Home

Plenty of steel, but where is all the concrete? (Right click for larger, clearer view.)

On the 11th of September, 2001, two passenger aircraft were taken over and flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC). After about an hour the towers collapsed with much loss of life. Several hours later a third skyscraper fell, though it had not been hit by a plane. Two other aircraft were also taken over that day. One apparently flew into the Pentagon and the other was brought down in Pennsylvania. The tragic events of that day, and the day itself, have become known simply as 9/11.

Is the concrete here, travelling north?

Is the concrete here, traveling north?

There is much controversy over what happened that day, not only between those who support and those who dispute the official explanation but also among various groups within the “9/11 truth movement”. The basic purpose of this website is to examine and present soundly based scientific evidence that the buildings were brought down by “controlled demolition” using explosives. It is hoped that this will provide a clear picture by collecting together the most compelling evidence for demolition, while avoiding those aspects of 9/11 which are still in dispute.

or here, travelling south?

and here, traveling south?

The US administration does not admit the possibility that the towers were brought down with explosives. The government has authorized three major investigations, all of which attempt to explain the collapses of the towers as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires. None of the investigations properly examines the question of whether controlled demolition might better fit the observations. It is an extraordinary fact that the 9/11 Commission report did not mention the collapse of the third building.

A major 9/11 controversy is to do with the attack on the Pentagon. Some assert that the plane came in from a more northerly direction than that described in the official reports, having deviated around the nearby gas station, and thus could not have done the observed long line of damage. The angle of bank required to perform this maneuver is greater than shown in the image at the top of this page. A bank angle such as that would have astonished observers and there would have been much discussion and reporting of it. Few witnesses mentioned bank angle, however, and those that did said it was slight. Some said the plane was flying wings level. Some said the plane did not deviate but flew straight as it approached the Pentagon. It can be concluded that no such extreme bank angle occurred and that the deviation did not occur. This is described more fully in the “Pentagon” page.

This site sets out in “The Case” a range of evidence-based arguments that explosives were used in controlled demolition. These arguments are backed up by a substantial number of scientific papers, most of which are peer reviewed. Find these in “Papers”.

Beside scientific articles there are clues to be found in photographs. Right-click the images here to obtain a larger, clearer view. There is also a page where several useful images are discussed; see “Images”.

19 Responses to Home

  1. Frank Legge says:

    Hi Marvin, I see you are standing to represent your state (Oregon). I also see that you are expert in dealing with the problem of drug addiction. It seems to me there is a similarity between drug addiction for a person and the empire building addiction of the USA. Are you willing to campaign for a new investigation into 9/11 as part of your position as a candidate?

    • I certainly do intend to call for a new and open investigation of the events of 9/11; an elephant is growing in our living room – so very many young people, who have learned of 9/11 via the www, have lost trust in our rule-of-law, we are sowing the seeds of rot in democratic government.

      No secrets, no lies, nothing is that important!

  2. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
    You have a wonderful, informative website about the 9/11/2001. As it is clear that the Mossad put the explosives into the buildings (see http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5367),
    how about spreading the private addresses of those who pulled the strings and made the coverup….
    Best greetings,
    Christoph

    • Frank Legge says:

      Hi Christoph,
      You are right to say that investigation into who was involved in 9/11 is vital. Scientists have been calling for an investigation into all aspects of the event for a long time but have generally avoided naming names. We have done our best to make the case water-tight and easy to understand that explosives were used in the demoltion of all three buildings. We hoped, in so doing, that the public would rise up and demand a full investigation. What has become apparent is that the media has such a grip on public perceptions that this is very difficult to achieve.
      Scientists have laid the ground-work. It is time now for those with political skills to get to work.

