Prof. Graeme MacQueen: preview of presentation for the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

A new video presentation, created specifically for the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference featuring Prof. Graeme MacQueen of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, entitled:

"9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses"

This is a preview (10 minutes) of his presentation to the conference, June 22nd to 24th, which will also be made available on DVD. Produced by Snowshoe Films

Prof. MacQueen is the founder of the "Center for Peace Studies"


Be sure to Rate it, make it a Fave and leave comments !

Please e-mail it your friends and contacts, and if you have a website, please feature it, by using the embed code shown on that page.

Where's part two?

That was amazing! Reminds me of a recent discussion right here at This Graeme MacQueen of McMaster University really "gets it" big time. Perfect common sense is what it really is. It's like we're living in a period of utter insanity right now, but the new sun of truth is dawning, slowly but surely.
On the 11th day, of every month.

to see part 2, get you

to see part 2, get your tickets to the vancouver 9/11 truth conference and see part 2 live! don't just wait for the DVD to come out. get your tickets and plan your trip up to vancouver to get the chance to meet these people in person. it'll be a great conference!

How do you pronounce Graeme?


What a great video and precedent!

Can't wait for #2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


It's close to Graham, but don't say "ham" at the end.

You can say "Grame" or "Grey-em" ; either way it sounds about the same.

Great piece.

Great piece.

Perfect tone

Calm, logical, dignified, intelligent.

Here is a recent interview

Here is a recent interview with MacQueen on the subject of 9/11. Also very good.

Interview with Graeme MacQueen


JFK on secrecy and the press

Well Done!

I totally agree that Prof, MacQueen gives a compelling argument in a logical and dignified way. Thank you, my friend.

Could somone please...

give me the most plausable reason for the pulverization of the concrete. Im still not getting it without considering non-conventional theories.

Concrete pulverization

I have just written an explanation for the pulverization of the concrete over at the STJ911 forum, which is a private forum, to address the exact doubts you express. The points I made there are:

1. The concrete in the twin tower floors contained little or no aggregate, to keep it light. It was essentially just powdered cement. There was no structural requirement other than the individual floor area loading, so it was feasible to do this to cut down on the weight of each floor. The lack of aggregate would allow it to be returned to a powder form when acted upon by explosive or high impulsive forces.

2. The twin towers were most probably demolished in a series of traditional controlled demolitions every third floor from the aircraft impact points down, with the upper stories also being demolished from the aircraft impact points up. It was essentially a series of thirty some controlled demolitions, one on top of the other all the way down. The lightweight concrete would have been acted upon many times during these continuous demolitions and I think it is easy enough to see how it could be pulverized.

Does anyone know

how much destabilization of the building would take place from the thermate cutting of certain steel columns? Would there be a "shift" of the infrastructure, based on the thermate cutting alone, then followed by the explosives?

According to the designers

Loads could be increased "2000%" before failure occurred. This implies that there had to be very significant column loss for failure to occur. Read my essay about the building designers on my blog for more building designer claims.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

How about the silica and rebar in the concrete?

Structural concrete Would have to contain a significant quantity of silica, at least in the form of silica sand, in a greater proportion than the cement used.

It is inconcievable that the concrete would not encase an intense rebar grid.

That lightweight aggregates could be used to some extent is true, but,

The concrete, as an amorphous crystalline mass, would have been immensely strong and require enormous amounts of energy to be shattered.

Your post seems to minimize these aspects of structural concrete.

Tony Szamboti

You suggest, ("The lack of aggregate would allow it to be returned to a powder form when acted upon by explosive or high impulsive forces.")

that the floors were made this way so as to be be blown up easily. This is a an enormous cannard.

The post by Tony Szamboti appears to contain false information. Careful voting this stuff up.

Who said the floors were

Who said the floors were made this way to be blown up easily?

How could you possibly take that from what I said?

My point was only that due to its lightweight construction, and lack of aggregate, it would more readily pulverize under intense forces than regular concrete which contains aggregate..

Concrete powder is not lightweight

Specify the "lightweight aggregate used and in what proportion.

"essentially concrete powder" is not lightweight.

