As the number of papers on 9/11 is now very large it has become difficult for people wanting to find information on specific topics to locate the most useful to their needs. In this page I will list some significant papers together with a short explanation to assist selection.

Most of the papers and letters I have written, whether alone or with other authors, have been peer reviewed and posted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most are scientific analyses of the physical evidence for the use of explosives at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Five relate to the Pentagon. They are listed here together with papers by other students of 9/11, most recent at the top for the convenience of visitors looking for new papers and updates. Some deal with other related issues which are listed in a lower section. A problem with this order of listing is that it tends to be in reverse order to the development of ideas and hence may obstruct the newcomer. To avoid this the reader could start from the bottom and work up. Alternatively one could start with a paper which gives a historical revision of the main steps, for example the following; a little dated now and incomplete but still useful:

Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case (F Legge, May 2009)

(Click to view.)


The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus (F Legge, June 2012)

This paper attempts to gather all the claims made recently that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. It examines all these claims, one by one. It proves them to be without justification. It is hoped that this process will help to generate a better degree of consensus on the subject than exists at present.

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact (J Wyndham, Dec 2011)

Abstract: The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.

The Pentagon Attack: A Refutation of the Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path (F Legge & D Chandler, Sept 2011)

David and I go through the evidence on which the flyover hypothesis is based and find that it does not stack up. Even the witnesses who say the plane passed north of the Citgo service station provide evidence to do with bank angle which confirms the plane flew virtually straight and therefore must have passed on the south side, straight at the Pentagon. Their evidence is supported by many other witnesses to the impact and by the radar and FDR data.

Also see the Addendum to this paper which uses additional evidence to show that the claimed path north of the service station is not merely improbable but absolutely impossible:

Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon (F Legge and W Stutt, Jan 2011)

Warren has discovered four more seconds of data in the Flight Data Recorder file. This has enabled analysis of the final moments of the flight officially attributed to AA77, and shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon close to the ground, as reported by many eye witnesses and as indicated by the damage trail through the lightpoles.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy (Anonymous and F Legge, Feb 2010)

“I am not a scientist and cannot understand the arguments”. This is an objection, often given by those who support the official theory of the events of 9/11, which is hard to answer. The intention of this paper is to appeal to people who are familiar with philosophical debate but not comfortable with science and the scientific method. The paper starts off with a study of the way we interpret information and give it weight or reject it, and is partly directed at examining the psychological barriers that block utilization of scientific evidence. The paper starts with a reference to Milgram, whose experiments showed how remarkably prone we humans are to obeying authority even when the act appears inhumane. This may help us to understand that there are answers to that other common difficult objection: “They couldn’t have done it!”.

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics (D Chandler, Feb 2010)

David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, has a gift for explaining in a clear manner how the application of the basic principles of physics can help us understand puzzling observations. He shows that the Towers could not have collapsed in the observed manner as a result of impact damage and fire. There had to be something else. Note that the original links to videos by David Chandler no longer work. The videos can be found here.

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth (F Legge, October 2009)

This early paper discusses the evidence relating to claims regarding American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757. The paper has recently been updated and now contains substantial revisions as a result of information received from critics and supporters of the paper. The purpose of this paper is to deal with the fact that there is dissension in the 9/11 truth movement regarding this issue. It discusses the possible damaging consequences of strongly supporting positions which cannot be scientifically substantiated.

One issue not properly dealt with in this paper is “ground effect”. It has been claimed that ground effect would have prevented the plane from approaching and hitting the Pentagon so close to the ground. This is not a valid argument as ground effect diminishes with speed. At the high speed of the approach, ground effect would not have been significant.

Did the Earth Shake before the South Tower Hit the Ground? (G MacQueen, July 2009)

Graeme MacQueen examines the evidence for explosives by studying the vibration of video cameras which have responded to the shaking of the earth.

The Missing Jolt: a Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (G MacQeen and A Szamboti, Apr 2009)

Readers of the NIST report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe (N Harrit with co-authors, Feb 2009)

Distinctive red/gray chips have been found in samples of dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. On analysis, these chips were found to contain nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum, intimately mixed. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. This type of material should not be present in a building. A short PowerPoint presentation of the major points in this paper may be accessed here: Nanothermite PowerPoint

The Top Ten Connections between NIST and Nanothermites (K Ryan, July 2008)

Kevin Ryan shows that NIST had considerable experience with both conventional and experimental explosives. Their resolute refusal to properly evaluate the possible use of explosives is therefore seen for what it is: a cover-up.

9/11 and Probability Theory (F Legge, Jun 2008)

This simple paper looks at explanations of events as described in the official reports, and in other sources, and compares their probability.

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction (S Jones with co-authors, April 2008)

This paper provides a framework in which it was hoped that constructive dialogue with the authorities might eventuate. This did not happen but the paper is useful in listing points for others to consider.

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers (A Szamboti, Feb 2008)

This detailed examination of many lines of evidence shows that the controlled demolition hypothesis is standing up well, while the official explanation is not. This is a useful general reference document as numerous links to valuable sources are provided.