  3. Luke Oliver says:

    Dear 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Thank you for opening my eyes. After constantly researching I now feel I know what the true agenda is particularly behind the U.S and U.K government. The war with Iran is imminent and I sincerely believe that you are the ones who can prevent a real catastrophe, and take us from a type zero civilization to a type 1 civilization. If you were to expose the corruption regarding 9/11 it would send shockwaves across the world, as you know, with Britain soon following. You now have thousands of people taking notice. I feel that if you gathered your army you could march on washingon NOW and demand answers. Iv looked at many movements, and yours is the only one with the organizational skills and knowledge to break this cycle of fear and intimidation. I know this is nothing you haven’t thought of, but this must happen before the attack on Iran, or I personally fear they have already won. As an onlooker, I have total respect for you and wish you every success.

    Please take your army and march on Washington.

    • Frank Legge says:

      Thank you for your support Luke. It is very difficult to raise awareness in the public, as the media ridicule the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. I hope that one day enough of the public will be informed that candidates for Congress will be able to improve their chances of being elected by saying they will call for a new, real investigation.

  4. truther2123 says:

    If you really want to know what happened to the towers, ask Dimitri Khalesov. Look up “911 the third truth” on youtube. I can’t agree 100% with his plane theory but the rest seems to explain it in full. Please pass this on as there are very few views on youtube and it is the most logical and scientific explanation to date.

    • Frank Legge says:

      truther2123,
      Dimitri Khalesov is very dangerous to the real truth movement because he sounds authoritative and has received a lot of support. His theories, however, do not stand up to scientific analysis. His idea that there was no plane at the Pentagon, even though a number of activists agree with him, is absurd, as you will find if you read the Pentagon page on this site and the pages that follow from it.

      Similarly his assertion that nuclear devices were used to bring down all three towers and damage the Pentagon is clearly contrary to the evidence. In the case of the twin towers, you can see the bursts of debris being ejected in a descending sequence, about every fourth floor. No explosive device, whether nuclear or conventional, in the basement, could produce this descending sequencial effect. Basement explosives could not produce an effect so high up in the building. Nuclear explosives must be large or they will not produce a self-sustaining chain reaction, hence they could not produce the beautifully controlled layered demolition that we see. Many small explosions are needed on every fourth floor to do that.

      In the case of the Pentagon, the idea that nuclear explosions could sever light poles at plane-wing height is absurd.

      Finally a nuclear explosion inevitably showers the neighbourhood with neutrons, which are absorbed by the surrounding materials, making them radioactive. No such radioactivity was found.

      I urge all readers to stick with the science. That is the purpose of this website. What can be scientifically proved is sufficient for the case that 9/11 was an inside job. Any attempt to exaggerate the arguments will only weaken the case.

      • John R Wallis says:

        I urge all readers to stick with the science. That is the purpose of this website. What can be scientifically proved is sufficient for the case that 9/11 was an inside job. Any attempt to exaggerate the arguments will only weaken the case.

        This is a very basic comment, but it is one that is so fundamental to any factual discussion that it must be stated often, I could not agree more.

        John R Wallis

  5. Vlado says:

    Thankyou Sir, for your very clear ,concise writing. I am a scientific layman ,but i know that the only way a steelframed building can collapse at free fall acceleration (Building 7) is from explosives. The NIST engineers know this too, but their raises depend on them ignoring it. As far as the Penatagon, i think the odds of a terrorist who was just trying to hit the building successfully, ignoring the huge target of the top of the Pentagon, and choosing to fly a jumbo jet in along the ground are ZERO. He would need a motive to make this choice and i can think of no motive . Also there are mutliple pilots who have been quoted saying that because of the physics involved ,it would be physically impossible for this plane to fly at that speed at ground level. Nonetheless, Thankyou again for your refreshing ,clear writing.

