Controlled Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11: Dealing with Debunkers

Frank Legge (Ph, D., Chem.)

July 2010

Introduction

The debate about what happened at the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, is marred and mired by ever-increasing attempts to debunk the work of scientists and others who are investigating the evidence for controlled explosive demolition. This debunking is characterized by the publication of countless trivial details which appear contradictory or are as yet unexplained. Any attempt to counter this debunking line by line would be a gargantuan task, and would accomplish nothing, as a new crop of trivial objections would soon be generated and old ones would be polished a little and repeated.

Logically, if there is solid proof that explosives were used in controlled demolition the discussion should terminate, as it is already proved that the official account is false. There should be no need to speculate on how various puzzling details might be explained. This letter will attempt to set out just the clearest evidence that explosives were used in all three towers. It will be little more than a list, with appropriate references. There will be no attempt to provide an exhaustive coverage. Others have already performed a valuable service in examining and presenting the evidence in detail. An excellent example is the work of David Ray Griffin, with his Debunking of 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, and numerous other books. His recent book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False is a very thorough and useful reference.

It is noteworthy however that Griffin makes an assertion in his Debunking book that there is a strong case that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There is in fact no convincing evidence that it did not, and much argument has taken place over this question. It is a classic example of an issue which is unclear and ambiguous, divisive and time-wasting. Far better than arguing about this question is digging deeper to ask how it came about that the plane was not intercepted, and Norman Mineta gives us a clue to this.1 Far better also to ask why the authorities have hidden evidence which would prove what happened at the Pentagon. Could it be because they want good people in the 9/11 Truth movement to argue against one another?2 The purpose of this letter is to make the case that the evidence for controlled demolition is compelling and has long been more than sufficient to demand a new, real investigation.

This letter will focus on only two types of evidence. The choice of these two is based on the fact that the evidence in question is in public hands and can not now be destroyed, hidden, taken away or denied, as happened with so much other evidence. The first is the videos of the collapses and the second is the dust the collapses produced. The videos show the buildings all came down too fast and the dust contains residues of explosives.

1Testimony to the 9/11 Commission. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871#

2Legge, F. What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and it Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf