Canadian Professor disputes official representation on 9/11

Thanks, 7man.

Canadian Professor disputes official representation on 9/11

Friday 23. Mar 2007

No way World Trade Center Towers were brought down simply from planes, jet fuel and fire

by Graeme MacQueen

Sometime in late 2005 I had a conversation -- quite a heated one, actually -- with an American dissident who said that 9/11 was obviously carried out by the U.S. government. I expressed some scepticism about this and he said that I obviously hadn’t done my homework and didn’t know the first thing about the issue. I realized after that conversation that he was actually right. I’d tinkered with the issue by reading long pieces on the internet late at night but I hadn’t really done my homework. Being, I guess, a scholarly sort of guy, and having by this time taken early retirement so that I could work for peace and justice in whatever way I wished, I ordered some the leading books, downloaded key articles, and set to work.

I was very surprised when I began to realize how weak the official story was. I can remember the exact moment when I felt -- my god, there’s no way those 3 towers were brought down by planes, jet fuel and fire. One tower, maybe. A structural flaw in the tower, a set of coincidences. Two towers -- we’re getting into a highly unlikely situation, even though their construction was similar, because the planes hit in different ways. Three towers (including WTC 7 now, which wasn’t hit by a plane), the odds against this are astronomical. So then I began taking a much closer look and spending more and more time looking into all this. As for the things I was reading, I found out about Scholars for 9/11 Truth and stayed largely glued to that website. Joined the organization, read all the now standard works by Griffin, Jones and others.

Now we get to the part about why I wrote a 9/11 article. When I read David Ray Griffin’s piece, "Explosive Testimony" I was staggered. By two things. First, by the fact that these 10,000-12,000 pages of interviews with the FDNY existed. What a resource! How come nobody told me about it before? Why hadn’t I learned about it in the mass media? I was like: Hello, doesn’t everybody realize how important this is? I mean, if I were a prosecutor in a homicide trial and I suddenly realized I had 10,000 pages of testimony by eyewitnesses, collected shortly after the crime! Secondly, I was staggered by the stuff he quoted. Clear, in some cases detailed, and as far as I could see very credible - coming from people with no axe to grind and with tons of experience with high-rises and fires and collapses and so on.

As soon as I read that article I knew I had to read those 10,000 pages for myself, even if it was just to feel grounded in primary sources. As a scholar (I haven’t talked about the part of me that is a text scholar working in Buddhist texts - later) I’ve always wanted to work in primary sources. After reading the results of other people’s research, after reading secondary literature, I start to get antsy. Give me the primary sources and let me make my own conclusions. And by now I realized we actually have all sorts of primary source material on 9/11 - the idea that we can never know what happened is silly. We’ve got material evidence, photographic evidence, seismic evidence and eyewitness evidence - not to mention certain principles to guide us, such as: we won’t accept anything that violates the laws of logic or the laws of physics. So, this was a case of eyewitness evidence.

Let me pause on this for a moment. There’s a lot of talk - on the internet, in the media, etc. -- about how unreliable witnesses are. This sort of evidence is often called "soft" and a lot of people tend to dismiss it. This is bizarre. The whole of the social sciences and humanities depends on the use of human subjects - studying what they do, but also talking to them, exploring what they think, reading what they’ve said. Now, any good social scientist, philosopher or literary critic can tell you how many fences have to be crossed before you get from human perception to facts about the external world-testimony from human subjects does not give us a transparent window -- but this does not mean eyewitness evidence cannot be used or isn’t important. You don’t just refuse to look at it, you work out principles of interpretation.

I recently read a paper by Charles Regini, an FBI agent, talking about the establishment of Cold Case Homicide Squads in the U.S. These are groups of investigators who try to solve homicide cases that have gone unsolved for at least a year. He concludes, "resolution of nearly all CCS cases still comes from eyewitness identification." To ignore or dismiss eyewitness testimony is absurd.

If we wish to prove the towers were brought down through controlled demolition we have to do the hard work of interlinking all the types of evidence. In a broad sense this has been done; but I think there's a lot of work yet to be done.

Examination of photographs and videos strongly suggests explosions: we have squibs (smoke or fire shooting forth suddenly) appearing at different floors in advance of the collapse; we have a great shaking of the earth preceding the collapse, visible in the quaking of cameras on tripods; we have the trajectory of the matter in the plumes of powdered building that make no sense in a gravity-driven collapse; we have the pulverization of the buildings and the pyroclastic cloud; we have apparent flashes-small but visible in some videos-and so on. We also have seismic evidence, but I'm not qualified to assess it so I direct you to the St911 website, LINK. We have physical evidence, despite the fact that most of the steel was shipped off before forensic examination could take place.

