Dr. Frank Legge publishes article in the August volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Dr. Frank Legge has published an excellent article “Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy” in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, today. It passed peer review prior to publication.

It begins thus: “Abstract: A discussion of conspiracy theories, myths and skepticism is presented. The importance of skepticism in a society in which myths may be deliberately created by authorities to manipulate the public is stressed. A range of methods of avoiding acceptance of myths, including application of the scientific method, is demonstrated using the events of 9/11. A clear understanding of events, unclouded by myths, is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy.

Key words: conspiracy, myth, skepticism, 9/11, democracy, propaganda, thermite, trans fats, cholesterol, PNAC, NIST, FEMA, EPA, Orwell

Frank Legge
PhD (Chem)

"I recently attended a meeting of the WA branch of the Australian Skeptics, where I had previously given a talk on the terrible event that has come to be known as 9/11: the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon using hijacked aircraft. I found to my surprise that one of the members was giving a talk on the subject of conspiracy theories and why we should be very skeptical of them, using material from my talk for illustrations. His interesting talk has given me some valuable insights into the pitfalls in the way we process information and how to avoid them. The speaker, Dr Terry Woodings, kindly provided me with his notes which I will refer to in this response.

"The topic of conspiracy theories, which is closely related to myth creation, is of particular interest to me. …”

Read the full article by Dr. Legge here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

Is this.....

Dr. Steven Jones? If it is i would love to hear what you have to say about the History channel piece.


it is.

Dr. Jones commented on the history channel piece here:

Thanks ...


Very good article.

It was a pleasure reading it.


Dr. Jones,

I see a huge problem with the thermate hypothesis, if we keep insisting that the steel temperature didn't rise above "250 degC," or "600 deg C."

Large amounts of thermate would have risen the temperature in numerous places to 4500 deg F, no?

We can't argue both things. We can't say the temperature didn't get "hot enough", when we're claiming it got way too hot simultaneously.

The steel samples must be attacked as an inadequate sampling and not representative of the collapse. This is a serious issue that needs addressing.

Simple explanation:

Simple explanation:

NIST denies molten metal--this is the official story: they have to deny
Spheres, thermate, witnesses, video ALL disprove this claim. See Jones' papers

For the record the previous FEMA study has evidence of sulfidized steel (read: thermite reactions).

"Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon."

This was left out of the NIST report... and for good reason--it shows the steel melted and disproves the official story.

As hoffman says:

"The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson."

I have wondered the same thing

I have wondered about this myself. It seems as though the notions of the use of thermate in the destruction and the lack of high temperature evidence on the steel from the fire affected areas are in conflict.

The molten metal in the rubble has been testified about and can be taken as reality. One would assume that the use of incendiaries would have been in the fire affected areas. Curiously, NIST only had a couple of pieces of central core steel from the fire affected areas to test. Why? I believe that most of the steel had evidence of thermate on it and NIST engineers could not be allowed to see it.

So in reality we need to dichotomize the issues.

NIST has no physical evidence of central core steel temperatures high enough to even weaken the steel so how did fire cause the collapse is what should be said of the evidence from the fire affected areas. The next point to make is to ask the question of why NIST only got 1% of the steel from the fire affected areas to test.

The reality of the molten metal allows it to be a problem for the official report, since fire can't melt steel, without us having to say we know where it was used, unless of course you want to throw in the speculation of the thermate affected steel being discarded. I wonder if the sulfidated columns and beams, with the intergranular melting, that the early investigators talked about, are still around.

The contradiction is for those who only talk about jet fuel

I don't see a contradiction for critics of the official story to observe that 1) the fires resulting from jet fuel wouldn't have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, nor even to weaken the steel to the point that they would account for the buildings' near-free-fall collapses, and yet 2) there WAS molten metal, and the steel beams must have been cut somehow since the near-free-fall collapses which undeniably did occur would have been impossible otherwise. It is defenders of the official account who are confronted with contradictions, since they won't even consider substances other than jet fuel being involved--contradictions which they try to hide by being silent about the presence of molten metal, and by claiming that the fires ignited by jet fuel nonetheless did reach temperatures high enough to weaken the steel to the point where rapid collapse ensued.

No, the contradiction is made by people in this movement.

Dr. Jones has written about the steel not reaching high enough temperature, citing the NIST report for support.

But, if thermate was used all over the place, then the temperature WOULD HAVE had to reach 4500 degrees all over the place.

