybody else should, too.)
Posted by Krypton on Oct-27-2008 02:51:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Your ability to twist people's words around is unparalleled. Hats off to you for being such an amazing bullshitter!!
Intolerance of criticism. Wouldn't expect any other response...
quote:
In all seriousness, you can do whatever you want to do without having to have those accreditations. You just can't do everything legally. It's like in building, you can build whatever you want but it's not legal unless you've acquired the right permits. But have there been people who've built things without permits? Without a doubt but I think that it has to do more with bureaucracy than anything else. So while noone's preventing you from doing anything, that doesn't mean you're not subject to certain codes and laws.
Ok, Mr. unaccredited lawyer. Because that is what you're doing. You're trying to build a case, no? Well, you're doing an awful job at it.
quote:
Anyway, my claims are hardly outrageous. They just sound outrageous to people like yourself who are living under the blanket of ignorance which the establishment perpetually casts over us in the form of indoctrination, social conditioning, and propaganda.
Here we go with the "sheeple" bullshit again. Honestly, fuck off.
quote:
The fact that you feel the need to continually twist my words to make it sound like I'm saying something which I never even said is quite telling in regards to how adept you are in manipulating the truth, though. That's probably part of the reason why some people think you're some kind of agent - maybe even a socialist change agent.
Oh, twisting words, oh noezzzz. You're paranoid accusations that I'm a government agent is probably the stupidest thing I've EVER encountered in this forum. #1. That says a lot.
quote:
I never said that I was taking anyone to court, so why do you need to continue to bring that up as a straw man? Heck, even if I was a lawyer and wanted to try and take those responsible to court based solely on the overabundance of circumstantial evidence, I probably wouldn't have a chance because even the 9/11 Commission members themselves (who were just about all government insiders beholden to the Bush administration) had a hard time getting Bush and Cheney to testify in front of them. And even when they finally DID manage to get them to agree to it, they refused to be questioned separately and wound up appearing in front of the panel together. I mean, if that alone doesn't wreak of complicity or coverup then I don't know what else does - but of course that was just one of the NUMEROUS instances of stonewalling that the commission dealt with. But that's just one of the hundreds of issues that you so conveniently overlook in your attempt to maintain the status quo.
Please, spare me this "status quo" piece of shit argument. You have no case. Get it? You want people to believe you? MAKE A FUCKING CASE. Is it that hard to understand? Your theories are so full of fallacies, it's funny you label every one of mine as fallacious. I'm sure you've not even a clue what a syllogism is...HINT: you should use it more often.
quote:
Of course, you still haven't answered b.s.e.'s question regarding the Conservation of Energy but I guess I should expect that you never will - given that Law alone is enough to refute the official "pancake collapse" theory.
It wasn't directed at me, you numbskull! What, do I have to address every plagiarized thing you guys post? Again, I said, the buildings fell TOP DOWN, not BOTTOM UP as in a controlled demolition.
quote:
BTW - why are YOU so highly critical of some anonymous messageboard poster's alleged "conspiracy theory" when it was the official one that served as the lynchpin that unconstitutionally got us into two wars, got us the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the unconstitutional Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and all kinds of other, assorted unconstitutional police state legislation which has since been directed at the civilian population here in America while further destroying our economy at the same time? Maybe you should think long and hard about that (and I think that everybody else should, too.)
So, policies of our president, somehow proves a 9/11 conspiracy? Wow, where does it stop and where does it begin. What else is new? Bush family responsible for Kennedy assassination?
As a liberal, I stand firmly in support of the protection of civil liberties, at all times, in war and peace. That's why I support organizations such as the ACLU which is constantly on the front line when the government infringes upon civil liberties.
But I ask again, if your case is so right, so spot on, with so much "evidence", why haven't you, or anyone like you, filed a court case, taken your case to a prosecutor, to have the perpetrators brought to justice. I think I know. YOU HAVE NO CASE.... You can dance around this all you want. Call me a troll, sheeple, or brainwashed. I see right through the bullshit dude, keep trying...Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-27-2008 02:54:
From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government
Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m.
The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to �Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed�.1 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses.2 NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others.
DISCUSSION
1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
FEMA: �The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue�.2
FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA�s best firebased hypothesis �has only a low probability of occurrence.� NIST�s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is eagerly awaited.3 Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.
2. Withstanding Jet Impact
FEMA: �The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport�� 2
NIST: �Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity�.4
Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: �The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?�5
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer�.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
�Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."6
Thus, Skilling�s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: �NIST�s findings do not support the �pancake theory� of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers� Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon�.3
Agreed: the �pancake theory of collapse� is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary �Why the Towers Fell� produced by NOVA.7 The �pancake theory of collapse� is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the �pancake theory� is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.
