New paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."

Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the journal.


72 pages! It's late here, I'm reading it first thing in the morning. MacQueen's work is riveting.

Looks interesting...

This looks interesting. I'll have to read it and see if there are any new smoking guns. Jim Hoffman has written on this topic previously here.

Anyone whose instincts have not been badly corrupted can see

by simple observation, that men like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Graeme MacQueen, William Rodriquez and Richard Gage (to name just a few) are intristically well-meaning, sincere souls who do their best to live as honestly as they can (within the confines of human frailty - to which I am certain they will all admit).

This being the case, there is something very odd going on, that would cause vast numbers of people to believe that a version of an event told by men like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama would be more likely to be true, than a different version of the same event told by those mentioned in the first paragraph.

It is very odd that all these papers have to be written, and all this painstaking research has to be done, when 6.5 seconds observing a video of building 7 ought to be more than sufficient to convince anyone who is in possession of their mind, to realize, beyond any doubt, that that building was professionally demolished.

Once that is seen to be unquestionably true, the towers are then seen clearly - and beyond doubt - to be exploding. Why is necessary to "prove"what is beyond obvious, is very odd indeed.

"Why is necessary to "prove"what is beyond obvious, is very odd

A very effective Psy-op on a gullible, programmed populace. the simple answer.

'If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?


This has to be one of the most successful psychological operations in world history in terms of scope, and the level of demonizing that has happened to those brave enough to challenge the "official" version of events, and the gains made by those who perpetrated these events. It's really sickening to me to think that yeasr upon years of valuable psycological research could have been used to a more beneficial and peaceful end for the greater cross-section of humanity, but instead has been used to continue to control and enslave us and manipulate the masses into carefully planned infighting and pointless arguing about arbitrary points while the elite keep raping us for all of our work and money. The men mentioned that have been tirelessly and carefully researching and documenting this will hopefully one day be recognized by humanity as great heroes and liberators of the human spirit. My undying respect and admiration goes out to all of you here, we are fighting the good fight.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

From the New York Times

The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001, p. A7
"A Creeping Horror and Panicked Flight as Towers Burn, Then Slowly Fall, p. A7 (continued from p. A1)"
by N.R. Kleinfield

Police officers warned people in the vicinity to move north, that the buildings could fall, but most people found that unthinkable. They stayed put or gravitated closer.

Abruptly, there was an ear-splitting noise. The south tower shook, seemed to list in one direction and them (sic) began to come down, imploding upon itself.

"It looked like a demolition," said Andy Pollock.

"It started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all."


Also, from one of my blog entries a while back (before joining 9-11 blogger):

A snippet that bears on the "demolition" theory of 9-11

I was browsing the web regarding 9-11, and came upon a very interesting story. An employee of Fuji Bank who worked on the upper floors of the World Trade Center II was one of those who was sent back up the elevator by security guards after the first plane struck. He was actually on one of the floors that were directly hit by the second airplane. He was helped out by someone else who worked in the building. Otherwise he would have probably died.

I myself worked on the same floor or floors in the summer of 1999, and you can see on this website some of the pictures I took at that time from the windows of WTC 2.

So I found the story of Stanley Praimnath (who I may well have run into while I was working there) riveting. Ken Walker authored an account of his ordeal for Today's Christian, which may be found at

Praimnath may have participated in the same fire drill that I participated in in 1999, where we all walked out the building from the 79th floor. Anyway, his story is very much worth reading.

What startled me, however, is the description Mr. Walker gives of Mr. Praimnath's account of the falling of the towers. I'll quote:

"Two blocks later, they [Stanley and the man who rescued him] stopped outside historic Trinity Church and grasped its gates. Soon, they watched in horror as the South Tower wobbled and shook ominously. Flares of smoky debris shot from the building like Roman candles. Then, finally, the South Tower—the building in which Praimnath had just stood minutes earlier— began to fall upon itself. Only 47 minutes had passed between the plane's impact and the tower's collapse."


I think this description is quite interesting, because, as this article was written just a year after 9-11, there were only a few who were promulgating the theory that the towers fell by controlled demolition, rather than the weakening of the structures due to the impact of the planes and the fire that ensued. But this description is eerily consistent with a controlled demolition.

1. The South Tower wobbled and shook ominously.
2. Flares of smoky debris shot from the building like roman candles.
3.The south tower began to fall upon itself.

That's a pretty good chronology. You draw your own conclusions.

posted 7/18/2007

Praimnath, Clark, WTC explosions in the 9/11 records

A search on returns the relevant records

Praimnath and Clark report explosions, a fire ball blasted a heavy guy across a street

several reports of the S Tower announcement, people being told by security to go back up...