As the FEMA report indicated quite a while ago, some of the remaining steel shows corrosion and the presence of sulphur, which Dr. Jones has argued indicates thermate (used to cut steel--contains sulphur to lower the melting point of steel). We have samples of the actual powder to which most of the building was reduced. And so on.

Again and again we find that the nature of these things cannot be explained through the official narrative, such as that is. In my opinion, there actually isn't any official explanation of the collapses at the moment, since NIST has rejected the pancake theory but hasn't given us any proper theory of total collapse to replace it. I’m afraid I don't think "global collapse ensued" is a theory.

But, on the other hand, as far as I know there's been no attempt yet to take all these different pieces of evidence and put them together to produce a detailed, definitive narrative of the collapse.

By detailed, I mean: suppose a firefighter says, then there was a huge explosion and a big piece of metal flew out of the tower and hit the Financial Center. Now, I want us to look and see if he might be talking about a particular piece of metal in the Financial Center known from photographs. If a firefighter says, I saw a puff of smoke twenty floors below where the planes hit, I want to ask: can we find this puff on the video? That's the kind of detailed matching I'd like to see. It's not that I think we need this level of detail to have a strong hypothesis (we've already got a strong hypothesis); it's just that the more detail we have the stronger the hypothesis is. It's a lot of work and we have no funding. But we have more and more people doing research and coordinating it through the internet.

Terrorists (in the broad sense, including state terrorists) sometimes conduct an initial attack on a target, and then when first-responders or caregivers arrive they make a second attack, sometimes through an explosive device or "secondary device" that explodes and injures those who have come to help the victims of the first attack. Basically, you cleverly cause an enormous strain on the social fabric by injuring more people, by injuring those who help the injured, by discouraging people from following their natural altruistic tendencies to help each other, and so on. Many of the firefighters, when they heard the explosions going off in the towers, thought they might be "secondary devices" in this sense-meant to directly injure first-responders. I don't think it initially occurred to any of them that these explosions were actually meant to bring down the towers, though they learned that quickly enough.

So let me just interpret your question to mean, why are explosions in the Towers important and what does their presence tell us? First of all, any major fire may include explosions of various kinds-could be gas utilities, for example, or fine air-borne particles or hot gases under pressure-but the kind of explosions we're interested in are explosions that were causally related to the collapses. That is, they contributed in a major way to the catastrophic collapse of two massive, 110-storey buildings. Normal explosions accompanying fires would not do this.

Now, although there are various collapse theories that utilize explosions, I think by far the strongest are those that say the buildings were carefully wired with explosives in advance of 9/11...


we cant be stopped.

we cant be stopped.


Sheen coming On at 9:50pm

uh oh, they got Hannity on

uh oh, they got Hannity on the case now. he looks like hes going to have a heart attack. i love the fear.

Oh. My. God.

This was just framed as an issue of free speech, and despite the crappy cliche "Givin' comfort to the jihadis" actually seemed to suggest that the issue deserved attention and research on the part of viewers. And Colmes... pushing the "Would the government ever lie to us?" to the rightwing rent-a-nutjob... it's like he had some kind of backbone transplant... a little.

yeah, but keep in mind the

yeah, but keep in mind the little weasel did say "i completely disagree with him though". but yeah, im just a little bit impressed with Colmes. you know Alex Jones dressed him down pretty good(including on air) so maybe some of it is getting to him. and that rent-a-nutjob was Reagans adoptive son. its funny because Reagans biological son is this big liberal who cant stand the stooge we just saw on Fox. i actually get the Micheal Reagan show around here and hes just like that tool Rush, only much less creative.

Yeah, I know...

I haven't seen these guys in a while I was amazed. It's not all about the opinions of the boys (as I know you know) -- as with Southpark, there's a LOT to be said for just putting some ideas out there, even if there's some negative editorial stuff thrown in. (Would the government lie to us? Should I look into this? That woman's makeup is godawful -- but she doesn't seem to think it's bad for Sheen to ask questions...)

I thought it was pathetic, maybe tellingly so, that they had to carefully state the premise in the weakest possible way: "George Bush brought down the towers." The way the woman responded to it made it seem like lots of parenthetical stuff might have been going on in her brain. (Naaah, I know W is too stupid... but Cheney -- he's one evil mofo... I wonder if...)

For anyone watching who was not part of the doomed 30% -- anyone with any critical thinking abilities left -- that might have been quite provocative.

VERY telling that its always

VERY telling that its always framed like that. the idiot son of an asshole could NEVER pull off something so complicated so they always say "Bush brought down the towers" or "Bush did 9/11 for Enron" etc.