"My point was only that due to its lightweight construction, and lack of aggregate, it would more readily pulverize under intense forces than regular concrete which contains aggregate.."

This statement seems extremely dubious. The strength and weight of the concrete was massive.

Good question

Pulled from a random supplier on Google:
"Structural lightweight concrete has strengths comparable to normal weight concrete, yet is typically 25% to 35% lighter. Structural lightweight concrete offers design flexibility and substantial cost savings by providing less dead load, improved seismic structural response, longer spans, better fire ratings, thinner sections, decreased story height, smaller size structural members, less reinforcing steel, and lower foundations costs."

Uses of Structural Lightweight Concrete
• Floors in steel frame buildings, (lightweight concrete on
fire-rated steel deck assemblies)
• Concrete frame buildings & parking structures (all types,
including post-tensioned floor systems)
• Bridge decks, piers & AASHTO girders
• Specified density concrete
• Lightweight concrete precast & prestressed elements
(beams, double-tees, tilt-up walls, raised access floor
panel planks, hog slats, utility vaults, pipes, ornamentals,

The trusses actually do the work holding up the steel pan/ concrete floorbed, made as thin as possible for the reasons stated above. Rebar is minimized or absent in such contruction.

From your article 7man....

"more blast resistant, and has better shock and sound absorption, High-Performance
lightweight aggregate concrete also has less cracking" (

So is what Tony said still true ...

"The lack of aggregate would allow it to be returned to a powder form when acted upon by explosive or high impulsive forces."

Im not sure exactly which of Tonys ideas is accurate.

Also the article says the need for Rebar is "minimized" not eliminated.

I believe the foundations of Tonys argument are weak and its conclusions unsupportable.


Let's not stray too much from Tony's point that the aggregate helps to strengthen 'structural' concrete, which is to say, not the floor systems used in steel structures where the lightweight concrete is more frosting than anything else, and the steel trusses are distributing most of the loads to the columns (with the help of the steel pan/lightweight concrete diaphram). Without the aggregate, the concrete used in flooring systems would be more prone to pulverization IMO. Certainly, not much concrete remained in chunk form at ground zero- this was, of course, quite unexpected.


BMAC, do you know of a NYC building code that states that concrete used for floors must contain rebar? Just curious.

In the Port Authority film Building the World Trade Center you can see some guys tying off rebar, but it doesn't look like this is on top of a pan assembly. (10:24 mark)

At the 11:52 mark you can see guys pouring and smoothing off concrete, but you can't see if there is any rebar underneath.


Throughout this film you can see lots of welding going on, and there is also visual proof of lateral supports on the floor pan assemblies.


Im uncomfortable with what Tony said. However I will consider further what he is presenting.

It is crucial to grasp that Rebar is an important feature of structural concrete because it enhances its strength.

One result of the use of Rebar is that less concrete has to be used ---- therefore reducing the weight of the structure.

Rebar is an essential feature of modern concrete structures.

There would have been no need for rebar in the floors

There would have been no need for rebar in the concrete of the floors in the twin towers, as there was no structural requirement on them other than to take the individual floor area loading, which is compressive and quite low. If a floor is rated at 125 Lbs./sq. ft. then the compressive load on the concrete is less than 1 psi. The steel floor pans and trusses took any tensile stress which could have been imposed, due to any overall differential loading of the floor.

Rebar is only used when the concrete needs to take tensile stresses. The twin tower floor concrete, with steel pans and floor trusses under them, had no need to take tensile stresses as it would have been unnecessarily redundant and adding rebar would have worked against the desire to reduce weight.

Concrete floors in buildings like parking garages are rebar reinforced as they need to take tensile stresses. But those floors are made of reinforced concrete only. The same thing with reinforced concrete bridges. If steel floor pans and trusses are used to support the floors in a building rebar won't be used in the concrete.

Do you have documented proof that this is true

In the case of the towers.

I hope you do.

Whatever doesnt destroy your argument will only make it stronger so back up what you say.

I dont buy it.

