This is only the initial draft release and not all inclusive. I fully expect additions and corrections which I will periodically revise as new and better information surfaces.

PDF's:

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/WTC 1 36X42.pdf (for large format printing)

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/WTC 1 8_5x11.pdf

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/WTC 2 36X42.pdf (for large format printing)

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/WTC 2 8_5x11.pdf

1. I have completed a video showing the analysis of the Balzac-Vitry controlled demolition that used hydrolics rather than explosives to initiate a total demolition. This analysis shows deceleration upon collision, as predicted in the paper, "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis," by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. It also illustrates the symmetry of destruction, contrary to the "crush down" followed by "crush up" scenario propounded by Zdenek Bazant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

This is a study of the overall downward acceleration of WTC1, the North Tower of the World Trade Center. During this investigation it was discovered that the one feature that kept pace with the original acceleration of the roofline was the leading wave of ejections on the west wall.

The axis (nose) of A11 impacted the exact center of the north wall with some 1m accuracy. The impact speed was 220m/s, the downward angle was approximately 4°, while the lateral angle was less than 3°.

This analysis is based on the visible north face damage and video evidence.

The first picture reflects the upward wing flexing.

[This is an updated version of the video to correct some errors in the characterization of the corner columns and to generally improve the information content. Rather than simply delete the old YouTube video I've added a link to go from it to the new one. This should cover those who have already embedded or linked to the old version. Sorry for the hassle, and thank you members of the AE911Truth team who caught the error. -- DSC]

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

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

June 17, 2009
Greening vs. Chandler and Newton’s Laws:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/ChandlerResponseToGreening.pdf

The occasion for Frank Greening’s letter is correspondence with several physicists, chemists,
and engineers discussing arguments I made in a video posted on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth YouTube page:

This is my response to his letter.
------------------------------

FG:
Chandler concludes that the block was subject to a net force of 0.64M(upper)g. Prior to the
collapse of WTC 1, the lower portion of the building was perfectly capable of holding up the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

Thermite,inward bowing and the 105th floor.(a new theory)

We all belive ,in controlled demolition of Twin Towers,but do we have a good image about the actual method,which was used to bring them down?And do we have a convincing answer to the inward bowing?I'll show you that we have a very good,convincing answer.

Let me start with this video:

(direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoZY7lNRlSI )

An anonymous source has released high resolution DVD mpg2 footage of the North Tower & Building 7 collapse clips, reported here on November 1st, 2008: http://www.911blogger.com/node/18358 Also the source has allowed the release of video of the South Tower, and made all 3 available in high quality downloadable DVD file mpg's. These files are cut from source recording DVD VOB files so there is no quality loss, however the sound has been removed, and the video is edited. The source wishes to remain anonymous at this point. View all 3 clips here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Hi Quality DVD files at these links.
South Tower: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=67PMXROL
North Tower: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YS0XHA8B

http://ourtribune.com/article.php?id=3265

Activism idea; join your local Rotary Club, Toastmasters, etc. and give 9/11 Truth speeches.

Article oddities:

"Billy Forney was on the 85th floor of One World Trade Center on Sept. 11 when the first plane struck, with a force that swayed the tower. “At 8:48, in an instant, there was this immediate explosion ... white smoke whipping in and out,” said Forney to Rotarians and guests at last week’s Rotary Club of Humble Intercontinental luncheon."

> 9/11 Commission Report says WTC 1 was struck at 8:46a. This guy is specific about 8:48a; is he mistaken? Paper misquote? What did he say prior to this quote; was he referring to a separate explosion?

"Forney said that at about the 73rd floor, people were running back up, toward his group and the others making their way down."

> More evidence of illegally locked fire escape exits? http://www.mjbarkl.com/locked.htm

"At about the 65th floor, they saw a film of smoke on the ceiling, but they did not know the building was burning."

