New Article at Journal of 9/11 Studies - "911 - Acceleration Close to Free Fall"

In pdf form: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Close-to-Free-Fall.pdf

Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting
Perth, Western Australia.
flegge (at) iinet.net.au

Version 2.0

Abstract

The topic of the downward acceleration of the buildings at the World Trade Centre has been frequently discussed. The discussion is usually brief and combined with other lines of evidence for explosive demolition and its significance is thereby obscured. Acceleration is an important topic because it is based on evidence readily available to all, namely videos, and also because the calculations involved are not complex and can easily be verified by the reader. The conclusion reached that explosives were used in the demolition of these buildings is therefore not only compelling but readily accessible.

On the 11th of September 2001 the twin towers of the World Trade Centre (WTC) were hit by aircraft and collapsed with tragic loss of life shortly afterwards. Videos of these collapses have been shown repeatedly on television. About seven hours later building 7 of the WTC also collapsed. This caused astonishment as it had not been hit by a plane. Despite the intriguing nature of this event videos of this collapse have rarely been shown and most of the population is unaware that a third building fell that day. This paper will deal only with that building.

There was little evidence of fire and it seems reasonable to assume that if firefighters had been permitted to work in the building the fires would have been extinguished. No loss of life occurred with WTC 7 as it had been evacuated long before the collapse. This arouses suspicion that someone in charge was aware that it was to be demolished and motivates investigation.

Continued...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/911-Acceleration-Close-to-Free-Fall.pdf

There you go again...

with all your "facts", "logic" and "science".

What do you mean?

I began to wonder if I should approach the author with my own calculations:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Well-said

I just read your piece and it is very well done. Thanks. Alvin

"just a blog"

Thanks.

Unfortunately, I was told by a Wikipedia editor that my piece couldn't be linked to because "it's just a blog" (although it is a blog only in the sense that it is published on blogger.com). I should probably find a better place for it. Any suggestions?

The editor also pointed out that my article was "far from dispassionate".

Anyone willing to participate in updating Wikipedia's WTC 7 page? Please let me know.

A friend just posted a link here:

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/3577

Great article. Deserves more readers.

If you want to publish it as original on that site, just update it a little bit and send it to me at alvin@americanbuddhist.net.

We will definitely put it up. That site gets decent readership. Alvin

Great report, concise and

Great report, concise and damning.

Show "This Is Not Your Father\'s Conspiracy Theory" by Anonymous (not verified)

Conspiracy theory??

Despite the message you are trying to promote, the majority of 9/11 Truth Seekers are average intelligent concerned citizens for whom the events of 9/11 simply do not make sense. We await your explanation of the collapse of WTC7 in terms that make sense scientifically and logically rather than your vitriolic attempts to discredit a legitimate search for answers among the volume of inconsistencies and deceit that make up the official story about the events of that fateful day.

Show "Do not make us laugh" by Anonymous (not verified)

LEAVE AND DON'T COME BACK.

LEAVE AND DON'T COME BACK.

What's With The Shills?

Always screaming about 'holocaust denial' & 'anti-semtism'?

I think I'll research the holocaust & see what you're so scared of.

US?

Who's US? and what makes you think you are laughing together?

Do they make you shills all sit in a room together.... you think you could just work from home

Slow learner, aren't you,

Slow learner, aren't you, 'Ernie'? Though it is nice of you to return to narrative disruption trolling. The gratuitous insults were just sad.

But it's not enough. It can get much worse for you. LEAVE AND DON'T COME BACK.

Then you'll never hear from me again, where ever you are.

Don't piss me off, sunbeam.

Show "Indeed you are" by Anonymous (not verified)

love it!!

basic-in your face-high school math!

mother nature reveals to us.....

..and mother nature don't lie.

Excellent Paper Frank Legge

Very concise and to the point.

Great read and valuable addition to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Thanks

Brilliant comment on legal angle!

'Will' makes a very interesting point. There is great viability in a class-action against NYC- Giuliani, Silverstiein for --"no demolition permit!'--

...it's like a patient telling his Dr. what to prescribe, no?

Impeachment now, while in office! I will not bow-down to Commissar Clinton!

Show "Little Evidence of fire?" by Eric Blair (not verified)

Questions

Read all of your quotes again, good sir. You will see that only one of the first quotes makes a mention of fire (is this why you put it up front) and it vaguely says that there was fires on several floors.
Where are the pictures of these blazing fires? Not one of your quotes mentions anything about a blazing fire. If you take all these firefighter quotes into account, you have to take the 140 different quotes of bombs in the building, as well.
Nobody here is denying that the building was damaged and had fires on a few floors.
What we are saying is that buildings 4, 5 and 6 were just as (if not more) damaged then building 7 and didn't even come close to falling down. 7 was the furthest building from the towers. How is it that the furthest building falls onto its own footsteps in less than 15 seconds?
Shouldn't we at least look into it and find out how to demolish buildings so easily using fire?
Why don't demolition teams blow up a big chunk of the building on the side and set a few small fires instead of rigging the whole building?
Shouldn't we be at least skeptical that Silverstein only owns the 3 buildings that collapsed?