According to FEMA Report (Chapter 2)

Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches. Outside the central core, the floor deck was supported by a series of composite floor trusses that spanned between the central core and exterior wall. Composite behavior with the floor slab was achieved by extending the truss diagonals above the top chord so that they would act much like shear studs

More Detail

Free Image Hosting at


Best wishes

What does it say about Rebar

Nothing presented supports the basic assumptions Tony made even leaving out his retraction.

His conclusion about the powderization being easier than if aggregate was in the mix needs attention.

How about the spec. on the conrete slab thickness. It looks like the slab is of varying thickness.

It is highly likely that some Rebar is present in the slab.

Was more surface concrete added once the slab was in place?

"What does not destroy your argument makes it stronger".....BMAC

The subject is really about pulverization of the concrete

My initial reason for posting was to show someone why it was plausible for a controlled demolition to have caused the pulverization we witnessed.

I am thinking this through as we post on here so don't think I am being hardnosed about it.

I believe the lightweight concrete had something to do with the concrete being pulverized more easily but that doesn't have to be true to show there was enough energy in the continuous controlled demolitions which took down the towers. So the lightweight concrete is a side issue.

We have learned some things here though and that is there was only rebar in the concrete at the mechanical floors and the parking garages. That makes sense and validates for the most part what I was saying about the lack of need for rebar. The lack of rebar would allow the concrete to come apart easier.

Concrete is composed of portland cement, sand, and coarse aggregate. Aggregate is used for taking up space in the concrete and the portland cement is the binder or glue. It is the type of aggregate which is part of the lightweight concrete. However, there is another trick it seems and that is the use of a foaming agent which would reduce the density of the concrete..

The energy can be shown to be there if one understands the continuous demolition from the top down. The lack of rebar would also contribute to it. And finally if the density of the concrete was lower there would be less surface area binding everything together in the concrete, which would have been fine for the office floors in the towers, which over 90% of the floors were.

Special thanks to BMAC for questioning. I agree with your point that an assertion needs to stand up to scrutiny, as long as it is honest, which I believe your questions were. I think we did finally resolve things to some extent. Do you agree?

Certainly the conversation has brought out

much information. I offer my complete support for your inquiries. I may offer a closing comment later.


What does not destroy your argument makes it stronger......BMAC

The floor pans...

look as though the were shaped not to use rebar...

The "teeth key-in" corrugated shape probably removed the need for it.

The rebar was probably used for the car parking and lower basement floors and sky lobbies.

See slurry wall behing "guys" assembling rebar, indicating low level (sub-basement position).

Best wishes

Pictures of the concrete floor being poured...

It appears there was some aggregate with the mix, rebar / reinforced concrete not visible in floors (i.e. treading in concrete, not poured in shuttering mould, shovelling freely etc, but some pictures of it in documentary (below) was used extensively in slurry wall...

Below are some pictures from the "Building the World Trade Center"


View full 18 minute documentary on YouTube...

Link :


Hope this helps

It looks like there might have been some rebar at the bottom

I will stand corrected. In one of the pictures it looks like there is rebar at the bottom. The designers may have wanted rebar at the bottom of the floors since there could be a concern about large differential loadings over time.

However, this doesn't change my basic point that the concrete was lightweight which means low on aggregate as compared to standard concrete. There is no other way to get there.

It is the lower aggregate use which would have made the concrete more suspectible to pulverization.

Lower aggregate use does not mean lighter weight

Also the use of rebar with high strength concrete is the "lightweight" solution used in modern structural concrete.

Great pictures 911Veritas but do they prove conclusively that there is no rebar present? I dont see it.

I agree with you dude...

I have heard many times that "lightweight" concrete was chosen for the standard flooring, for obvious reasons, the concrete floors were not freestanding, they were supported by the trusses and pans.

I believe Gordon Ross has the right idea regarding the demolition method, in which the columns either side of the corners were targetted, which then allowed the main faces to fall away from the towers, almost like an upside down umbrella (well a little bit).

