This is the recording of a live webcast of Steven Jones' presentation from the Lifting the Fog conference held on the campus of University of California at Berkley on November 11, 2006, t... all »hanks to 911Truth.org !! Better Quality of this video at http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2 . Click here to start the stream=>

What Caused Not Two but Three World Trade Center Skyscrapers on September 11, 2001? (NEW)

This is a slide show produced by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. for a Physics Department Colloquium at Ohio State University on September 1, 2006 and updated and September 8. Click here to start the show=>

A Critical Review of WTC “No Plane” Theories - Version 2, September 29, 2006 * (NEW)

With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary. My previous articles dealt with the core of these claims at length. Those articles were lengthy, so the purpose of this review is to provide a somewhat condensed and updated summary for those new to the subject or lacking in the time to delve into the details of the image analysis. (By Eric Salter, www.questionsquestions.com, September 29, 2007) Full article=>

* See also a condensed version of this article, which is published in the Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 4, October 2006.

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

The theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 (the kind of plane that Flight 77 was) is promoted by the most widely distributed books, videos, and other media challenging the official account of the 9/11 attack. The no-Boeing theory forms the central thesis of Thierry Meyssan's books L'effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Fraud), and Le Pentagate; is featured by the videos Painful Deceptions, 9/11 In Plane Site, and Loose Change; and is the subject of the Flash animation 9/11 Pentagon Strike. These pieces have been distributed worldwide in quantities reaching into the millions, thanks to a combination of excellent production values, entertaining and captivating styles of presentation, and expert, well-financed marketing. The work of 9/11 researchers who do not embrace the no-Boeing theory has been eclipsed in every medium except the web.

(By Jim Hoffman, 9-11 Research, March 28, 2006). Full article=>

ERROR: 'Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris'

Photographs of the Pentagon attack site show an absence of large intact debris such as recognizable pieces of the tail or wings. Since the areas of punctured walls in the facade were not large enough to admit the outer halves of the wings and the vertical stabilizer of a 757, the absence of large pieces of these components is cited as evidence that a 757 did not crash there. The expectation that a jetliner crash at the Pentagon should have left large debris is reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces, such as those shown in the photographs on this page from the talk The Pentagon Attack Frame-Up. However, several points should be noted here. (9-11 Review, May 20, 2006). Full article=>

The Pentagon ‘No-757’ Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded. (By Jim Hoffman, 9-11 Research, November 15, 2004). Full article=>

Looking for the Logic - Appendage on Flight 175

My name is Glen Stanish. I am a Pilot and Co-Founder of this Pilots For Truth Forum, and Co-Founded this website along with Johndoex. I received my commercial in 87. I am rated on the B-737, DO-328, Ba3100, and qualified on the MD-80. I have been been flying for about 25 years, for the airlines since 91. I was checking out some of the new areas of the forums and found a thread which was kind of upsetting to me. It is the one titled "BYE, BYE UAL175 "POD" THEORY!, Proof POD doesn't exist!!!" It wasn't the photos which disturbed me the most. It was how quickly so many people dismissed not just the pod, but all the issues dealing with Flight 175. And the logic of it all is what I am seeking. (By Glen Stanish, Co-Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, in 9/11 Oddities Blob, January 3, 2007). Full article=>

Sifting Through Loose Change: The 9-11 Research Companion to Loose Change 2^nd Edition

Young filmmakers Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas created the film Loose Change, which challenges the central dogma of the official story of 9/11. Loose Change covers a great deal of material, moving from one point to another in rapid succession. It presents a long list of claims supporting the conclusion that 9/11 was engineered by insiders, but does so with a mixture of strong and flawed arguments…We provide the 9-11 Research Companion to Loose Change 2nd Edition to foster an understanding that, despite its many errors, the film raises questions that urgently demand serious scrutiny. We look to achieve three major objectives:

To help separate substantial claims about the attack from ones without merit
To provide additional resources for readers to explore issues raised by the film
To help the producers of Loose Change to make better future versions of their film

