All posts tagged: WTC7

is Europhysics News announcing it will censor science papers on political grounds? – follow up to Jones et al

A few months back, Europhysics News, the science journal that published the new study “On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapse”, by Jones et al (republished here on OffG), published an interesting range of follow up letters to the editor. Less widely publicised has been an announcement in the same edition from its editors that reads like a declaration of political censorship. The small collection of “letters to the editor” published in a recent edition of Europhysics News as a follow-up to the Jones et al paper “On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapse” is revelatory on several levels. Not only for the range of views expressed, but also, and perhaps most significantly, as a statement on the level of censorship and self-censorhip currently deemed acceptable in academia. The letter that received most attention in the alt media is from a “member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997 – 2011,” and alleging “the more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, …

Barry Jennings: an explosive account

by Bryan Kinnear I heartily commend OffG for hosting their 9/11 series; most sites tend to be polarised as either pro or con – it is a rare opportunity for both sides to air simultaneously. I also commend Jerome and Carroll for largely driving one side of the argument; and in particular to Carroll for his diligent and detailed research. I concur that the jury is still out regarding nano-thermite and that further studies are required to verify this. This, in itself is in line with the Harrit et al paper. [1] In agreeing that Carroll has done valuable work and broadened the debate, I however also believe that he then goes too far in his hypothesis. Where I begin to diverge is in the production of what I would term an “If Chewbacca lives on Endor – you must acquit”; [2] a type of non sequitur argument with a fallacious conclusion – that no thermite = no CD = fire collapse. To my mind, he has at most highlighted that the mechanism of collapse …

Steve Spak’s footage of WTC7

from OffG on Youtube  edited Steve Spak’s film of WTC7 prior to its collapse has been cited in the comments here as evidence the building was blazing “out of control” prior to collapse. Given this it seems appropriate to give this video a place in our series, to allow people to appreciate this crucial piece of evidence, and decide for themselves if this claim is true. Prior to 9/11 no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsed completely as a result of fire, nor has one done so since. NIST’s fire-induced collapse theory for WTC 1, 2 and 7 therefore describes a unique event that needs to be carefully examined. Please note neither the building seen dimly blazing in the distance at one point nor the shorter building seen in the foreground latin the video are WTC7. WTC7 is the taller reddish building with fires visible on two floors. For comparison here are two other high rise buildings on fire – neither of which collapsed as a result. In light of some of the …

NIST finally admits free fall of WTC7

  from OffG on Youtube this is a playlist of three videos, to access all of them click on the upper left tab David Chandler, physics teacher and member of AE9/11 Truth describes the journey toward NIST’s public admission that their initial calculations were incorrect and that WTC7’s first eight floors did descend at free-fall speed. This concession by NIST (see section 11) raises many additional questions about the plausibility of the fire-induced progressive failure explanation for WTC7’s collapse that NIST published in 2008. In light of some of the disruptive and time-wasting commentary on these science-based 9/11 threads, we are asking everyone who makes claims of fact to post links or sources, be courteous, and stay on topic. Thanks….

Screw Loose Change respond to Jones et al

from Screw Loose Change This response to “On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapses“, is not thorough or scholarly, is shot through with basic errors (the type of plane that hit the towers for one), but it is so far the only response we have found that isn’t simply ad hominem or ridicule, and we’re publishing it in the interests of presenting opposing views. Is there a serious rebuttal to be made of Jones et al? Is this the best that can be done to refute the case for controlled demolition? We would very much like to see a better one of it can be found. And if it can’t – well that speaks for itself. And if anyone wants to reply to this we’ll be happy to publish any cogent responses In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article. Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write: …

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 – David Chandler

from Press for Truth In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period.Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. David Chandler is a physicist whose work on WTC collapse physics was instrumental in NIST admitting publicly that WTC7 underwent freefall.

“The Third Tower”: a critical view

from 9/11 blogger On July 6, 2008, BBC released a documentary examining the collapse of World Trade Center 7, on September 11, 2001. The film purported to “solve the final mystery” of 9/11 in regards to whether the collapse of the building was due to fire or controlled demolition. The film used interviews of people from both sides of the argument, as well as stock footage and reconstructions to show the viewer the cases to be made for each theory. This is the second film the BBC has created on the subject of alternative theories of 9/11. The film is highly charged and controversial, with emotions running deep. In this review I will attempt to remove the emotional side of the film and simply look at the facts and opinions offered, their validity, and the BBC’s attempt to make a “balanced” film. Act I The film opens with a quick introduction that thrusts the viewer into the chaos of 9/11 – the plane impacts and subsequent destruction of the World Trade Center towers that we …

BBC Conspiracy Files: “The Third Tower”

What do explosions sound like? First broadcast in 2008, this is another in the BBC series “Conspiracy Files”. It sets out to debunk alleged myths and misconceptions about the seemingly inexplicable collapse of the Saloman Brothers Building (aka Building 7, WTC7, or 7 World Trade Center), on the afternoon of 9/11. Unlike WTC 1 and 2, Building 7 had not been hit by a plane, and its free-fall collapse into its own footprint was seen by many observers, both professional demolition experts and members of the public, to be all but indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. This program offers a perspective that these perceptions are mistaken.  For a critical analysis of this film see “The Third Tower”: a critical review

Do we need another 9/11 conspiracy theory?

by Kevin Ryan The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a turning point in world history. We have been told that these attacks were planned and implemented by nineteen Arab Muslim hijackers under the direction of the leaders of al Qaeda. According to the official account, this criminal conspiracy received no help or funding from any government. Unfortunately, this explanation fails to address a majority of the evidence and leaves most of the critical questions unanswered.[1] In fact, the reports that constitute the official account do so little to explain what happened that it is possible that, to this day, we know very little about who was behind the attacks. That fact is alarming to many people, given that so much war and unprecedented change has been driven by the official account. On closer inspection, the 9/11 Commission Report provides only 90 pages of discussion about what actually happened on the day of 9/11, found in chapters 1 and 9 of the report. The remainder of the report is devoted to promoting a myth …