-Caveat Lector-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by [8]Morgan Reynolds
by Morgan Reynolds
"It didnt seem real There are thousands of these steel beams that
just fell like pickup sticks."
~ [9]John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer
"What struck us - guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have
spent basically all our lives in the scrap business - wed never seen
steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just
unbelievable."
~ [10]Michael Henderson (p. 93),
General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE
To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at
the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, [11]mainstream
[12]experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October
2004, pp. 12-18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact
weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened
structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing
materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the
upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.
Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the
NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying
as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "[13]19 young Arabs acting at
the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan"
caused 9/11. The governments collapse theory is highly vulnerable on
its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the
paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival -
controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account
for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1
(North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of
the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has
two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage
"severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless
North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South
Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close
examination of [14]photos [15]reveals arguably "minor" rather than
"severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.
As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the
northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured - separated
from each other - yet there is no direct evidence of "severe"
structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken
perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column
below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns:
each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a
horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite
an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors
95-98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical
displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor
buckling at the perimeter.
The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically
after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain
"plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture,
implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns.
Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed
no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of
course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the
floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95-98,
photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the
likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not
document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed
to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities -
primarily FEMA - had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those
who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably
is unavailable.
Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building;
in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the
structural core and its steel was incredibly [16]strong (claimed 600%
redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at
impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel
beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87
feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross
section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with
steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at
the top. Each floor was also [17]extremely strong (p. 26), [18]a grid
of steel, contrary to claims of a [19]lightweight "truss" system.
Those who support the official account like [20]Thomas Eagar (p. 14),
professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT,
usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the
fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in
the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within
the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able
to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the
towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost
80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300^oF. Eagar believes that this
is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and
intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few
flames.
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the
entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors
94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural
system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved
for forensic analysis but [21]FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could
seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because
it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to
conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The
authorities apparently considered the rubble [22]quite [23]valuable:
New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had
one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
The preliminary [24]NIST Response claims that "the wall section above
the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no
evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging
floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This looks
minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and the
integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire looks weak
too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes later. This would
be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory.
About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North
Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they
pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is troublesome for
the official theory that a plane crash created the hole and subsequent
explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of physics imply that a
high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings breaking through thin
perimeter columns would deflect the shattered ends of the columns
inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly not bend them outward
toward the exterior.
A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash would
bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but the
subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite
direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten
toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the
exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed steel "reversal
theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend outward by
explosion) suffers two major handicaps:
1. No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely
that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion,
and
2. the hypothesis is ad hoc and lacks simplicity, both scientific
negatives.
Occams razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter
columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than
bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this
theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter
columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition
experts use to [25]slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of
linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found
in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as
well as the [26]rather-neatly [27]shorn steel everywhere.
The engineering establishments theory has further difficulties. It is
well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than
18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the
North Towers hole wasnt big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged
widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA,
FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155 1" (47.6
m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was
about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent.
"The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through
the exterior columns," comments [28]Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on
each wing? Id call that a substantial difference, not "the last few
feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times
the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners
flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The
small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the
airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again.
There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in
the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the
tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the
south at [29]Church street (pp. 68-9) and [30]atop WTC-5 to the east of
WTC-1.
Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that
some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast
hole were so short, probably less than [31]three feet (p. 105) [32]high
(p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening,
especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal
area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous
and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 24 to 28.5
tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet
no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it.
The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even
have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained
substantial [33]WTC material (p. 27) just [34]left of center (pp. 62,
105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move
much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a
jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum
takeoff weight of up to [35]193 tons.
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail
number N612UA and [36]FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been
recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video
plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos
showing minor engine parts on the ground are [37]unconvincing, to put
it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can
testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account,
the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was
completely intact upon initial [38]impact. The government never
produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged
hijacker [39]Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic
collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice
(CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either,
so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of
major domestic crashes.
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos
of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no
recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While
the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly
that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several
streets away could easily have been [40]planted by FEMA or other
government agents. Ive never seen any objective analysis of this wheel
assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed
to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners
that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in
Pennsylvania ([41]The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows [42]no
fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a
[43]smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not
allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation
Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged
airliner crashes.
The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos
show that the hole in WTC 2 also was [44]too small to have been caused
by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is
substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.
The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC
buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones
that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed
skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than
structural impact. Thats obviously true for building WTC 7 because
there was no alleged airplane impact.
First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after
hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses
occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by
aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after
short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve
the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire
intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphias
Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams
and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary
exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious
damage" (quoted by [45]Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with
consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to
what we observed at the WTC.
Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required
fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and
burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was
present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were
small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were
suffocating," points out [46]Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the
towers, as well as police and firefighters, [47]reported (pp. 199-200)
[48]the same thing.
Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than
in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower
fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften
up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were
considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower
collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain
why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the
South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to
trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie
that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29
minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991
Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme
that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not
collapse.
Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the
[49]current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation
team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to
explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for
the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened
structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or
gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by
aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by
debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims,
"temperature rise of structural components would likely have been
insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging
the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that
"a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a
number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent
uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its
creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it wont have
the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.
Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety
of facts undermine it:
* Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower
"where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The
[50]women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the
[51]NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the
same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of
the 94^th floor).
* By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Towers
flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
* The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran
out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system
dousing the fires.
* FDNY fire fighters remain under a [52]gag order
(Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they
heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
* Even the [53]9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges
that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total
collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked
everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some
firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices
were a risk.
[54]Griffin (pp. 25-7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the
official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These
problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so
the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for
the following facts:
1. [55]Fire [56]had [57]never before caused steel-frame buildings to
collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire
collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the
seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it
collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much
thinner steel beams ([58]pp. 68-9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder,
recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about
WTC-7 and said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang
for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of
Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the
best it could come up with had "only a low probability of
occurrence."
7. Its difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those
fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close
to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts
and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building,
and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it
collapses or folds in upon itself" ([59]p. 44). In conventional
demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a
minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with
[60]explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed
(approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each
tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a
phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by
gravity alone ("workers cant even find concrete. [61]Its all dust,
[the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did
debris, at the beginning of each towers collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns
sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet
long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but
shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves,"
meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast
sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, [62]explosions [63]occurred within the
buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of
underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude
from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome ([64]p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by
explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the
two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350^o F
five days after being continuously flooded with water, a
temperature high enough to melt aluminum ([65]p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC,
access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to
orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such
access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC
security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as
security specialist [66]Wayne Black says, "When you have a security
contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a
now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade
Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among
others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bushs
brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were
principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until
January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one
report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on [67]September
8-9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an
opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.
A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense
to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe
implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting
two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7.
Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology
secret.
Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would
arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that
the perpetrators used Mayor Giulianis sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d
story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed
the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer
might set his victims dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in
four fires is arson). Giulianis "undisclosed secret location" was
perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled
unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and
bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could
withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts
generated by collapsing skyscrapers.
There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in
the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the
towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one
floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive
explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed
("g" or 9.8 m/s^2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing
obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of
falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand,
explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the
falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the
only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was
that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by
explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional,
imploding from bottom up.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the
cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the
official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then
policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove
to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for
example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through
airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.
[reynolds.jpg] More importantly, momentous political and social
consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that
professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel
skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an
"inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling.
Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers
everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11
right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in
todays "security state" demands daring because [68]explosives and
[69]structural [70]experts have been intimidated in their analyses of
the collapses of 9/11.
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [[71]send him mail], is professor emeritus at
Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center
at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during
2001-2, George W. Bush's first term.
Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
[72]Morgan Reynolds Archives
[73]Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
References
1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/
2. http://www.lewrockwell.com/
3. http://lewrockwell.com/about.html
4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists.html
5. http://blog.lewrockwell.com/
6. http://www.lewrockwell.com/sub.html
7. http://www.lewrockwell.com/donate-t.html
8. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
9. http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/firefighter
10.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931788014/qid=1118167567/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2604847-0883337
11.
http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JSENDH&Volume=131&Issue=1#MAJOR3
12. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
13. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm
14.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
15. http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp
16. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
17.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
18. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
19. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html
20.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566565529/qid=1118171046/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-20604847-0883337
21. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
22. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html#ref2
23. http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/
24. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
25.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579121497/qid=1118171341/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2604847-0883337?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
26.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031712/qid=11181711870/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-20604847-0883337
27. http://www.september11news.com/
28.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
29.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031712/qid=11181711870/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-20604847-0883337
30. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.html
31. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
32.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
33.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
34. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
35. http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
36. http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
37. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html
38. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
39. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html
40. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.html
41. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
42. http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/noplane.htm
43. http://commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-08longman-speech.html
44. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
45.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566565529/qid=1118171046/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-20604847-0883337
46.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
47.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971394245/qid=%3D1118173557/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-2064847-0883337
48.
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
49. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
50.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
51. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
52. http://www.911forthetruth.com/
53. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
54.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566565847/qid=1118174708/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847-0883337?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
55. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296
56. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
57. http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
58.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
59.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579121497/qid=1118171341/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2604847-0883337?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
60. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
61. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/abc_nosurvivors.html
62. http://xenonpuppy.net/collapse%20update/Engine-7.htm
63. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
64.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579121497/qid=1118171341/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-2604847-0883337?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
65.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931947058/qid=1118170176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-2604847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
66. http://www.populist.com/03.02.burns.html
67. http://www.911forthetruth.com/
68. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/key_researcher.html
69. http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
70. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
71. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
72. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds-arch.html
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
73. http://www.lewrockwell.com/