Extremely High Temperatures at the World Trade Center Destruction (S Jones with co-authors, Jan 2008)

Small spherical particles, mainly iron, have been found in all samples of the dust examined from several sites surrounding the WTC, by a number of groups. The temperature required to produce these particles is anomalous in the context of the official explanations for the collapses, as the title implies.

9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible (F Legge and A Szamboti, Dec 2007)

When steel is heated it weakens as is well known. When steel is bent it hardens, which is not so well known. It follows that if steel under a particular load is heated till it bends, it will harden a little and resist further bending until more heat is supplied to raise the temperature. This will take time and thus produce a slow sagging motion. No such motion  was observed.

9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations (F Legge, Sep 2007)

The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument that explosives were used to demolish WTC 7 that does not require any calculation. The hope is that readers will be curious to see how this can be done and will read on and discover, perhaps with some surprise, that they are able to rely on their own judgment. The argument is based on material readily available for all to study, namely videos and photographs.

High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-like Sources in the WTC Towers (K Ryan, Jun 2007)

As the towers collapse, very fast puffs of dust emerge from numerous points well below the collapse front. This paper considers the official explanation that compressed air was the cause and finds that significant air pressure rise during the collapse is not feasible.

A Description of Molten Aluminum poured onto Rusty Steel (W Lifferth, Mar 2007)

This experiment provided evidence that the molten metal which poured from WTC 2 was not aluminium. As it was not aluminium it must be iron or steel. The melting points of iron and steel are well above any possible temperature that jet fuel and office fires can produce.

9/11 – The Twin Towers and Commonsense (F Legge, Feb 2007)

This brief note points out that the official explanation for the collapses of the towers should be challenged as a matter of commonsense. It is useful as a brochure for handing out in the street.

Statement regarding Thermite (R Moore, Jan 2007)

This paper reports patents showing that devices existed at the time which would enable thermite to be used to cut steel. This contradicts the NIST assertion that thermite is not suitable for demolition and that therefore there was no need to look for traces of thermite.

9/11 – Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition (F Legge, Nov 2006)

Acceleration is an important topic because it is based on evidence readily available to all, namely videos, and also because the calculations involved are not complex and can easily be verified by the reader. The conclusion reached that explosives were used in the demolition of these buildings is therefore not only compelling but readily accessible.

NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire (F Legge, Aug 2006)

All theories of collapse of the towers based on the effects of fire, whether due to weakening or expansion, are shown to be false by data found in the NIST report. It is shown in this report that the columns were already cooling at the time of collapse. Having survived the highest temperatures they could not now collapse as steel regains strength and shrinks as it cools.

Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (S Jones, Sep 2006)

Professor Steven Jones was the first scientist of substantial academic standing to publish a paper questioning the official explanation for the collapses of the three WTC towers. In this seminal paper he discusses 13 lines of evidence which support the use of energetic materials in the destruction.

9/11 – Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a short List of Observations (F Legge, Jun 2006)

This early paper is intended as an introduction to the events of 9/11. Evidence based on videos, photographs and witness testimonies is presented which indicates that explosives were used in the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center. The conclusion is reached that the official reports are unsatisfactory in that contradictory evidence is ignored and hence that further investigation is required.


Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight (D R Griffin, May 2010)

This paper discusses the concept of SCAD (State Crimes Against Democracy) in relation to WTC 7. It brings together most of the evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and shows how it is possible for such an event to be carried out in plain sight without the public at large becoming aware that they have been deceived. Clearly the democratic process cannot work properly if the public is deliberately misinformed.

Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton (F Legge, May 2009)

This letter is a response to some debate that was occurring in emails. As Frank Greening has contributed to important papers on 9/11 it is of interest to study his flawed position on a particularly significant scientific concept, namely Newton’s Third Law.

14 Responses to Papers

  1. Charmain says:

    Hey! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyhow, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be book-marking and
    checking back frequently!

  2. Frank Legge says:

    Hi Charmain,

    I hope you find the website useful. If you have any questions, I will be happy to respond.

  3. Verona says:

    I like the helpful info you provide in your articles.
    I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently.
    I’m quite sure I’ll learn plenty of new stuff right here!
    Good luck for the next!

  4. When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox
    and now each time a comment is added I get several e-mails with the same comment.

    Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
    Bless you!

    • Frank Legge says:

      I would stop these emails if I could but I do not know how to. Is there anyone reading this who is familiar with WordPress and can help?

  5. James Philps says:

    Hi frank. I too have written a paper about the 911 attacks, which deals specifically with the plane hijackings. I feel that the movements of the aircraft are consistent with a tactic known as aerial infiltration, which was implemented by the germans back in WW2 with kampfgeschwader 200. Their methods were seemingly copied by pilots of the italian air force, especially Angelo Tondi and Guido Rossi. (You can read a brief overview here:

    • Frank Legge says:

      Hi Phillip, thanks for your comment. Your infiltration theory depends on the use of drones. There is no evidence that drones were used and a great deal of evidence that they were not. The ability to take over control of a plane remotely, and land it, was certainly developed before 9/11 and would have been available to the perpetrators.

