Make your own free website on
Where's your Evidence?
Video presentation
Not so Clever Trevor
Sorry Dr. Greening et al
Reply to NIST
Where's your Evidence?
Tower Demolition
Momentum Transfer in WTC1

If I say that the WTC towers were brought down by means other than the aircraft impacts and the consequent fires then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone to ask for the evidence and reasoning behind this belief. By exactly the same reasoning, exactly the same question can be asked of those who believe that the towers were brought down by the impacts and fires. Yet here we are, more than seven years later, and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim. No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.
In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.
The towers were brought down by a combination of two types of charge and placement. One was a series of concussive explosives placed on the outer core columns adjacent to the core column welded joints every three stories, while the second was a series of incendiary charges placed on the corners of the perimeter column structure every fifteen to twenty storeys.
The expulsions of dust and debris from the towers can easily be seen to emanate from storeys where the core column welds were situated, every three storeys, and these expulsions can be seen to firstly emanate from the mid-faces of the tower walls opposite to the outer core columns.
Immediately prior to the onset of the collapse there is a radical change in the amount and character of the smoke from the upper floors of the towers and the first portion of the tower to show signs of collapse was the antennae, indicating a failure of the core columns.
The core columns which fell during the early stages of collapse were the outer core columns - the strongest parts of the tower - while the weakest columns, those from inside the core, survived the early stages, leaving the "spire". These outer core columns which suffered the early failure were situated adjacent to and accessible from inside the elevator shafts.
The outer core columns retrieved from the debris pile exhibit petaling failures and failures showing opposite concave faces on core columns, this first a phenomenon which has in other historical cases been associated with massive concussive forces, and both being exactly the type of failure which could be expected from such a placement of concussive charges.
The core column ends show a discoloration indicative of localised thermal events.
Other than these failures, the recovered core columns are relatively straight and separated at their welds and do not exhibit the massive bending expected from a heat induced collapse.
If the upper storeys were suddenly allowed to fall through a vacuum of the same depth of the tower height, they would reach bottom in about 9.5 seconds. If allowed to fall through a vat of custard of the same height they would take about 20 seconds to cover the same distance. The largest estimate of collapse duration that I have found is about 16 seconds. Although this estimate does not bear examination, we can use it to say that the resistance offered by the steel structure below the collapse front lies somewhere between absolutely nothing and custard. What is the official explanation for the sudden and complete transformation of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel to a state which does not even rival confectionery?
Recovered from the debris pile and dust were spheroids and these were briefly mentioned in a subsection of the NIST report and notably examined by Professor Jones. These spheroids can only exist if the parent material was, at some stage, molten. Professor Jones has also noted that these spheroids were made up of iron, not steel. Molten iron cannot be achieved from an atmospheric jet fuel and office contents fire and no reason is given in the official accounts for the existence of such. A thermite type reaction would give rise to the existence of such iron spheroids.
Professor Jones has also noted and publicised the presence of chips in the debris pile which consist of Iron Oxide and Aluminium, the raw material for thermite type charges.
Molten metal, unachievable in an atmospheric burn, is seen pouring from the tower prior to collapse and remains unexplained by the official accounts.
Immediately prior to and during the collapse there are flashes of bright white light and changes to the colour and character of the smoke occurring in a distinct, logical and meaningful pattern on the corners of the towers‘ perimeter structure. Each of these exact same areas became major seats of failure during the collapse. Thermite reactions are accompanied by white smoke and flashes of bright white light.
During the collapse there are many instances of localised rapid expulsions of dust/ debris from areas distant from the destruction front. The vast majority of these expulsions occur at the same position relative to the corners and conform to the meaningful pattern mentioned previously.
The debris piles exhibited inordinately high temperatures for an inordinately long duration, to such an extent that the fire services resorted to the use of Pyrocool - a fire suppressant developed and used specifically for metal fires?

Each of these points fit into the two charge scenario mentioned previously and none of them lie outside the two charge explanation.
None of these points is explained by a fire induced collapse and many are not even recognised by those who advance such an explanation.
The official accounts and reports rely on arguments of authority, arguments of ridicule, arguments of incredulity and various other hand waving obfuscations.
So in answer to my self imposed question, “Where is your evidence?”, these are many of the evidential points upon which I rely and base my beliefs. These give me the confidence and ability to ask of those who believe the official accounts,
Where is your evidence?
Gordon Ross                          

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here