The first plane to hit World Trade Center - North Tower - on September 11 2001

ESPECIALLY NOTE the very bright flash that appears just before impact. What was that?

http://investigate911.se/911_first_plane.html

Download the clip here

The Explosion Few Noticed
Controlled Demolition is Visually Obvious
November 2007

There have been an increasing number of eye witness reports of explosions within the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th 2001. Most notably William Rodriguez has spoken publicly of explosions in the sub-basements of the towers before any aircraft struck them (1). Many police and firefighters have reported explosions as the towers came down (2). Not to mention all the video taped 'regular people' speaking of explosions. So for what it's worth, I will highlight an explosion that is visually obvious but few have focused on.

The collapse of the North Tower (WTC1) happened after the South Tower's implosion. It was a little different than the first tower to go down. The difference was that it started with a very strong, visually obvious explosion.

Folks, it took more than 3 researchers several months to create this study, and it was only possible with the released blueprints. The stories about explosions in the basement and other floors of the North Tower (WTC1) were not new.

The official explanation was kerosine exploding down the elevator shafts.
To this day we wondered what really happened there, what was the real cause, what was the intention of this explosions.

This study set the record straight. There is no possible way that jet fuel or kerosine could be cause for that explosions- it was technically impossible, indeed, when you look at what floors were harmed and what was installed there, a totally new explanation comes in sight.

Go and look for yourself. I've studied the work some time and found no mistake.
In fact, there are several other researchers here in Germany who confirmed the study in total independently, without the knowing of the study itself, only with the keywords and the blueprints in mind.

Here it is:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

I went through the archive.org foorage (available here: http://911blogger.com/node/10284) and cut out the parts I found important.... 24GB in all. I also included a copy of "911 The Explosive Reality" (without the "red falshes" error at the end) and Robert Wright's (damming) speech to the national press club. I'm not sure they will let this stay up... please grab it now and host if you can.

The complete list is here (pls ignore any spelling errors ;-):
http://ia341239.us.archive.org/2/items/911_News_Clips
ftp://ia341239.us.archive.org/2/items/911_News_Clips
http://www.archive.org/details/911_News_Clips

PS. The full 198GB set (http://911blogger.com/node/10284) is "well seeded" now if you were waiting to download it.

from: http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/5

digg_url='http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm';
digg_title='Former Chief of NIST\'s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation';
digg_bodytext='Former Chief of NIST\'s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation.';
digg_topic='politics';

Aug 22, 2007
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center
— Alan Miller

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_...
August 21, 2007

This video was made by Steve Spak of the FDNY. It contains close-up shots of WTC7's infamous corner along with shots of WTC1&2's sliced core columns.
For background see:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10295
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8788
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7471

http://www.archive.org/details/Steve_Spak_Day_Of_Disaster
Direct link to .iso image:
ftp://ia350625.us.archive.org/3/items/Steve_Spak_Day_Of_Disaster/Steve_S...

PS: lots of interesting things in the archive.org footage -> http://911blogger.com/node/10284

Big thanks to Arie in the Netherlands for mailing me a large set of archive.org footage, casual inspection of just a few vids revealed lots of interesting things...
Since nobody wants to click on 198 torrents, I made a zip of all of them available here: http://www.boostshare.com/?d=42D1A3661 if you want to pick individual videos see http://thepiratebay.org/search/archive.org. Please seed whatever you download indefinitely... I will seed forever, but I am rate-limited at 64k upstream, so if you have 200G to spare please help insure this evidence continues to be available by permanently seeding it. I had posted a subset of this on CC but inexplicably it's been removed. ThePirateBay is a better solution as they do not honor takedown notices (see http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt or http://thepiratebay.org/legal for a laugh).

Currently one of the two seeds is on a fast university connection so now is a good time to download.

If you are new to torrents, it's really easy...
1. download and install http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php or http://utorrent.com/download.php
2. download and unzip http://www.boostshare.com/?d=42D1A3661

Was there creep in WTC1 in the lead up to the collapse?