Steve Jobs introduces the iRack

As far as I know, I'm the only person in N. America who hadn't seen this yet, but it made me laugh really hard, and from a Truther perspective, I could immediately see what I would do to make it even BETTER:

"the doomed 30%" Is that

"the doomed 30%"

Is that your phrase you came up with? I love it. Can I use it?

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

Chances are I ripped it off from someone else

so feel free!

I was just thinking of that illustration -- maybe Webster Tarpley uses it -- of the 30% who are skeptical, the 30% who are persuadable, and the 30% who wouldn't believe it if Cheney confessed on live tv. (Plus, the 10% who are... I dunno...)

Caught the tail end of it....

Man! Is Faux News falling apart. They can't contain it. The pattern is obvious. When you think back over the past few years, they first ignored 9/11 Truth. Then, they openly ridiculed it. Now they are violently attacking those who are even asking questions.

Part of me wonders if the head-honchos at Faux have just accepted the train-wreck of the official story but know enough to see the $$$ in the issue, which has grown in popularity. At this point, they seem to be willing to just reap what they can from 9/11 at the expense of journalistic integrity and standards.

But I've said before, even the negative coverage is going to work for us. For evey 100 Faux viewers who are going to cheer w/ Hannity when he spits his venom, there are four or five viewers willing to look up the facts on their own.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

Excellent points!

We need to seriously be thrilled when hannity starts making those faces and calling people idiots and nuts.

Negative publicity is our friend!

thanks for the tip man. i

thanks for the tip man. i only caught the end but Colmes, to his credit, called out that tool Reagan for only calling names and not debating facts. he also pointed out that this wasnt a "left wing orgasm" because Alex Jones is a rightwinger. so lets see, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Scarborough. am i missing any well known cable news right wingers? did Tucker get to this yet? god i love the fear on the faces of these bastards.

and we won't be stopped!

and we won't be stopped!

Thank you

really a excellent articel.
i have downloaded the source page.
very "serious" source.

the "breakthrough" will happen this year.

Evolution of thought...

I like the way Mr. MacQueen walks us through his stages of acceptance into 9/11 Truth. For me, it was the collpase of the Towers as well. He makes reference to David Ray Griffin who I believe should be given as much attention as possible. A lot of "Loose Change" fans I know of have yet to read these books. With this film due to come out, this should be mandatory reading.

Here's the direct link to David Ray Griffin's books on Amazon:

David Ray Griffin books @

I'd agree

Loose change softened me up, DRG closed the deal.

Structural Engineer Korol agrees with MacQueen

I tried to contact both Professors MacQueen and Professor Korol (with whom MacQueen is going to have a discussion tonight) this morning, asking them to discuss the Calladine and English paper (more on that below). I was under the mistaken notion that Korol doubted the CD hypothesis.

I was quite mistaken in this, as MacQueen's email to me points out:

"I'll forward this paper to Bob, but I doubt if he'll have time to look into
it before tonight's discussion. I should point out that Bob and I won't be
debating. We agree. I think the only difference is that Bob suspects it's an
inside job while I'm quite sure of it.

The event will be aimed mainly at people new to the subject, and for that
reason will contain a quite long film that explores the peculiar collapse of
the towers, but if you're able to come and add some more advanced knowledge,
so much the better!



As for why I wanted them to discuss the Calladine and English paper, here is my initial email to Professor MacQueen:


Dear Professor MacQueen,

Howdy. I sent the following email to the civil engineering department at McMaster University, in the hopes that they can get it to Professor Korol in time. I know that this is short notice, but if you could get a structural engineer or physicist to help you digest it's contents, I'd be thrilled to have it seriously commented upon by a structural engineer.

Basically, the Calladine and English paper seems to contradict the Bazant Zhou paper, which was used by NIST to "justify" not investigating the collapse, proper. I believe the key difference is due to treating the force applied on the topmost storey in a quasi-static fashion, while in actuality (as Gordon Ross has pointed out), energy is rapidly being carried away from the impact region.

Also, if you have Professor Korol's email address, would you be kind enough to forward a copy of this email, in case the engineering department does not do so? Thanks in advance.


The NIST studies of the WTC collapse referenced the Bazant Zhou paper, which supported NIST's notion of an "inevitable global collapse". However, the Bazant Zhou paper has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and similar investigations (but more sophisticated) were carried out by Calladine and English (and probably others, I believe the Calladine and English paper referenced below was a seminal paper). The Calladine and English paper most certainly DID have experimental evidence.