      We have ample irrefutable evidence that the three buildings which fell on 9/11 were brought down by controlled demolition. That is all we need to prove that 9/11 was an inside job and that a new investigation is urgently required. It is my intention to present on this website only those concepts which are backed up by hard evidence.

      • James Philps says:

        I go by james, actually. As for supporting evidence, that gets covered pretty extensively in an article which goes by the same title as my video. (You can read it here at:

        The fatal flaw in the electronic hijacking theory promoted by people like aidan monaghan is that you have to make serious modifications to the plane in order to guarantee that the passengers and crew can’t sabotage the plane after its been taken over. Not only that, you then have to sneak this aircraft into the hanger and fool the mechanics and pilots into thinking its the real thing! It is actually easier to acquire a KC 767 drone and swap it with the original aircraft in mid-air.

        Visual and aerodynamic analysis conclusively prove that the planes which hit the twin towers were prototype boeing 767 tankers. Only a very specific group of people within the military industrial complex would have access to such aircraft. The chief suspects in the boeing-pentagon tanker lease are edward aldridge, michael wynne, lawrence delaney, and dov zakheim (already implicated in other 911 crimes). There were also smaller figures like rozanne ridegeway and darleen druyuun. They can be tracked down and subpoenaed now.

        • Frank Legge says:

          This theory fails for the same reason as the previous theory – there is no evidence for a plane swap and plenty of evidence for no swap. Have you bothered to read the Consensus paper:

          You must remember that 7 or 8 radar stations were following the plane. All retained the primary signal when they lost the secondary signal. The primary returns were recorded and show no evidence for another plane in the vicinity. They couldn’t miss seeing it.

          You would do the Truth Movement more good by spreading information that the three buildings which fell that day were brought down by controlled demolition instead of persisting with you obsession to cause confusion about the well proven impact of AA77 with the Pentagon.

  6. M Telford says:

    Mr Legge,
    The fact that no plane hit the Pentagon is in evidence. Your assertion it was flight AA&& is in itself misleading to the Truth Movement.

    • Frank Legge says:

      Mr Telford,
      It seems you have not read my Consensus paper which puts together a great many pieces of evidence that a large passenger plane did hit the Pentagon. I believe it was AA77 because it was identified as such on takeoff and there is no evidence for a swap with any other plane on the way. There is also the very detailed paper by John Wyndham which comes to the same conclusion. To still adhere to the “no plane at the Pentagon” theory after all this information has been put before you seems perverse. I wonder about the motive of any person who simply rejects the “plane hit” theory without setting out any refutation of the points made in the supporting papers.

  7. dribble says:

    Mr Legge,

    I’m sure that a plane of the same make and model of AA77 (and painted up to look like it) hit the Pentagon as you have amply proven. However I don’t really see your problem with James Philps assertion that it could have been a drone, or that this assertion somehow does the ‘Truth Movement’ a disservice.

    911 was obviously a complex operation, but consider that the overriding concern for the planners from the beginning must be that IT MUST WORK. This is because there are trillions of dollars of national security state spending riding on it, wars out to the horizon, and all that juicy fear and terror and power and control all dependent on its success. For the 911 planners, FAILURE WAS NOT AN OPTION, and there is only ONE CHANCE at it.

    Therefore the planners are not going to rely on Arab patsies, all hopeless pilots and idiots in general, to carry out the hijackings, hopefully commit suicide and fly the planes into the targets and hope they get it right and something doesn’t go horribly wrong.

    [snip where you propose drones were used]

    Everything the authorities have done so far seems to indicate that a plane swap took place. No attempt was made to identify the planes by their parts, there is no evidence the Arabs boarded the planes, there are no boarding tickets, the DNA evidence for the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes was controlled by the military, the planes should have been uncontrollable at the speeds flown, the crashes occur at convenient locations etc etc. the list goes on and is listed in Mr Philps paper.

    Mr Philps should be congratulated on his effort to make some sense of this important part of the conspiracy. Its great to read a serious effort instead of the usual drivel in this respect.

    • Frank Legge says:

      Hi dribble,

      Neither I nor any of my colleagues has ever asserted that unskilled pilots carried out the entire mission. We agree that it would be highly unlikely that the perpetrators of 9/11 would allow this complex project to be entirely placed in unskilled hands. What we assert is that no plane swap can be detected in the data records from the several radar stations which followed the plane from start to finish. If there was a plane swap it would therefore have to occur before take-off. It is not reasonable to believe that the pilots and other staff would not notice that the old familiar plane had been replaced by another.

      And there is no need for a swap. Already there had been demonstrations of passenger planes being landed successfully without pilots. This had been designed to rescue hijacked planes. All that was necessary was to install this equipment in the plane during a service. There is a great deal of evidence from the flight data recorder that the plane was largely flown by an inexperienced pilot but in the last few seconds, when the going got difficult, the action of the plane steadies and it could well have been taken out of the pilots hands.

      Regarding your point about the authorities making no attempt to identify the plane; this has already been well covered. It is obviously in their interests to have the 9/11 activists arguing the point about the Pentagon. It distracts the public from thinking about the most persuasive evidence, namely the controlled demolition of the three WTC towers. I think you need to review the papers on the subject more carefully.

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>