http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Wilkinson Tue, 21 May 2013 04:38:32 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Wilkinson Wed, 15 May 2013 23:25:11 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01c_1368674361 plokiju The ghost like appearance sparked UFO reports across southern China. The Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) said it was a rocket launch for aero-logical sounding, but that was a lie. US officials said it was actually an Anti-Satellite missile test. China's military on Monday conducted the first test of a new ground-launched anti-satellite missile that was fired into space and disguised as a space-exploration rocket, according to U.S. officials. The test was carried out early Monday from the Xichang Space Launch center and was identified by officials as the new Dong Ning-2 ASAT missile. The ASAT test comes a week after China protested the release of the Pentagon's annual report on the Chinese military buildup that mentioned Beijing's development of anti-satellite weapons. The Free Beacon first disclosed the existence of the new missile in October and a missile researcher reported in January that a new ASAT missile was being readied for its first test. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei was asked if China conducted an ASAT test during a briefing for reporters in Beijing on Tuesday. He did not deny that it was carried out. "I am not aware of the development that you described," he said. "China has consistently advocated the peaceful use of outer space and is opposed to militarizing and conducting an arms race in outer space." Pentagon spokeswoman Maj. Cathy Wilkinson said: "We don't have a comment on it as we don't discuss intelligence." A U.S. official familiar with intelligence reports said the DN-2, as a high earth-orbit attack missile, is a significant advance for China's program of developing asymmetric warfare capabilities for use against the United States. Others include cyber-warfare capabilities and anti-ship ballistic missiles. It could not be learned if the latest ASAT test involved an impact with a target satellite. A second official said the Chinese apparently disguised the ASAT missile test as a space exploration experiment. The website of the National Space Science Center, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, reported Monday that a sounding rocket was used in a high-altitude scientific exploration test. "This experiment used a high-altitude space-exploring rocket, Langmuir probe, high-energetic particle detectors, magnetometers and barium-powder release experimental apparatus and other payload of scientific exploration to test and measure the ionosphere, the high-energy particles and magnetic fields of the near-Earth space strength and structure," the notice said. China in 2007 conducted its first successful hit-to-kill ASAT test against a weather satellite in low-earth orbit. The impact left tens of thousands of pieces of debris in orbit that continue to threaten both manned and unmanned spacecraft. Defense officials have said China's ASAT weapons, including missile interceptors, lasers, and electronic jammers, are designed to disrupt satellite communications and navigation systems used extensively by the U.S. military in conducting joint warfare. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated in written answers to questions during his confirmation hearing in January that the United States would seek to avoid engaging in hostilities in space. However, Hagel revealed that U.S. space policy calls for "the secretary of defense to develop capabilities, plans and options to deter, defend against, and, if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with or attack U.S. or allied space systems." The statement was the clearest indication that the Pentagon is preparing to develop "counterspace" weapons in response to Chinese anti-satellite weapons. "The chances are good this is indeed an ASAT test as it was launched from the Xichang Space Launch Center, the same launch site used for the January 2007 successful SC-19 ASAT interception of a Chinese weather satellite," said Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Xichang is located in southern Sichuan Province. Fisher said Chinese Internet reports stated that the ASAT test of what U.S. official say was a DN-2 may have up to four stages and included one or two liquid-fueled upper stages to provide greater thrust as the missile closed in on a target. "While there so far has been no report of a successful interception, even a very near miss would serve to validate this new ASAT system," Fisher said. A validated DN-2 ASAT system would provide the Chinese military with the capability to "degrade or severely damage the U.S. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system," he said. "This is not merely a threat against some American military satellites, but a threat to a what has become a vital part of the global electronic infrastructure, affecting global commerce and financial flows, to your personal finances that contribute to personal freedom." Fisher said China has been "preaching" that other states should disarm while Beijing secretly builds space weaponry at the same time it has denied being engaged in the space arms buildup. "In the face of such a threat, the United States simply has no choice but to pursue symmetric capabilities to deter Chinese attacks in space, but also to consider its own requirements for space superiority," he said. The major concern for Pentagon war planners is that China, with an arsenal of around two dozen anti-satellite missiles, could severely disrupt U.S. command-and-control systems, intelligence-gathering satellites, and navigation satellites used to guide precision guided missiles. Security analyst Gregory Kulacki said in an online posting in January that the ASAT test was expected as early as that month. "Given these high-level administration concerns and past Chinese practice, there seems to be a strong possibility China will conduct an ASAT test within the next few weeks," Kulacki, a Chinese-language speaker with the Union of Concerned Scientists stated. Defense officials disclosed to the Free Beacon that the DN-2 test was initially planned for last fall, but was delayed by the Chinese over concerns that the test would upset President Barack Obama's reelection bid. While details of the DN-2 are not known, U.S. officials said it is expected to be a high earth-orbit interceptor capable of destroying strategic navigation, communication, or intelligence satellites by ramming into them at high speeds. The DN-2 is said to be capable