I haven't gotten around to collecting the quotes- help yourself- a number of these records are drafts, final drafts, MFRs, some are duplicates- best thing is to download them- easier/better searching on the hard drive

Rose Arce too describes the

Rose Arce too describes the top starting to shake before the tower exploded.

"...suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake and people began leaping from the windows on the north side of the building....then the entire top of the building just blew up."

Thank you Kevin Ryan, Thank you Graeme MacQueen

When folks like Professor Graeme MacQueen step up to the plate and share these important papers from the academia world it adds integrity to the work we do as activists on the front lines in our communities.

Last winter we did our 9/11 civil information often at the university of Alberta and found that students and teachers alike were very interested in the papers we printed for these civil actions. Of these important papers/ works we included papers by such academics as yourself, Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley and the excellent paper "The: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" These papers were more of an interest than the free DVDS we offered.

We now produce both academic papers, DVDs along with our 9/11 public newsletters when ever we do 9/11 civil information[ing] in our city. I've placed this new paper up on our community web site and would encourage other 9/11 truth activists to offer the same papers to their local universities and information events.


Thanks to all for the feedback, and thanks to those who've offered further corroborating evidence. I knew I couldn't try to be comprehensive in this article, but it's important to save all these cases of witness testimony.


I would be interested in your theological take on ALL of this. What is the meaning - the purpose - of 9/11 - in the spiritual life of the human race? Not that you have the "answers" to that question - but surely you have thoughts about it. I do understand that matters of science and matters of faith are quite different, and that this site is dedicated to matters of science. But still - I am interested, as you are a theologian, and obviously you have thought long and deeply about the spiritual meaning of all this insanity.


Your questions are good ones. I'm not sure I have much of worth to say. By the way, I'm not actually a theologian. My area of scholarly expertise (in addition to Peace and Conflict Studies) is Buddhism, and I'm mainly a text scholar.

But if you're interested, here's an interview I gave a few years ago. Some things have changed since then (the break-up of Scholars for 9/11 Truth into two groups, for example) and I'd say a few things differently, but essentially I stick with what I said then.

Please clarify

Please clarify:

In the article on the Americanbuddhist website you wrote:

" I've moved through these three stages, as I think many people have. For some time I assumed the first option (official story) was probably true, although I was not impressed by the evidence for it and was aware of anomalies; then I moved fairly quickly to think LIHOP was probably closer to the truth. It's only in the past year that I've decided MIHOP fits the facts as we know them best."

You concluded with: " So I seem to have come to accept that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda probably carried out the attacks, even though some of the evidence presented to us, such as the absurd "smoking gun" video found in late 2001 Afghanistan, seemed to me clearly fake.."

Please clarify the seeming contradiction in these two quotes.

Thank you and thank you for your all your work.

Your paper is enthralling

Hard to put it down...I read it all straight through. There's a tremendous amount of analysis. The calibration of the various video footage has put the moments of collapse under a far more powerful microscope than before.

One would think it would be easy enough to calibrate the exact time it takes to transmit a perturbation from Wall Street to the Palisades by igniting a stick of dynamite and seeing how long it takes to appear on the seismograph.

One would think it would be useful to have the entire record of the seismographs for that day.

One wonders if the people at the seismograph facility could be contacted directly to find out exactly why they changed the estimated time.

I believe they did the same thing for the moments the airliners impacted the towers. That is, they changed the estimated time. One wonders if the reasons for doing so were the same: that is, if the changes were parallel or contrary.

Gordon Ross did an article on the relationship between the impacts of the airliners and the seismographs. That was interesting too but once again there seemed to be no contact with the people at the seismograph facility. His article was excellent.

Your final conclusion seems to be that the peaks on the seismograph indicate falling debris, but that earlier seismic events also registered that might someday be definitively liked to the use of explosives to bring down the buildings.

Great idea to use camera vibrations as a "ground zero" seismograph. Who needs Columbia University?!


Thank you. Actually, I wrote to Dr. Kim at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, as I mention in a footnote. He's the author of the article that changes the seismic time estimate. He replied promptly and courteously...but he said he did not have a copy of the paper. I can't remember ever being in the situation of not keeping a copy of something I've written, so what do we make of that? He suggested I contact NIST. I wrote them but they did not reply. I take all this to mean NIST is playing it very close to the chest and doesn't want us to have access to this material. I doubt that they have solid scientific grounds for changing their estimate.

VIDEO: :Like an EARTHQUAKE" as WTC2 falls.

ABC News reporter Joe Torres and his camerman were positioned at the corner of Vesey and W. Broadway, next to WTC7, when the South Tower began to disintegrate. The rumbling was so pronounced, they were convinced that the subway was being attacked. "It felt like an earthquake". They ran over to, and then north on, Church Street, where they witnessed the North Tower follow suit.