(911Research.wtc7.net, 2006) Full article =>

A Simple, Verifiable Physics-Based Explanation for the Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11 by Ron Larsen, PhD – Streaming Audio Interview

Here’s the link to the streaming audio recording of the radio interview of physicist, radio broadcaster and web site producer Dr. Ron Larsen (a.k.a, LC Editor at www.libertycalling.com site!) conducted by Mark Dankof, host of “Mark Dankof’s America”, and originally broadcast over the Republic Broadcasting Network on Thursday, January 18. Dr. Larsen presents and discusses the cold, hard data associated with the collapsing of the World Trade Center Towers about an hour after two jet airliners crashed into them on 9/11. He then presents and compares the various explanations offered by government agencies and scientific and engineering communities to account for the evidence and eliminates those explanations that fail to fully account for all of the hard data. He goes on to present and discuss a simple, verfiable physics-based model for the building collapses based on the work of both physics professor Steven Jones and mechanics expert Gordon Ross.

Dr. Larsen concludes his interview by stating that the World Trade Center buildings could not possibly have collapsed solely because their structures had been fatally weakened as a result of the impact damage created by the crashing of two jet airliners into them and the heat produced by the ensuing fires. Instead, it is evident that the principle reason for the collapsing of these buildings is that persons unknown, using a simple although sophisticated method such as the one he describes, caused these buildings to collapse by means of explosive demolition .

This finding has enormous practical significance. It should be remembered that the 9/11 national tragedy, of which the collapsing of the WTC building was only one part, has been used by the government to justify its imposing draconian, Constitution-disempowering legislation upon the American people and carrying out military attacks on the sovereign nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. To serve as an initial step in the process of righting these wrongs, Dr. Larsen believes that the 911 truth movement should take immediate action to make Congress and the appropriate state attorneys general office aware of the fact that (1) there we now are in possession of enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the government’s explanation of the WTC tragedy is substantially incorrect and that, accordingly, (2) the investigation of 9/11 should be re-opened immediately for the purpose of identifying the person or person responsible for the downing of the WTC buildings using explosives.

During this interview, Dr. Larsen referred frequently to the links to the article shown below this one.

Here is the link to the audio archive of Mark Dankof’s broadcasts at the Republic Broadcasting Network web site=> http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dankof07.html . To play the MP3 stream for this interview, please click on this link to go to the archives of Marc’s shows, locate the broadcast of Mark’s show on January 18, and click on the MPU link. For some reason, clicking on the MPU link will take you to the third hour, not the first hour of the show. No problem. Just go to your MP3 player, which will display a listing of the three hours of the show available for play, and click with your mouse on Dankof1.MP3 to start the play of the 3-hour show from its beginning.

911 Mysteries, Part I: Demolitions

This is a public domain streaming version 9/11 Truth documentary produced, directed and narrated by writer Sophia Shafquat and sold as a DVD by Amazon.com and other retailers. It takes no position, choosing instead to present the cold, hard facts, including data, still photographs and video clips and then ask incisive questions for the viewer to think about and answer. (By Sophia Shafquat, 2006.) Film duration is 1 hour and 30 minutes. Link to the streaming video=>

LC Editor’s Comment: A suggestion -- Liberty Calling readers should consider viewing this video before going on to read the technical articles in this section in order to acquire the necessary background. I’d also recommend listening to her radio interview on the “Truth to Power Hour.” (MP3 format)

Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. (Stephen E. Jones, Ph.D., Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006). Full article=>

LC Editor’s Comment: Consider this article to be a companion piece to Gordon Ross’ article, which is next. When Jones’ results are combined with Ross’s results, we have a viable, simple explanation for the collapsing of the WTC building that fits all of the hard evidence. By contrast, the explanations offered by the White House, NIST, FEMA and those structural engineers and demolition companies that adhere to the notion that the structural damage caused by the impacts of the planes and subsequent fires brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7 fail to explain all of evidence.