The NIST report says there was. They support this claim with the testimony of a guy in a helicopter and an un-timed photograph.

We set out to see if we could observe creep in the tower before it collapses, we found none.

http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Creep_WTC1.pdf

Muckraker Report again boldly goes where most fear to tread!

Source: http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id367.html
Published: Thursday, March 1, 2007

Ed Haas

Effort to halt government WTC7 investigation launched

March 1, 2007 – The following Request for Correction was e-mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007. It will be certified mailed on March 1, 2007. Attorney Jerry Leaphart has informed me that he will work on the legal papers for an injunction this weekend.

The subject matter within this Request for Correction and pending filing for injunction is purposeful. The reader might be tempted to conclude that many other contradictions found within the government investigation of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 should have been referenced in this Request for Correction. I can assure you that great thought went into this effort and it mirrors the advice of counsel. What some might conclude as “too narrow” is actually advantageous to achieving the goal – the truth.

Please support the Muckraker Report in this effort.

February 28, 2007

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RRR

Every adult human on the planet should see this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5396204523118393835

Needless to say, among myriad omissions on tonight's BBC cointelproduction was any reference to the toxic dust.

"What We Saw" by Bob and Bri is a compelling 26 minute eyewitness video shot on the morning of 9/11 from a the 36th floor of a high-rise apartment about 500 yards Northwest of WTC 1.

http://tinyurl.com/zty4j

Pay particular attention at Minute 11:48 to 12:19 when the videographer witnesses the second plane impact and almost immediately calls it a "military plane".

Again, pay particular attention at Minute 14:07 which is the commencement of the collapse of WTC 2. The camera is aimed at street level prior to the top of WTC 2 cascading and the camera picks up a very curious dust cloud at the base of the towers prior to any material traveling down from above. In "9/11 Eyewitness", videographer Rick Siegal caught this same phenomenon on video from across the Hudson River. This looks like it is possible confirmation that Rick Siegal correctly identified a smoke/dust plume at the street level just prior to the collapse of WTC 2.

This video does not provide the sort of analysis that we might see in other documentaries. This is raw footage shot on the morning of 9/11 with no overdubbing and minimal editing.

If anyone reading this happens to know the filmmakers, please indicate this in the comments section.

The Boston 9/11 Truth Committee anouncement:

The Boston 9/11Truth Committee proudly presents an important new film:

911 MYSTERIES

Written and Directed by Smallstorm

Featuring construction and demolition experts, survivors and
first responders on the scene deconstructing the myth of 911.

Why were there explosions in the basement of the towers long before the buildings fell?
Why did building 7 collapse if it was not hit by an airplane and suffered only a few small fires?
What was the Bush family's involvement in the company managing World Trade Center security?
Why were there multiple "security evacuations" of the buildings in the weeks leading up to 911?

What if the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives?
What if US officials were involved?

Wednesday October 18, 2006, 7:00 PM
West Newton Cinema
1296 Washington Street, West Newton, MA
(Free parking available around the corner)

The crux of the conspiracy argument is that demolition is the only
possible explanation for the destruction of WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7. One
need only raise the single question: How could a collapse, caused only
by the damage of the plane collisions and subsequent fires cause the
remaining still intact structures to fall to the ground at the speed
of a free fall in a vacuum? No explanation can be produced for this,
because it would require breaking the laws of physics. It cannot be
done.

This scientific fact is the corner stone. It should be stressed and
focused on because it is undeniable. It is the truth that will
convince the skeptics. It certainly convinced me.

I, like many others, was very skeptical about the demolition theory,
mainly because the only evidence I was shown were the squibs.
Furthermore, I (also like many others) was completely ignorant of the
WTC7 collapse. It actually took over a year for me to see the light,
when I finally saw the on line videos of WTC7's collapse.

It does not take a physics degree to understand that the collapse of a
steel girder concrete reinforced building cannot occur in less time
than it takes for a bowling ball to fall from the top of the building