"Therefore, it is likely that that is where CNN and the BBC got their information. WHY isn't prof. MacQueen referencing his own paper? I don't get it.."

I did reference it. You're seeing Q and A here, not my talk.

By the way, I don't think there's any good evidence the news channels got their information from the firefighters. I think it's more likely the firefighters and the news channels got their information from the same source or sources.

Good, because I think the paper is excellent, and covers very important ground. However, I seem to remember some of the early information regarding the 'stability' of WTC 7 emanated from the OEM. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read/saw this.

Have there been many attempts, of which you are aware, to encourage firefighters and news channels workers to divulge the source of the foretold collapse of WTC 7?

There's a paper, which I believe you authored, as a rebuttal to a paper by Bazant et al. In it, you argue, convincingly, about details of the explosions that occurred during the apparent demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Bazant had claimed they were merely sonic booms, whereas you found his claim unlikely.

Am curious if that was your paper, or if I'm conflating memories with something else.

Thanks.

You and your colleagues are men of peace with spines of steel.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Hi, folks. Just a few comments on questions raised in this discussion. (By the way, I didn't even know the questioner was the journalist, Jonathan Kay. Tony recognized him and decided to take him on).

1. "I seem to remember some of the early information regarding the 'stability' of WTC 7 emanated from the OEM. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read/saw this."

Could be. I'd have to look through a lot of material to check. Certainly the information about the instability of the Twin Towers emanated from OEM and was transmitted to the fire chiefs in the lobby of the NT just moments before the ST started erupting.

2. "Have there been many attempts, of which you are aware, to encourage firefighters and news channels workers to divulge the source of the foretold collapse of WTC 7?"

It's a good question, and I'm afraid I don't have an answer. But I do think the firefighters, BBC, and CNN were independently given the information that 7 was coming down, because each has a different take on it. Both BBC and CNN report it as "breaking news"; and although BBC pulls the story CNN keeps it front and center for about an hour until 7 comes down. Many firefighters knew it was coming down long before either of these sources announce it (over 4 hours in advance).

3. "There's a paper, which I believe you authored, as a rebuttal to a paper by Bazant et al. In it, you argue, convincingly, about details of the explosions that occurred during the apparent demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Bazant had claimed they were merely sonic booms, whereas you found his claim unlikely."

This was actually a 2007 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/SonicBoomExplanation3.pdf

4. Final comment on WTC 7: Let's not forget that OEM evacuated WTC 7 in the morning because of a report that a third plane was on the way. These reports of a 3rd plane were all over the place. Michael Fury and I were going to publish an article on it but I guess we got distracted with other things. Perhaps it needs to be a letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I don't think the 3rd plane reports were just a mistake. I think it was either conscious misinformation or....well, it's been suggested that 93 may have been intended for that building. I just don't know.

Professor MacQueen, thanks for the link. It was good to reread it. Your refutation of Bazant et al. is straightforward and readily demonstrable. "Of the 118 explosion references [in the FDNY collection], how many clearly refer to events in the last stages of tower collapse, the point where the 'crushing front' is 'near the ground'? The answer is none." The verbal responses "refer to explosions just before the collapse or at the beginning of the collapse. Such cases are, in fact, the rule, as anyone will discover who takes the time to consult the collections." (Thus you have refuted Bazant's argument that the explosions occurred only near the end of the collapse sequence.)

It is interesting to review from the Bazant paper the section subtitled, "Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower". It is a veritable bonanza of misreasoning--or at least of leaping to conclusions from unsubstantiated premises. Just as his math often displays a disconnect with the external reality of the WTC catastrophe, so too does his English. In the aforementioned section, he repeatedly uses a strong imperative ('must") where a weak subjunctive ("might" or "perhaps") is far more appropriate. I mean this both in his specific language use, word-by-word, but also his overall approach to reasoning. For example, despite the many uncertainties, the falling debris "must" have led to sonic booms.

He admits to the porosity (i.e. shatteredness, non air-tightness) of the collapsing ceilings, but he does not know the degree of the porosity. How can he say there "must" be sonic booms, at any time during the collapses, if he does not know the degree of porosity of the ceilings, let alone his uncertainty about the complex convex/concave nozzling he says is required for the sonic booms? No ad hominem is required. It just comes across as bad science, bad English, and bad logic. He obviously possesses a high level of intelligence, so this calls into question the degree of his sincerity.

Anyway, much thanks for what you do. I'm tired right now, so if there are any blatant mistakes above it's probably due to that. Your work, along with that of your colleagues, is immensely appreciated.

Prof. MacQueen, in any case the Naudet clip of the South Tower collapse does unequivocally contain sounds of explosions. So Bazant contends these are sonic booms? Hmmmm...

I did get the subject of 'sonic booms' in physics, and what I don't understand is how a sonic boom can occur again and again,since the collapse front doesn't decelerate. Apparently this is due to alleged 'fluctuation' in air venting, but to me this sounds like nonsense, not like a sonic boom (pun intended)

So this is supposed to be caused by compressed floors then? So, if Bazant's 'tamper' hits a floor, doesn't that poke some air holes? Interesting, I was unaware of the sonic boom theory.