of hitting targets in high-earth orbit between 12,000 and 22,236 miles above earth. Many military, intelligence, and commercial satellites orbit at that altitude. A Pentagon-State Department report to Congress last year on export controls stated that in addition to ground-launched ASAT missiles, China is building high-technology kinetic and direct energy weapons for ASAT use. http://freebeacon.com/china-conducts-test-of-new-anti-satellite-missile/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01c_1368674361 plokiju China's mysterious rocket launch China, mysterious, rocket, launch, Dong Ning-2, ASAT, Anti Satellite Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:31:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdb_1367054489 Aussie A small Maine Warden Service plane made an emergency landing on the Maine Turnpike in Litchfield on Friday morning after it reportedly ran out of fuel, according to the Maine Turnpike Authority.A little over two hours later, after the plane was refueled and police stopped traffic, the plane safely took off using the highway as a runway. Although a turnpike authority official initially reported that the airplane ran out of fuel, Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration working out of Washington, D.C., said that the Cessna 172 experienced a mechanical problem. Bergen said the FAA will investigate the incident. The single-engine plane piloted by Dan Dufault of the Maine Warden Service landed around 9 a.m. in the northbound lanes of the highway. The aircraft was moved off the road and parked at the old Litchfield service plaza near mile 98 within a few minutes. Doug Rafferty, directorof public information for the Maine Warden Service, said Dufault and his passenger, biologist Charlie Todd, were flying from Belfast to the Lewiston-Auburn area to do research on eagles. The plane, a Cessna 172 manufactured in 1968, is one of four owned by the warden service, Rafferty said. The aircraft was flown to Augusta by Warden Service Chief Pilot Durward Humphrey for an inspection. "We are very happy that things turned out as well as they did," Rafferty said, adding with a laugh that the plane did not possess an E-ZPass tag. Rafferty said Dufault was off for the rest of the day and was unavailable for comment. Maine Turnpike Authority public relations manager Dan Morin said traffic was never in any danger. "It could've caused a traffic problem had it not been near that service plaza," Morin said. The warden service's top officer, Col. Joel Wilkinson, said the incident will be investigated Re-uploaded - previous post deleted to provide additional footage. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdb_1367054489 Aussie Road Closed - plane makes emergency highway landing, refuels and takes off again plane, airplane, aircraft, makes, emergency, landing, takeoff, take, off, maine, turnpike, road, highway freeway, Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:28:22 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1365103323 mutterfudder Connecticut Weapons Ban. ASSAULT WEAPON "Assault weapon" means any one of the following: 1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler &amp; Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol. 2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. 3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria: (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: i. a folding or telescopic stock; ii. a pistol grip; iii. a bayonet mount; iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and v. a grenade launcher. (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following: i. a folding or telescoping stock; ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine. 4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1365103323 mutterfudder Damn, I'm glad I don't live in Connecticut gun ban,Connecticut Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:13:08 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=694_1364314255 fdal World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Aerial view of the debris field of the North Tower, 6 WTC, and 7 WTC (upper right) World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers. In 2006, Jones suggested that thermite or super-thermite may have been used by government insiders with access to such materials and to the buildings themselves, to demolish the buildings. In April 2009, Jones, Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge and that she'd already had suspicions that the "Bentham Scientific" publisher ran pseudo-scientific journals; this article was titled 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe', and stated that they had found evidence of nano-thermite in samples of the dust that was produced during the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody" to prove that the four samples of dust came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate. Contents 1 History 2 Propositions and hypotheses 2.1 Main towers 2.2 7 World Trade Center 2.2.1 NIST Report 3 Reactions 4 See also 5 References 6 External links History Questions related to the technical details of the collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center have been debated for years, including rebuttals and ridicule. Controlled demolition conspiracy theories were first suggested in October 2001. Eric Hufschmid's book, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, in which the controlled demolition theory is explicitly advocated, was published in September 2002. David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones are the two most prominent advocates of the theory. Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004, has become a reference work for the 9/11 Truth movement. In the same year, Griffin published the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, in which he argues that flaws in the commission's report amounts to a cover-up by government officials and says that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Griffin theorized in a June 2010 article that those in the alleged false flag operation wanted the buildings to fall straight down. If they had toppled over, they would have destroyed dozens of other buildings and killed tens of thousands of people. Steven E. Jones has been a leading academic voice of the proponents of demolition theories. In 2006, he published the paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?". Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university. The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". David Ray Griffin has questioned the "pancake collapse" theory suggested in the Building Performance Study produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NIST's report on the collapse of the WTC towers rejected the theory in favor of the column failure theory. In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001" and posted a FAQ about related issues on its website in August 2006. The major elements of the theory have been rebutted by mainstream engineering scholarship, where its proponents are considered "outsiders". The magazine Popular Mechanics challenged the theories in the special report "Debunking the 9/11 Myths". Articles, letters and comments by controlled demolition advocates have been published in scientific and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter titled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," was published by Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley in The Open Civil Engineering Journal. A few months later, in July 2008, an article titled "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," was published by Ryan, Gourley and Jones in the Environmentalist. Later that same year, in October 2008, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a comment by chemical engineer and attorney James R. Gourley, in which he describes what he considered fundamental errors in a 2007 paper on the mechanics of progressive collapse by Bazant and Verdure. In the same issue, Bazant and Le rebutted Gourley's arguments, finding his criticisms scientifically incorrect. They suggested future critics should "become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics" or risk "misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information." In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, appear to be present in samples of the dust. Internet websites and videos have contributed to the growth of the movement of individuals supporting the theory that planted explosives destroyed the World Trade Center. The website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cites the membership of over 1,500 architects and engineers. The controlled demolition theory often includes allegations that U.S. government insiders planned and / or participated in the destruction of the WTC in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The theory features prominently in popular entertainment type movies, such as Loose Change, as well as more documentary type films, such as 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, by San Francisco-area architect Richard Gage, which are based mainly on presentations of scientific and engineering evidence for the controlled demolition theory. While mainstream press has a significant history of derogatory labels, descriptions and interpretations of demolition theory advocates (i.e., in 2006, the magazine New York reported that a "new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York's most terrible day." ), the theory has been supported by a number of popular actors, musicians and politicians, including Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, talkshow host Rosie O'Donnell, and actors Ed Asner and Daniel Sunjata. Propositions and hypotheses Main towers On September 11, the North Tower (1 WTC) was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 and the South Tower (2 WTC) was hit by United Airlines Flight 175, both Boeing 767 aircraft. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after the impact, and the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after. An investigation by NIST concluded that the collapse was caused by a combination of damage to support columns and fire insulation from the aircraft impacts and the weakening of columns and floors by jet fuel ignited fires. NIST also found "no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001". Physicist Steven E. Jones, among others, points to many descriptions by individuals working on the WTC rubble pile suggesting the presence of molten steel in the pile and a stream of molten metal that poured out of the South Tower before it collapsed as evidence of temperatures beyond those produced by the fire. Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been elemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. Jones and other researchers analyzed samples of dust from the World Trade Center buildings and reported their findings for evidence of nano-thermite in the dust. Jones informed NIST of his findings and NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody" proving that the dust indeed came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies with dust under custody of NIST itself, but NIST has not done so. NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns. The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center. Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved. The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdenek Bazant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support. Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began. Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building. Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners. Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall. Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard. There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives, and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions. Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions. NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting from the open elevator shaft doors on lower levels). In September 2011 Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who holds a PhD in Transportation Engineering and Planning, said that it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them and that some kind of planned explosion must have taken place. Al-Qaida sharply criticised Ahmadinejad in their English-language publication, Inspire, calling his assertions "a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence". 