Good luck and best wishes

Asbestos fireproofing

The floor preperation before concrete was poured for world trade center, Rebar Wire, mesh, sheer studs on load bearing beams with the galvanized steel decking. thats standard for all construction jobs in the 70s to the present time.
The only diffrence is they dont use Asbestos fireproofing on steel in which it would have cost 500 million dollars to clean up and the port authority Knew it! Silverstien is laughing all the way to the bank

Is it possible that a mini-nuke was used to create

the heat to melt the 47 columns into puddles under the buildings or am I underestimating the power of thermate ?
In one of the videos there was a comparison that seemed to fit.

One more shining example...

...of why EVERY first responder in the United States should be demanding a new investigation into 9/11.

Estimated number of firefighters in 2005: 1,136,650 (career: 313,300, volunteer: 823,350)

Estimated number of Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics (2004) 192,000 employees

Police Patrol Officers, Sheriffs, and Deputy Sheriffs Employment (2004) 639,000 employees

Detectives and Criminal Investigators Employment (2004) 91,000 employees

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Police and Detectives Employment (2004) 100,000 employees

Add them up: 2,158,650

Add to that Air and Army National Guard members:

The Air National Guard has more than 106,000 personnel, and the Army National Guard (ARNG) around 325,000 personnel (as of February 2006). (186,000 on active duty).


First resopnders can be an awesome force collectively.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

No compressive force can create 50 micron sized particles

Just not possible. Try taking a hammer and smashing a brick or a piece of glass into tiny particulate.

He's right. If the building "fell" by any ordinarily conception of what such a "fall" or "collapse" would entail, then we would not have seen the entire building in effect pouring out in that fountain-like cascade while plummeting to the ground at near free fall speed.

I wonder if he's heard of my "foot of God hypothesis"?
On the 11th day, of every month.

I don't think you understood

I don't think you understood what I was saying about compressive force. I was talking about the floor loading being mostly a compressive force on the concrete and that that would negate the need for rebar in the concrete on the steel floor pans.

In my initial post I say that I believe that the concrete pulverization can be explained by the controlled demolition hypothesis in that the demolitions were done every three floors from the impact areas down and that the combination of continual explosive forces and high impulsive forces from the debris could pulverize the concrete. Especially lightweight concrete which probably contained less aggregate than standard concrete and would more readily come apart.into fine particles as it was mostly portland cement which is a powder.

I think I'm saying something similar

You would know more about this than me though Tony, but don't they always use rebar before doing a pour? I don't know what difference it makes though.. as I'm not an expert as you are.
Are you saying that compressive forces could create the particulate? No, you're saying explosive and implosive forces. You're just trying to come up with a rational way to understand what was actually observed with explosive force, to have occured, in reality. Gotcha.

All I'm saying is that absolutely NO pancake/domino effect could POSSIBLY have produced the building-turned-fountain occurance of destruction. The energy just wouldn't be there in terms of a "gravitational collapse", and floor slamming compression would not produce 50 micron sized particulate of such quantity in any event.

I like the fact that we, and Graeme, are finally getting to the essence of the observation.

What I like to add to it, is the fountain-like cascading nature of the debris ejection, with the building in effect POURING itself out from the middle, all the way down at near free fall speed, to the ground, without any loss of momentum - leaving, in effect, half way down the "collapse", little more than mere ATMOSPHERE above the remaining half, the remaining undamaged and increasingly more structurally powerful half at that, since the steel was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the load of the rest of the building, and more (overengineered).

In other words, once inititated, the debris mass of building material above the rest of the building, became increasingly weight-LESS through the progression (no cumulative weight loading in reality) where the upper threshold of debris ejection, once initiated, was in continual contact (with more nothingness above, &) with the remaining structure, and thus could not be considered a "dynamic loading" (crashing down while retaining all mass), let alone a "loading" at all, as described.

So finally, given the record of the actual occurance, you've got what amounts to air above, a remaining structure "falling down" at nearly the rate of freefall in nothing but air. So the OCT myth is like what? - air above, air below? Absurd.
Once initiated, there was NOTHING to account for the continual momentum. Heck in the case of the north tower, the top basically exploded right off the top of the building (with squibs), and then the "building shower" ensued. "Foot of God", indeed, absent the use of explosives, which explains everything, as Graeme has pointed out and as is plainly obvious by merely looking at the destruction itself - a historical record I might add, which has been preserved, in perpetuity from a whole multitude of cameras and angles, since it happened in broad daylight before the entire observing world.