Properties leased by Larry Silverstein may fall down.

Eric Blair submitted...

(Little Evidence of fire? are you freakin insane?)

I submit ...

I have seen many pictures of small fires in different places in WTC 7 I have seen no pictures of fires big enough to break windows.and no unusually large out-gassing that would indicate a large fire"unseen" somewhere inside.

and Eric Blair submitted...

So I guess all these firefighters must be in on it: Cowards, all of them. Be sure to name them in your indictments.

I submit...

WHOAAAH COWBOY!! HOLD YOUR HORSES!!!!! What kind of neural implant do you have, that makes you think ,that I think ,(or anyone else on this blog) thinks that firefighters "must be in on it".

Quit tryin' t' build your pathetic scarecrows in our lush cornfield of truth.

I got news for ya buddy!

theres plenty of firefighters looking for 911 answers and I betcha ifya ask em..

After hearing many explosions and seeing Lucky Larrys WTC buildings 1-2-3-4-5-6 ALL DESTROYED with many many fellow firefighters and police missing,dead and wounded would you hesitate to evacuate WTC 7?

The firefighters initially

The firefighters initially called for the Lobby of WTC7 to be used as a "triage area".....anyone who has the Naudet film can verify this for themselves.
Who overuled this decision?

Very interesting; I didn't

Very interesting; I didn't know this.

Maybe the same people who told people it was okay to return to their offices after the first plane hit? Guiliani's Office of Emergency Managemnt, that is?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

7WTC collapse did have victims

There were two government employees who were killed inside 7WTC when it was demolished. One was a secret service agent and the other a Port Authority janitor from what i remember reading off of Prisonplanet.com's 9/11 archive back in 2002. I've tried finding those two names and/or that article from a few years back, but so far no luck....anybody else have the names of the two men killed in 7WTC on 9/11 ?
I think 9/11 truthers should check this out because it's a hell of a battering ram/smoking gun against the official story and Silverstein's BS statements and false excuses.

REBUILD !!

Agent Miller

One of those killed inside WTC7 was a Special Agent by the name of Craig Miller. Allegedly he was conducting "rescue efforts" - of what?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts. [PDF download]

Craig Miller

Here is one link on Craig Miller listing the cause of death: terrorist attack, weapon used: aircraft, passenger jet.

It makes no mention of building 7, it just states he died while rescuing victims trapped in the world trade center. What was he doing in WTC7?

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15843

Here is the congressional record honoring Miller where it specifically states he was in WTC7:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/documents/cr/02/ap/23/cr23ap...

I especially like the end,

"The falsity of the three official investigations in denying the use of explosives, given that
explosive demolition is so obvious, is prima facie evidence for complicity of some part of the
administration of the USA in the events of 9/11 and cries out for review."

That WTC7 came down in a controlled demolition using explosives is SOO OBVIOUS.

Cui bono?

Cui bono?

We know who the real culprits are. Soon they will pay the price for treason.
Free Image hosting by ImageSnap


click thumbnail

I'm sure everyone here has

I'm sure everyone here has read Skeptic magazine. Did you notice they show two pictures of WTC 7, one with mimimum fire seen, and another one where the building's face is completely obscured by smoke. And then the author goes on to say the fire damage (gaping 20 story hole) is clearly visible in this photo, the latter I just described. The entire piece is an hillarious affront to my senses.

MSM 'opinion' columns

Even for the undecided it should be highly suspicious how all those MSM commentators always turn out to have the same 'personal' 'opinion' about the 9/11 theories: Despite the polls that confirm at least 30% of the population to be truthers, somehow magically all those MSM magazines, editorials and commentarys are not in those 30%, and even actively campaign against 9/11 truth.
It's obvious as hell that a black cloud of intimidation is hanging over the MSM's heads.

3,000 / 6,000,000,000 = 0.0000005

/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Make hamburger out of Hamburger

This morning, 11 AM, Hollywood. Ronald Hamburger will be speaking at The Center for Inquiry-West. He was a principal author of FEMA's initial report on the collapse of the twin towers and a key participant in the NIST study. Tickets are $6 and may still be available http://www.cfiwest.org . I believe this will be in the Steve Allen Theatre at 4773 Hollywood Blvd. Might want to get down there early with a sign and let the grilling begin!