How the Towers were Demolished

The demolition of the WTC towers was achieved using a four-phase attack. These attacks weakened the tower structure, initiated the collapse, progressed the collapse, and finally completed the collapse. In this study I intend to show how the collapse of the towers was deliberately caused by the use of explosive and or incendiary devices placed at identified points within the structure. To show a viable explanation for the collapse it is necessary to identify the mechanisms and processes and by reference to the towers' structure and the visual evidence, show the cause and effect of all of the relevant phenomena which was observed. I intend to show cause and effect for the known phenomena and also to identify and show cause for some other, less well known phenomena of the collapse. (By Gordon Ross, August 2006, at http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html). Full article=>

LC Editor’s Comments: Gordon Ross holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineeering, graduating from Liverpool Joh Moores University, in 1984. Mr. Ross is a regular contributor to The Journal of 9/11 Studies. He can be contacted at gordonjross@yahoo.com. Ross points out in his article that “the key to understanding the collapse of the towers is in their design, most notably how the elements carried the load and interactedwith each other.” He shows that by mounting explosive and cutter charges before 9/11 in such a way as to disconnect the four major structural elements of each tower from each other and firing these charges in a precise sequence separated into four distinct phases, the perpetrators would have been able to collapse each building with relative ease. Ross then shows that the photographic evidence that supports his proposed model.

911: WTC Building Collapse --- Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition

The topic of downward acceleration of the buildings at the World Trade Centre has been frequently discussed. The discussion is usually brief and combined with other lines of evidence for explosive demolition and its significance is thereby obscured. 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 (also) readily accessible. (By Frank Legge, PhD, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth Western Australia, in Journal of 9/11 Studies, November 2006) Full article=>

Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons – Military Effectiveness and Collateral Effects

This article provides and introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) and addresses some important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. (By Andre Gsponer, Independent Scientific Research Institute, Geneva, Switzerland, May 23, 2006). Full article=>

LC Editor’s Comment: NOTE ---I’m including this paper in this section of LibertyCalling.com since I have already looked into the possibility that the perpetrators of the WTC building collapses had used nukes to bring down these buildings. To hear my comments about the feasibility of using of nukes for this applications, please listen to Mark Dankof’s radio interview of me on January 18 by going to the first article in this section of LC and clicking on the link.

Andre Gsponer, the author of this paper on Fourth Generation nukes, is a recognized international expert in nuclear weapons technology, and this is an unclassified article covering nuclear weapons technology and published only eight months ago. He provides the reader with a basic background in weapons technology, covering initially First, Second and Third Generation nuclear weapons.

First generation weapons are based on fission (splitting of the nucleus) of a uranium or plutonium atom to produce lots of energy plus fission fragments. These weapons are very “dirty”, meaning that they generate an abundance of long-life radioactive debris when exploded. Second and Third Generation weapons use a combination of fusion (fusing the nuclei of tritium and deuterium --- two isotopes of hydrogen ---- to produce a helium nucleus) and fission, the latter of which we already saw produces lots of radioactive fallout. These are dirty weapons and they are the weapons that occupy the U.S. nuclear arms arsenal now.

Fourth Generation weapons are based entirely on the nuclear fusion process as just described. Upon explosion, these weapons generate only radioactive helium, or alpha particles, and high energy (14.7 Mev) neutrons. They are essentially “clean” weapons with respect to radioactive debris fallout, although the neutrons are capable of inducing some short-lived radioactivity in metal structures and in earth or concrete located in the neighborhood of the explosive blast. Because of the enormous explosive power (perhaps an equivalent yield of one ton of TNT explosive) of even very small (perhaps baseball-size) Fourth Generation weapon using as little as 25 milligrams of a deuterium-tritium, the perpetrators of the collapsing of the WTC buildings on 9/11 might have considered using these bombs if they had been available in 2001. The problem: A practical means for initiating the pure fusion reaction without using a fission bomb to accomplish this task had not yet been developed. In fact, as of May 2006, Gsponer reported that the required technology had not been developed and that as a result he expected it would take another decade of laboratory research to produce the first Fourth Generation weapon.

Return to Home Page