This is an explosion…

There are no intact floors above the advancing collapse line. The concrete and debris are immediately pulverized and ejected sideways along with other parts of the structure including heavy beams that go on to destroy neighboring buildings.

There is no ‘pile-driver’ effect as is evidenced by this photo and further confirmed by the arrested angular momentum of the upper floors in the south tower.

The collapse proceeds through the strongest part of the building, the center structural core, at nearly free-fall acceleration. As you might suspect, this can only mean the center structural support was taken out prior to this collapse.

I can’t think of any way this could happen without an internal detonation, perhaps carefully timed to be masked by the crash of the plane.

There is no reason for what we see here and what we witnessed in the next 15 seconds. None is given. NIST gave up. Maybe you can fill us in :).

It is with great excitement that I announce the release of the Final Report of the Toronto Hearings, which is titled The 9/11 Toronto Report. It is now available for purchase on Amazon.com, for a reduced introductory price of $12.76. I encourage you to review the content of the book using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, and if you like the book, leave a positive five-star review. The book has already received a one-star review from someone who has not read the book, and we need to counteract these kinds of reviews.

The 9/11 Toronto Report is a collection of essays submitted by the witnesses who presented at the International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, which were held in Toronto, Canada over the 10th Anniversary of the attacks. I collected the essays, edited them, and arranged them into the chapters you find in the book. I believe it is the most succinct, comprehensive, and persuasive written treatment of the best evidence against the official story for 9/11 that has been produced to date. Those experts who contributed chapters include David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, David Chandler, Barbara Honegger, Richard Gage and many others.

The 9/11 Toronto Report also contains a written report and recommendation from each of the four distinguished panelists who heard the evidence presented over the four days of hearings and questioned the witnesses. The panelists include two eminent Canadian academics, an American civil engineer and academic, and the most famous and influential judge in Italy and honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court, Ferdinando Imposimato. As you will read in the final chapters of the Report, the opinions of these four individuals, each of which carries credibility and weight that cannot be disputed, make a clear and unmistakable case that the official account of 9/11 is false, and that the only way to realize truth and accountability is to tear down the wall of secrecy and lies that has been erected by the United States government around the events of 9/11.

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we have published a new article and a new letter. That makes 2012 as productive as our past three years at the journal combined.

This month's article is from Dr. Andre Rousseau and is titled "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

The conclusion states: "Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not."

The letter is in response to an article that was previously published at the journal. It is from Tod Fletcher and Dr. Tim Eastman, and is called " The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012NovemberFletcherEastman.pdf

Here is an excerpt: "A broad-based analysis is needed to understand the Pentagon events – an analysis that is based on the full range of available evidence and therefore cannot be exclusively scientific in a narrow sense. This is especially important due to the fact that physical, quantifiable evidence is extremely limited, while there are multiple related events and information that can contribute helpfully to addressing (and providing context for) the problem. Thus, we have emphasized the superiority of a systematic contextual approach that builds effectively on such related information, and the need to treat the limited available evidence within its associated context. Further, we have emphasized the need to leverage the best established results, including attention to the likely means, opportunities, and motives of perpetrators."

In December, we expect to have more to share.

Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen

By Kevin Ryan

In the summer of 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Robert Wright, a counterterrorism expert from the Chicago office, made some startling claims about the Bureau in a written statement outlining the difficulties he had doing his job.  Three months before 9/11, he wrote: “The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad.  Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States.”[1]

Revelations since 9/11 have confirmed Wright’s claims.  FBI management did little or nothing to stop terrorism in the decade before 9/11 and, in some cases, appeared to have supported terrorists.  This is more disturbing considering that the power of the FBI over terrorism investigations was supreme.  In 1998, the FBI’s strategic plan stated that terrorist activities fell “almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FBI” and that “the FBI has no higher priority than to combat terrorism.”[2]

A number of people are suspect in these failures, including the leaders of the FBI’s counterterrorism programs.  But at the time of Wright’s written complaint, which was not shared with the public until May 2002, the man most responsible was Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993 to 2001.