In short, they're caught. Therefore, history will learn from it, and it will serve a cause of transformation.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Robert, although I agree

Robert, although I agree that explosive forces would have been the most dominant factor in the pulverization of the concrete and other items, such as furniture and the unfortunate victims, I wouldn't totally rule out a contribution by impulsive loads.

This in no way implies that I believe impulsive loads brought down the towers. The initial load was not great and in fact we know from NIST's spheroidization and paint testing that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. The collapses would have never even started if it wasn't for the use of explosives and incendiaries.

The initial point of this entire conversation today was to show those who have doubts about the controlled demolition hypothesis having the ability to explain the pulverization, that it does.

Thanks to everyone who contributed. I learned some things today that validated some of my thoughts as to what went on and hope the same happened for everyone else.

Thanks Tony

For your contributions. I guess my point is how self evident it is, what took place there.

Btw, do you think they used the elevator shafts housed within the core columns to place the main explosives? Do you feel that explosives would have had to have been placed anywhere else? Just curious.

Intersting, how they attempted to use the debris ejection wave to try to hide the detonations, by bringing it down at near free fall speed. The Trinity Church video, captured from below, shows them quite well however, as does that other one, before the camera man had to run for his life.

Point here is we're talking a very high precision controlled top down explosive demolition, eh?

And everyone is supposed to believe that the buildings just "collapsed", because of the plane strikes and fires alone. Talk about BALLS! Oh their arrogance and hypocrisy knows no bounds..The greatest impulsive force in this case, was obviously the impulse, to evil, murder, death and destruction, for profit and power.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Robert, I think you are

Robert, I think you are right to keep hammering away at these points. They are crucial to understanding the pulverization/collapse of the Towers.

Maybe you should do a blog on this topic and include all of your main points so it can get even more focus and input from the community.

I do not have much to add, but the windows remaining intact in both Towers and WTC 7 seems to completely refute the "hot fire weakened the steel" theory--and this is in addition to all of the other evidence against that theory.

Other features to focus on: symmetry of collapse, even descent of the pulverization/collapse/ demolition wave from top to bottom of the Towers. (If the crushed floors above were actually smashing through the intact floors below and hurling massive amounts of debris up and out around the entire perimeter of the building, then how is it that the descent wave was so perfectly sequential, floor by floor by floor? If the OCT were true, wouldn't this wave have jumped at times to floors further beneath the collapse wave? Not to mention loss of symmetry and all of the other problems.)

One question that would be good to have answered is what is the rough math for the resistance of the intact floors to those supposedly falling onto them (i.e. what is the math for the resistance of the 90 intact floors of the North Tower?). We should be able to come up with some sort of rough calculation. Maybe Tony knows how to do this, or maybe someone has seen figures already calculated by someone else. Then we can plug in the mass and have a clearer idea about what happened. There should be a rough way to state these figures and factors so that laymen and/or engineers from related fields can gain a better grasp of the issue.

JFK on secrecy and the press

I am pretty sure, that soon

we will have many of these engineers and architects and scientists, developing a very detailed paper for peer reviewed publication in a reputable tier one journal of engineering or science. It's time for that now. And if they cannot get published in the USA, then in Europe, it doesn't matter, since science is science wherever it's employed to discover the truth.

But the problem needs to be approached in a twofold manner. One, collapse initiation hypothesis (NIST) and two, the actual "collapse" (destruction) itself, which NIST failed to address. Tony you are right that it should not even have BEGUN to "go down" in the first place, but even if that were somehow possible, which it can be proven not to be, then what ensued thereafter, was even more impossible, in accord with the laws of physics. A "collapse initiation" might be in the realm of concievable, but the "global pancake collapse" most certainly is not, based upon what is observed to have taken place. That is the central crux of NIST's argument, that once INITATED, that what ensued was "automatic" and "inevitable" according to the video evidence, which is one HECK of an assumption, given what actually occured, in reality. Where the fulctrum of the building mysteriously vanished is where NIST's hypothesis comes to an end, and it's fire induced collapse initation hypothesis, is equally flawed, since steel is a heat-sinc, and since the cumulative temperatures across the entire load re-distribution never got high enough to sufficiently weaken steel to the point of collapse in the first place. Both aspects must be dealt with individually and separately, to avoid any confusion.
On the 11th day, of every month.