Would you be knd enough to study the CE paper and remark on it's implications in your debate with MacQueen? Also, I have been urging other members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice to study the paper, and either submit a Letter or a Journal article. I suggested that they investigate the differences between it and both the Bazant Zhou paper and the Gordon Ross paper.

It would be much appreciated if you would oblige me, also.

Calladine, C. R. and English, R. W., "Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-Absorbing Structure", Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 26, No. 11/12, pp. 689-701, 1984.

Here is the summary from the paper:

The dynamic collapse of energy-absorbing structures is more difficult to understand than the corresponding quasi-static collapse, on account of two effects which may be described as the "strain-rate factor" and the "inertia factor" respectively. The first of these is a material property whereby the yield stress is raised, while the second can affect the collapse mode, etc. It has recently been discovered that structures whose load-deflection curve falls sharply after an initial "peak" are much more "velocity sensitive" than structures whose load-deflection curve is "flat-topped"; that is, when a given amount of energy is delivered by a moving mass, the final deflection depends more strongly on the impact velocity. In this paper we investigate strain-rate and inertia effects in these two types of structure by means of some simple experiments performed in a "drop hammer" testing machine, together with some simple analysis which enables us to give a satisfactory account of the experimental observations. The work is motivated partly by difficulties which occur in small-scale model testing of energy-absorbing structures, on account of the fact that the "strain-rate" and "inertia" factors not only scale differently in general, but also affect the two destinct types of structure differently.

I will be sending a similar email to MacQueen, in the hopes that he can tap the expertise of structural engineers so that he can intelligently discuss the implications of the Calladine and English paper in your debate.


i dont understand you

collapse collapse collapse ?
how and why ?
the answer is so easy:
eyewhitness are a lot and this clip shows it clearly :
you need no expertise - only your ears and eyes

the clip is based on footage aired from differnt tvs in 2006.
but they dont have blown up the most important 1 second

i have done this for you and all the others, who wont realize, what a crime has happend ( and its still goes on ! )

if thats not enough to prove a long planned demolition with explosives, i'd go in the forrest and live with the apes ...

What's the link to this clip?


look here
in the blog are
links to youtube (comment it if you wanna "digg" it)
and link to HQ-version for distribution or use in own works.

or at this blog

Excellent article

I read every word. So well written and so damn logical. The more reasonable articles like this, the better -- helps keep my soul alive, as silly as that might sound.

Thanks 7man and reprehensor.

Doesn't sound silly at all.


Here's where the article originally occurred

This piece was originally published as an interview here:

* Building #6 * -info/update

Those in the know have surely seen the series of smoke-rising images posted at George Washington's blog. I've just seen them and it is important for me to make this known. Building #5 sat far to the SOUTH, and was never visible from Wintergarden, or the West elevation as shown near the end of this series.

Therefore, we are seeing the West portion of #6 where we also witnessed the famous plume.

At some point in the brew-ha over discrediting 'the pod,' undue emphasis was spent debunking "the plume." However, this is precisely the position where the deepest hole is in the thermo-foot prints. Clearly positioned between #1 and #7, and slightly to the East.

Now, I do not wish to challenge the extrodinary claims made by Judy Wood in speculation over the method, or origin of the melted vehicles.

However, under no circumstance are we left to assume that - 'no incendarys' were pre-positioned. Clearly there were, whether these be buried 'mini-nukes', (as 6 appears) or disguised in the un-ignited particle droppings from #'s 2 and 1.

QUOTABLE: "I had personally seen and felt this olive-greenish gooey substance, filled with grey-whiteish chunks, -attached to a scale mock-up of the Exterior cladding and glazing and steel columns, as was presented in the Architect's offices immediately prior to the FBI 'take-over'. After touching this substance lightly, I experienced a battery-acid like stinging on my fingers. The sensation increased as I washed my hands, further suggesting it was an acidic combination of silicon and sodium, so as to ignite on impact, or in the presence of air."

My Only question for Judy, et. al, is; Would it not be possible for an airborne siding panel to release much of it's incendary 'insulation' -after- it hit the ground, or a similar impediment adjacent to these very vehicles?

I'm thinking one chunk on a car, or through its windows, would explain some of this physical evidence.

Explosive testimony (oral histories of firemen on 911)

The Canadian professor mentioned "Explosive Testimony".

These oral histories are available at a NYT website:

NY City (care of Bloomberg (connected to the perps?!)) would not release them until 2006 after being requested by the freedom of information act in 2002 by the NY Times !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at Stephen Gregory's testimony for example:
search for flash

Look at Richard Banaciski
search for explosion

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories - David Ray Griffin

Superb article.

Superb article. Down-to-earth and common-sense driven. Gets even better on the other side. Think I'll forward this to a few skeptics in my acquaintance.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month