    • Frank Legge says:

      Hi Vlado,
      Thank you for your support. Regarding the Pentagon, there has been much unfortunate disputation among 9/11 activists. This does not help the truth movement. Pilots are wrong when they say a plane cannot fly at high speed close to the ground. You can be sure none of them have tried it. It is true that “ground effect” increases lift at any speed but the effect declines as speed rises. This is because ground effect is determined by angle of attack. At high speeds the angle of attack is very small, so ground effect must be very small. At low speeds, as when landing, the speed is low and ground effect is large. That is the condition that pilots are familiar with. I have written a paper in the hope of reducing argument about the Pentagon. Click here to find it.

  6. James Hansen says:

    I have never read so much nonsense in my life. I hated Bush, but you know what? It was crazy Arab Zealots, not Mossad, not Jews, not the CIA who brought the buildings down. Anyone with as much brains as God gives a fucking goose could see that. I saw it from about a block away…where were all of you clowns?

    • John R Wallis says:

      James, but what did you actually see?
      I think I have more brains than a goose, whatever the kind of goose you were talking about, but did you take a scientific look at what was happening, or were you overwhelmed by the happenings??
      John R Wallis

  7. Robert says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    If you look at the photo above, showing the dust cloud traveling South (http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tower1-2.jpg), especially the cloud on the right hand side, the horizontal front of this cloud shows vertical bands, indicating to me that those parts or bands are traveling just a slight bit faster than the rest (perhaps they commenced slightly before the rest), the horizontal band with the stripes is traveling faster than the the part just below it, where you can see three horizontal bands, also with some slight vertical banding.
    This front will be the first part of the whole dust cloud to leave the South Tower during it’s collapse.
    Could this be the cloud forming from a pulse through the windows just before the commencement of the collapse of the South Tower and the almost immediate destruction of the exoskeleton in that zone?
    Looking at the left and right clouds as they pass between the the various buildings, you can see that the cloud appears to moving in pulses, in fact you can actually count the pulses. I counted 14 on the left hand side, whilst on the right hand side, there are two huge pulses, with a volume that seems to far exceed the volume of a single floor of the tower.
    This is interesting, as it reminds me of looking back in time to see what happened in the “Big Bang”.
    The photo was obviously taken from a helicopter, it would be interesting to see of there are more photos of this southern flow of the dust cloud available.
    Thank you and regards,
    Robert

    • Frank Legge says:

      Thanks Robert,

      There certainly were pulses. I think the most convincing way to study the pulses is to look at the videos, not photos. You will see pulses emerge from the face of the Towers about every third floor, one after another, in a descending sequence. These are the demolitions, timed in such a way that the building is allowed to fall a little slower than free fall under gravity. This was very clever as it caused the falling debris to get a little ahead of the demolition events, thus obscuring them. They were not fully obscured however – in the early stages they can be seen clearly.

  8. David McConaghay says:

    Thank you for this site. You provide a concise overview of some of the facts and anomalies surrounding 9/11 which will hopefully allow people a path to expand their perspectives on what is possible.

    Recently, I saw an interview with Dr. Judy Wood, and she presents a powerful alternative explanation for what happened to those towers. I like her because she is a scientist and researcher first, with no apparent agenda and nothing to gain from her position. Her research suggests something wholly beyond most people’s ability to comprehend, but perhaps visitors to this site will be able to grasp it. The interview is available here: http://bit.ly/17Kud95

    Thanks again. Blessings.

    • Frank Legge says:

      Most scientists find Judy Wood’s publications to be fundamentally flawed. Her idea that the steel was turned to dust is absurd. You can see the steel lying all round the site.

  9. Hayden says:

    Hi John,

    After watching the YouTube documentary “911 Mysteries” which also dealt with the scientific facts of 9/11, I was surprised at how naive I had been. It also became very obvious that this was indeed a controlled demolition of the buildings. It’s true that people are unable or unwilling to accept the cold hard facts but in many cases I also believe that people just don’t care. They don’t want to know. I believe the truth is far too painful to accept and the consequences of the truth are too complicated and scary. They would prefer to be ignorant and lay blame somewhere else (wherever the media suggests they lay it).

    I wish you good luck and I believe in what you are doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>