4. Massive Core Columns
NIST: �As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads�.4 �The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time�enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely�.10
�Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core� The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.� �The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact�.11
We totally agree that the WTC Towers included �massive� interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that the Towers were �hollow tubes� with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, �The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube��.12
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns � and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns � and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.
5. Essentially in Free Fall
NIST: [Question:] �How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) � speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?� [Answer:] �As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: �� the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos�.3
We agree with some of this, that the building �came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.� This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings �came down essentially in free fall� seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that �the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance� to the fall � but we ask � how could that be? NIST mentions �energy of deformation� which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the �intact structure� below would not significantly slow the motion.
Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable �free fall� collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)
Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST�s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.
We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.
6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: �NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers�. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing� The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11�.4
We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four �trusses like those in the WTC towers� survived the fire-endurance testing �without collapsing.� We also agree that �the fires in the towers on September 11 � were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces;� the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests. On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has never occurred.
But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country�. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.15
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire� The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.16
Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could not be returned to service. There is much left to learn here.
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: �The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes�.4 �At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 �C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 �C or below�.4
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how did both towers experience sudden-onset failure of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how could the collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and complete?13, 14, 17 We seek discussion on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
NIST: �In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)�.3
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.18
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST�s reported 1,100 �C.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.
9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence
NIST: �NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.� �The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure��.1
Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.19
And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for testing, it is clear that an �enormous amount� of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.20
We agree that only a �small fraction of the enormous amount of steel� from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene, was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.
10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)
NIST: �An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out�.4
�NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower�.3
We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an �unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke� 4 �followed by the flow of a glowing liquid� having �an orange glow� [3]. With regard to the �very bright flame� which is generating a plume of white smoke�, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because �Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures��.3
Again, we agree.
The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of an orange-glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.
11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation
FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): �Sample 1 (From WTC 7)� Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure�. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)� The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. �The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified� A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed��2
We agree that the physical evidence for �severe high temperature corrosion attack� involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How were �severe high temperatures� reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find the explanation for the �total collapse� of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
The WPI researchers published their results2, 21 and called for �a detailed study� of this �high-temperature� �oxidation and sulfidation� phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers� destruction.3, 4 Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well established.22 It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.
12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations
NIST: �The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance�the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...4 �The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.4 �The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse�4
We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no doubt �adjusted the input� to account for the Towers� destruction, after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their preordained collapse theory.
But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. �A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. �By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,� he said. �The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls�.23
Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24
We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: �This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction� we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse�.25
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the point where each Tower �was poised for collapse�.4 We offer to help find that elusive �full explanation of the total collapse� of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.
14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] �Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel�.3
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.26
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?� Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers� money.�.27
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST�s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is �wasting your time.� We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting.13, 22
CONCLUSIONS
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors �pancaked� to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27 Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
��we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse�.25
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen, Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.
REFERENCES
S. W. Banovic, �Federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster: Steel inventory and identification, NIST NCSTAR1-3B�. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), World Trade Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and recommendations, Report FEMA 403. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, May 2002.
S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. �National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently asked questions�, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. �Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg�, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, �Why did the World Trade Center collapse? Simple analysis�, J. Eng. Mech., vol. 128, pp. 2-6, January 2002.
J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. �Debunking the 9/11 myths, special report�, Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 70-81, March 2005.
D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 debunking: �An answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory�, Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.
S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. �The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse�,JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.
D. A. Firmage. (April 10, 2006). �Refuting 9/11 conspiracy theory�, The College Times, p. A6.
S. E. Jones, �Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
F. Legge and T. Szamboti, �9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof 911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
J. Glanz, �A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel�, New York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.
J. Glanz, �A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel�, New York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.
D. L. Griscom, �Hand-waving the physics of 9/11�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, �Why did the World Trade Center collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation�, JOM, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001.
W. Manning, �Selling out the investigation�, Fire Engineering, January 2002, p. 4.
J. Gourley, R. McIlvaine, W. Doyle, S. E. Jones, K. Ryan and R. Gage, �Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 17 pp. 1-16. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
J. R. Barnett, R. R. Biederman and R. D. Sisson, Jr., �An initial microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7�, JOM, vol. 53, no. 12, p. 18, December 2001.
S. E. Jones, J. Farrer, G. S. Jenkins, et al. �Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 19, pp.1-11, January 2008. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
E. Douglas, �The NIST WTC investigation-- how real was the simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 6, pp. 1-28, December 2006. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
C. S. Fletcher (NIST), �Response to request for correction�, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
It wasn't directed at me, you numbskull! What, do I have to address every plagiarized thing you guys post? Again, I said, the buildings fell TOP DOWN, not BOTTOM UP as in a controlled demolition.
It most certainly was directed at you; answers pleez.
Are you now accusing me of plagerising material? Good gracious, when will it end?