To refute the OCT, it seems

To refute the OCT, it seems that we should be calculating the collapse time (let's use the North Tower) from the 90th floor or a bit lower, not the top. Then from the debris pile on the ground after the collapse is complete, we should be able to calculate roughly what proportion of the debris is within the perimiter of the building and how much is outside of the perimiter. This should give us a rough idea of how much of the mass of the building was actually bearing down on the intact floors. A rough calculation using figures for these factors should give a good idea of just how impossible the OCT is. I think something like this would sharpen many of the general details and give the problem better definition.
Calculating the collapse time from the onset of the antenna's dropping gives a less precise idea of what happened.
Firguring the proportion of debris inside the perimiter (footprint) of the North Tower, should be simpler than for the South Tower as the North Tower fell later and its debris pile would contain less stuff from the South Tower than vice versa.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Free fall time, in AIR alone

is in the vacinity of 10-12 seconds from the height of the twin towers, factoring in terminal velocity due to air resistence, depending on the mass to surface area ratio of the object, any object. From initation of the destruction, to its end, the north tower "collapse" time, is somewhere between 12 and 14 seconds, and so, within that one or two second difference, exists the ONLY remaining alotted timeframe within which every single weld and joint would have to fail, and so it can be said, in effect, that they all failed in near simultaneity, without any resistence encountered, at all, a violation of Newton's first and third laws of inertia.
We'll let the experts render this in scientific terms, but it's not neccessary, as the truth here is totally self evident. It''s strange to me, that you'll see even truthers trying to make it more complicated than it is.

I like the way Greame explains it in that Part One Youtube clip. I thought I'd just add the observation, that the building "fountained" at near total free fall speed in air, ejecting the vast majority of debris in an outwardly ejecting debris plume (though symetrically) throughout the progression of descent, which lost no momentum, while encountering NO RESISTENCE of any kind throughout!

Thus any RESISTENCE calcs, would be most helpful, from the ground, all the way up to the impact area. It doesn't make sense to me either the way the OT claims this cumulative "dynamic" loading, only having to deal with the resistence of one floor at a time, since the remaining strength of the building, upheld everything above it and more, throughout the lifetime of the building, and since the debris plume would have to plow down through the verticle axis and therefore through the path of maximum resistence, leaving about nothing at all, in its wake. "Foot of God"...?
On the 11th day, of every month.

I agree with you and am just

I agree with you and am just trying to make the matter even clearer. The resistance of each floor will matter as the structure collapses floor by floor. The point that refutes the OCT is that the accumulation of 90 floors of resistenace--floor by floor--would slow the collapse time down by a fairly large factor, assuming there was any collapse at all.
Also, if it can be shown, which I think it probably can, that the demolition wave moves faster than free-fall at any time, then the OCT is refuted right there. It would be possible that more than one floor collapsed at a time, thus speeding the overall collapse time, but it would not be possible for the discreet wave to do that.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Take Architects and Engineers to lunch!

Donate today.
On the 11th day, of every month.

"Jewish Lightening"

Is a slang term for what happens to buildings that are no longer useful, have difficulties that would cost to much to correct, such as the asbestos removal.

In 1998 just 3 days after The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey issued a press release that bragged about a successful landing of a commercial aircraft using the global positioning system at Newark Airport, they released an announcement of a Historic Shift in their thinking of the World Trade Center and were putting it on the market.

I also haven't heard anybody ask Rudy Guiliani why he set up a Command Center in the Streets when the City of New York had spent millions of dollars converting the 23rd Floor of WTC 7 into a "Command Center" complete with it's own oxygen & water supplies.
Was Rudy told that he wouldn't be let in that building ?