Show "Journal of 9/11 Studies is a Fraud and Cannot be Trusted" by CB_Brooklyn

CB_Brooklyn is a fraud and

CB_Brooklyn is a fraud and Cannot be trusted
see the information here...
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

Show "justacitizen is really brainwashed." by CB_Brooklyn

I see you doing nothing but

I see you doing nothing but trashing other peoples efforts...the very definition of disinfo.
We are supposed to find the research of a physics proffessor flawed, yet believe your research into a faked photograph....please.
And frankly the color of molten steel is irellevant when the very fact is molten steel shouldnt have been present at all.
So if my monitor has the color adjusted in any way differant than yours , may I post hundreds of blogs
calling you a fake for altering the shade of a color?
Please....

Show "There's a lot more than just" by CB_Brooklyn

I have read them...but

I have read them...but thanks for the link....
your arguement is " he is put here to keep us from looking into the truth of 9/11"
It seems to me truthers are left with two options

#1 The towers were hit with real planes and they were subsequently demolished with the help of explosives
Or
#2 The towers were hit with projected images, damaged by explosives, then leveled with
"spacebeams" (i.e. Direct Energy Weapons)

I,m going with option #1 as that is what I personally
believe.

The very same arguement can be made that you are in fact here pushing all these "no planes" "spacebeams"
theorys to keep us from looking into Jones work
into the presence of thermite.

So sorry, I side with common sense every time...
If it looks like a duck, ect, ect, ect

Sir, with all due respect (as I have actually frequented your site, and have gotten alot of information from it)
but whether you are or not, your posts continuously
make me believe you are trying to do nothing but disrupt and hijack posts.

And frankly, one has to question your motives.

On the flip side, if Jones was constantly in here saying
"Killtown" is a fraud...it would make me question his motives too...

Hes not.....You are....

If it looks like a duck, ect, ect ect

Show "Let Jones use the Laws of Science to Debunk TV-Fakery." by CB_Brooklyn

I would venture to guess he

I would venture to guess he may not not find your antogonisms worthy of a response.
If I was in his shoes, Id just let ya keep exposing yourself as the constant antagonist and let those around listen to both sides and choose for themselves...kinda like exactly what hes doing.
Every opinion I have of you comes from YOUR own comments and posts....Jones didnt need to say a word.
Maybe you should have tried the same approach.
But then, that wouldnt be very disruptive or distracting at all would it....
Thanks for the exchange, and I apologize for not being
as "bright" as yourself...but like I said
if it looks like a duck....
And you sir......look like a duck to me.
Then again, who am I, and why do you really care at all anyway?

Show "Who's Exposing Who?? Jones is already exposed as a FRAUD!" by CB_Brooklyn

LOL

You missed your calling in stand up comedy.

Show "you're so brainwashed that I" by CB_Brooklyn

Regarding his cold fusion

Regarding his cold fusion research...
Admittedly I am very unfamiliar with this, but since I dont see any of the elite (I.E. Halliburton) using it to make themselves billions more in pure profit Id have to say it doesnt seem to have panned out for those claiming it was legitimate.
So how exactly does his doubt in it (since it is now many years later and still isnt being used on a commercial level) make him a government agent?
Sounds like sound reasoning to me, Do Not Endorse A Theory Untill It Can Be Repeated With Consistancy
is the foundation of science sir.
As even the researchers who went public said, it should have gone through more rigorous experimentation before being asked to be accepted
as fact.
Now what would you be saying about him if he had come out in support of it ten years ago and it was still not "commonly used" .....
You instead, would be calling him a quack.....

Cold Fusion (free/cheap clean energy) is real...

Cold Fusion (free/cheap clean energy) is real but the government wanted this kept secret to keep us addicted to oil.

 So they planted Jones to do "different" cold fusion experiments, and publicize it. This did (at least) two things:

 

1. It allowed the media to discredit cold fusion to the whole country

2. It prevented the original scientists (Pons and Fleishchmann) from patenting their discovery.

I agree. But even Pons and

I agree. But even Pons and Fleishchmann were unable to duplicate it consistantly at the time.
And Jones was far from the only scientist who spoke
out against it at the time. At least as far as I can tell.

Jones discredited cold fusion

true, but it was discredited because of Jones.

Cold Fusion and Jones

You are confusing the apparently flawed research by Pons and Fleischmann with the reseach done by Jones which although originally termed "cold fusion" was later refered to as Muon-catalyzed fusion which is a proven effect but it is not a contender for power generation.
His work was not in any way deceitful and was successfully peer reviewed and published. Also unlike Pons and Fleischmanns work it is readily reproducible.
Neither am I aware that Jones in any way supports the "no planes theory" It is a non contender and not in any way supportable by the physical evidence available. I am sure he would consider it not worth bothering with.
His theories on the demolition of the three WTC buildings are supportable by physical evidence as well as video and eye-witness testimony.

If you have any supportable comments either way instead of ad hominims please lets see them.

Clearer info on Steven Jones Deceitful Work

You are confusing the apparently flawed research by Pons and Fleischmann with the reseach done by Jones which although originally termed "cold fusion" was later refered to as Muon-catalyzed fusion which is a proven effect but it is not a contender for power generation.