Pick one or the other. If you want to use NIST numbers then thermate is ruled out. If you want to use thermate, you must challenge NIST's data.

You cannot support both at the same time. Nist's data disproves the thermate hypothesis. It is up to us to expose it (not to embrace it), that it was an unrepresentative sampling.

I have tried to discuss this with Dr. Jones several times now.

The contradiction still stands.

Defense v. Offense

The two positions are not mutually exclusive once you understand the two roles we play in exposing the truth.

The first role we play is what I would call "Defense". In our defensive role, we are tasked with pointing out all the ways the official story is false. One of those ways is by pointing out how the NIST Report reaches conclusions that are not based on facts. One of the criticisms raised against the NIST Report in this regard is that they have provided zero physical evidence of steel temperatures that are hot enough to weaken the steel, cause the trusses to sag and initiate collapse. This defensive role is the most important role we play, at least in my estimation, because pointing out how the official story is false will go the farthest towards launching a new, truly independent investigation. After all, what better way to persuade the public that a new investigation is warranted than by pointing out how the initial investigation reached incorrect or unsupported conclusions based on the evidence.

The second role we play is what I would call "Offense". In this much more dangerous role, we are tasked with providing an alternative explanation to the official story. This role is more dangerous because it opens our alternative explanation up to attack, much like the official story is now open to attack by us, and because our relative lack of generally accepted public credibility (which, of course, is not deserved in my opinion) makes it much more devastating when errors in our alternative explanation are pointed out. It is in this role that we offer the controlled demolition explanation and evidence.

These positions are not contradictory because if, on defense, we offer the molten metal evidence, this does not change the fact that NIST has not provided support for its contention that the steel reached temperatures sufficient to weaken the steel because the steel in fact got much hotter than that much more quickly. This is true because if the steel had simply heated to a point where it weakened, sagged and failed, the collapse would have put out any fire that was still burning, and no fire could exist underneath the pile of rubble due to lack of air (oxygen). In short, the fundamental defensive position is that NIST has not supported its contention that the steel reached a temperature that would have caused it to sag and fail, while the fundamental offensive position is that the Towers fell due to controlled demolition. These two fundamental defensive and offensive positions are not contradictory.

Well put

Seve B.

And great article on Fisk and Garcia, johndoraemi.

Still, the NIST data is an obstacle.

If we legitimize the NIST data by accepting it without qualification or challenge, we hand ammo to the debunker crowd.

We need a full study of the steel that exists, including FOIA demands for ACCESS to study the remaining steel with independent investigators.

We also need to quantify exactly how much steel is actually saved, and from what locations -- exactly -- they came from, as much as possible.

The FOIA requests for ACCESS to investigate teh steel seems at the top of the list.

Articles detailing the paltry amount of steel that was saved, and possibly challenging the relevance of some quantity of the samples, is an important road, in order to bolster this thermate hypothesis.

We do not have proof. We have likelihoods, which are always open to challenge. It may be overwhelmingly likely that events unfolded as Dr. Jones says, but if he can't prove it, then it will be shot down in the mainstream.

Who chose these samples for saving? What's their name, rank and serial number? What criteria was used? What witnesses assisted with this removal and saving of selected samples? Interview them.

If only 1% of the steel is actually saved (or less) we must put this front and center. A citation of the NIST data should start with a disclaimer and a flag for people to distrust this body of data based on criteria a, b and c.

Anyway, I'm hoping to get Dr. Jones to notice this. It's a weak spot in his theory and needs to be addressed.


Shout out to Kevin Ryan! Thanks.

Sorry for the belated reply

Sorry for the belated reply -- I am just back today from a LONG weekend traveling.

I just read your question, John.

NIST is correct that the WTC FIRES could not generate high enough temperatures to MELT steel: Max fire temp (including office materials and jet fuel) is 1,100 C (per NIST, agrees with others); Temp required to melt steel: approx. 1,538 C.

It is true that NIST looked at only a small set of steel samples, since most was shipped away rapidly to Asia for recycling -- many have complained about this. Certainly the destruction of data raises red flags -- and necessitates an investigation (see my first paper on this point).

However, there was more data available -- NIST evidently looked at a few samples and totally IGNORED the WPI steel samples, which show extremely high temperatures, enough to cause "evaporation" along with "high-temperature corrosion" including "sulfidation." (Reported by Barnett, Sisson et al. -- published.) NIST should not be allowed to get away with this, and I have challenged them on this "oversight."