 

I never said Pons and Fleischmann's work was perfect.

 

His work was not in any way deceitful and was successfully peer reviewed and published. Also unlike Pons and Fleischmanns work it is readily reproducible.

 

I already explained this, but will do so again. Jones was planted to do the alternate cold fusion research, and then publicize it. He discredited Pons and Fleischmann's work and prevented them from getting a patent.

 

Neither am I aware that Jones in any way supports the "no planes theory" It is a non contender and not in any way supportable by the physical evidence available. I am sure he would consider it not worth bothering with.

 

You don't know what the evidence is. Real planes violates basic laws of physics. The NPT is supported by the Laws of Physics. They can't be refuted, not even by Jones.

 


His theories on the demolition of the three WTC buildings are supportable by physical evidence as well as video and eye-witness testimony.

 

His theory is invalid as it does not take into account all the evidence. In addition, his deceitful 9/11 research has been proven in many areas. 

 

If you have any supportable comments either way instead of ad hominims please lets see them.

 

You should tell that to the others. 

Cold Fusion

So cold fusion is possible.... and they need a patent to make it happen?

"Damn....we didn't get the patent..... well screw this then..... what was that other thing you were working on?.... The Thigh Buster?..... yes....yes.... the Thigh Master!..... Let's do this!..... call Sally Strothers ASAP!"

C B Brooklyn v Jones and cold fusion

You are confusing the apparently flawed research by Pons and Fleischmann with the reseach done by Jones which although originally termed "cold fusion" was later refered to as Muon-catalyzed fusion which is a proven effect but it is not a contender for power generation.

I never said Pons and Fleischmann's work was perfect.
That's not the argument. You accused Jones of being decietful in his cold fusion research yet you have no evidence for that.
You are simply making a pathetic ad hominim attack on Jones.

His work was not in any way deceitful and was successfully peer reviewed and published. Also unlike Pons and Fleischmanns work it is readily reproducible.

I already explained this, but will do so again. Jones was planted to do the alternate cold fusion research, and then publicize it. He discredited Pons and Fleischmann's work and prevented them from getting a patent.

And your evidence for this is ????

Neither am I aware that Jones in any way supports the "no planes theory" It is a non contender and not in any way supportable by the physical evidence available. I am sure he would consider it not worth bothering with.

You don't know what the evidence is. Real planes violates basic laws of physics. The NPT is supported by the Laws of Physics. They can't be refuted, not even by Jones.
Are you confused? Real planes rely on the laws of physics to fly. If you mean the laws of physics were violated in some way when
the planes hit the towers then please explain.

His theories on the demolition of the three WTC buildings are supportable by physical evidence as well as video and eye-witness testimony.

His theory is invalid as it does not take into account all the evidence. In addition, his deceitful 9/11 research has been proven in many areas.

What evidence does Jones ignore? How can you prove deceitful research? Isnt that an oxymoron.
If you are claiming Jones was deceitful in his 9/11 research, please explain in what way.

If you have any supportable comments either way instead of ad hominims please lets see them.

You should tell that to the others.

I am asking you to support your assertions but I doubt that you are able.

Steven Jones' Deceitful Work

What evidence does Jones ignore? How can you prove deceitful research? Isnt that an oxymoron.
If you are claiming Jones was deceitful in his 9/11 research, please explain in what way.

Jones ignored much information, such as toasted cars, unbroken bathtub, all seven buildings being destroyed. See here for much more info.

 

If you have any supportable comments either way instead of ad hominims please lets see them.

I only post ad hominems as a defense. An eye for an eye. I missed your post btw. I only saw it because of this. That YT character is one real asshole ain't he??

 

I am asking you to support your assertions but I doubt that you are able.

That's what you wish to think. Look at the information I link to above and you'll see differently. 

Ah, a link to more of your fraudulent nonsense

Seems you were debunked over there too.

 

me? debunked?? HA!! I don't think so.

me? debunked?? HA!! I don't think so.

Oh... I get it

You were just simulating being debunked. Meanwhile, in some hidden reality - unbeknownst to anyone but yourself - you actually proved that thermite was used at the WTC cleanup! Clever!

cartoon

American Dad just made a great reference to poor 9/11 investigation... subtle but good

you wanna elaborate a little

you wanna elaborate a little bit? i fell asleep during American Dad last night and missed it.

post 911 cartoon world

I don't remeber the exact quote but it was about not asking any real follow up questions in an investigation in a post 911 world.... it was around the 20 minute mark

I vaguely remember

It had something to do with a bizarre, completely implausible theory. In the pre- 9/11 world, we wouldn't have thought we had enough evidence to prove it. But this is a post- 9/11 world, baby.

There was also a reference to "Boondocks."