7 World Trade Center The position of 7 WTC in relation to the other WTC buildings. WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001. Proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories allege that 7 World Trade Center-a 47-story skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main part of the World Trade Center site-was intentionally destroyed with explosives. Unlike the Twin Towers, 7 World Trade Center was not hit by a plane, although it was hit by debris from the Twin Towers and was damaged by fires which burned for seven hours, until it collapsed completely at about 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11 (a new building has been erected on the site of the old and opened in May 2006). Several videos of the collapse event exist in the public domain, thus enabling comparative analysis from different angles of perspective. Proponents typically say the collapse of 7 World Trade Center was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report and that the federal body charged with investigating the event, NIST, required seven years to conduct its investigation and issue a report. In November 2010, Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera hosted members of a television ad campaign called "BuildingWhat?", a series of commercials in which 9/11 family members ask questions about 7 World Trade Center and call for an investigation into its collapse. Rivera called the television ads "not so easy to dismiss as those demonstrators were," and stated that, "If explosives were involved, that would mean the most obnoxious protesters in recent years ... were right." Days later, Rivera appeared on the program Freedom Watch with legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Fox Business Network to discuss the BuildingWhat? TV ad campaign. Napolitano stated, "It's hard for me to believe that came down by itself. I was gratified to see Geraldo Rivera investigating it." FOX News was heavily criticized for airing programs questioning the basis for the collapse of 7 World Trade Center by the internet media groups Media Matters and Newsbusters. Some proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories suggest that 7 WTC was demolished because it may have served as an operational center for the demolition of the Twin Towers, while others suggest that government insiders may have wanted to destroy key files held in the building pertaining to corporate fraud. The WTC buildings housed dozens of federal, state and local government agencies. According to a statement reported by the BBC, Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center. The former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the President, Richard Clarke, does not think that 7 WTC is mysterious, and said that anyone could have rented floor space in the building. No steel frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire, although there had been previous cases of collapses or partial collapses of smaller steel buildings due to fire. However, 7 WTC also sustained significant structural damage from 1 WTC debris after its collapse. BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks. Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking. In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled. NIST Report In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers. A draft version of its final report on the collapse of 7 WTC was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it used, which simulated the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground; and NIST says the time taken on the investigation into 7 WTC is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash. The agency also says another 80 boxes of documents related to 7 WTC were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion. NIST released its final report on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008. Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The investigation could not include physical evidence as the materials from the building lacked characteristics allowing them to be positively identified and were therefore disposed of prior to the initiation of the investigation. The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely". The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse. NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather that nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out. Reactions The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals. Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university. The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day. Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdenek Bazant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bazant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bazant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes). Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites. Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position. Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?" World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects &amp; Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. "I am really not a psychologist," he said. "Our job was to come up with the best science." James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it. See also 9/11 conspiracy theories References 1.^ a b c d e Clarke, Steve. "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development". Episteme, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 167-180. 2.^ a b c d e f Bazant, Zdenek P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". J Engrg Mech 133 (3): 308-319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Archived from the original on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2007-08-22. "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows " 3.^ a b c d e Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2007-01-24. "Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis - albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day." 4.^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09. 5.^ "NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster". NIST. August, 2006. Archived from the original on 2010-05-22. Retrieved June 13, 2010. 6.^ a b c d e f g h i Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009. 7.^ a b Dean, Suzanne (April 10, 2006). "Physicist says heat substance felled WTC". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved May 7, 2009. 8.^ a b Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. 9.^ "Great Day Talks To Architect Richard Gage About 9/11". KMPH Fox 26. Retrieved May 28, 2009. 10.^ Hoffmann, Thomas (April 28, 2009). "Chefredaktor skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11". Videnskab. Retrieved November 15, 2009. "Mailen far hende til med det samme at smaekke med doren til tidsskriftet." 11.^ Oder, Norman. "Hoax Article Accepted by "Peer-Reviewed" OA Bentham Journal". Retrieved 2011-01-01. 12.^ a b c d e Harrit, Niels H.; Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen (2009-04-03). "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (1). doi:10.2174/1874412500902010007. Archived from the original on October 26, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010. 13.^ a b Levin, Jay; McKenzie, Tom (September 17, 2009). "The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute". Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved September 19, 2009. 14.^ Harper, Jennifer (February 22, 2010). "Explosive News". Washington Times. Retrieved February 23, 2010. 15.^ Reid, Sue (February 9, 2007). "An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11". Daily Mail. Retrieved May 14, 2009. 16.^ a b Powell, Michael (September 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2009. "The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement'" 17.^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Retrieved May 23, 2009. 18.^ "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". Book TV on C-SPAN2. Top Nonfiction Authors Every Weekend. July 3, 2005. Retrieved May 15, 2009. 19.^ Did 9/11 Justify The War In Afghanistan? David Ray Griffen for countercurrents.org June 26, 2010 20.^ Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009. 21.^ a b Walch, Tad (September 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2009-01-04. Sullivan, Will (September 11, 2006). "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". U.S. News &amp; World Report (www.usnews.com). Retrieved April 26, 2009. "BYU Professor Who Believes WTC Brought Down by Explosives Resigns". Fox News. October 21, 2006. Retrieved May 15, 2009. Walch, Tad (October 22, 2006). "BYU professor in dispute over 9/11 will retire". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved May 15, 2009. "Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor". Brigham Young University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-05. Retrieved May 6, 2009. 22.^ a b c McIlvain, Ryan (2005-12-05). "Censor rumors quelled". BYU NewsNet. Retrieved 2009-08-25. 23.^ Griffin, David Ray (September 10, 2006). "David Ray Griffin interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. 24.^ a b c d NIST (2006-08). "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Archived from the original on 2010-05-22. Retrieved 2006-01-12. 25.^ Sunder, Shyam (2005). "Consideration of Public Comments". NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 26.^ Bazant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L.; Greening, F. R.; Benson, D. B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?". Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 134 (10): 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892). 27.^ Potocki, P. "Popular Mechanics Debunking the 9-11 Myths: Special report, 2008". Retrieved Feb 22, 2012. 28.^ Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley (2008). "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". Bentham Science Publishers. 29.^ Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, Steven E. Jones (2008). "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials". Springer Netherlands, The Environmentalist, Online First. 30.^ Gourley, J. R. (2008). "Discussion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure". Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 134 (10): 915-916. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(915). 31.^ Bazant, Z. K. P.; Verdure, M. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 133 (3): 308-319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). 32.^ Bazant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L. (2008). "Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure". Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 134 (10): 917-921. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(917). "The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser's criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering." 33.^ Bazant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L. (2008). "Closure to "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure". Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 134 (10): 917-921. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(917). "Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information." 34.^ Politiken: Konspirationsteorier om 9/11 far nyt liv, Jyllands Posten: Forskere: Spraengstof i stovet fra WTC, Ekstra Bladet: Mystik om WTC: Nano-termit i tarne, Kristeligt Dagblad: Dansker genopliver konspirationsteori om 11. september, Videnskab: Dansk forsker: Eksplosivt nanomateriale fundet i stovet fra World Trade Center. The journal Videnskab is sponsored by the Danish Ministry for Science and Technology. Archived July 19, 2011 at the Wayback Machine 35.^ "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Retrieved July 30, 2011. 36.^ a b Eric Lipton (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times. 37.^ Pilkington, Ed (January 26, 2007). "'They're all forced to listen to us'". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 6, 2009. 38.^ Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009. 39.^ Mark Jacobson (March 2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. 40.^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". Transcripts.cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-10-30. 41.^ "Charlie Sheen doesn't buy 9/11 spin". The Boston Herald. 2006-03-23. 42.^ Fox News 43.^ Ventura Regrets Not Being More Skeptical Over 9/11. Retrieved on April 8, 2008. 44.^ Dwyer, Jim (May 30, 2007). "A Notion From 9/11 Is Kept Alive". New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2009. 45.^ "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". NIST. September 2005. pp. liv. Retrieved 2009-04-28. 46.^ "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower". NIST. September 2005. pp. xxxviii. Retrieved 2009-05-03. 47.^ "9/11: Science and Conspiracy". National Geographic. Retrieved 2009-09-16. 48.^ "Effect of Al particle size on the thermal degradation of Al/teflon mixtures". Informaworld.com. 2007-08-08. Retrieved 2010-03-03. 49.^ "NOVA Building on Ground Zero PBS". Pbs.org. Archived from the original on May 15, 2011. Retrieved 2008-10-30. 50.^ a b Wilkinson, Tim (2006-01-14). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". University of Sydney School of Civil Engineering. Retrieved 2008-09-07. 51.^ Hunt, H.E. (November 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved May 30, 2009. "Many witnesses - including firemen, policemen and people who were inside the towers at the time - say they heard explosions below the aircraft impacts (including in basement levels) and before both the collapses and the attacks themselves." 52.^ Asquith, Christina (September 5, 2006). "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 6, 2009. 53.^ a b "Neue Videos vom 11. September aufgetaucht". Bild. September 10, 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-09-11. Retrieved September 18, 2010. "Mehr als ein Dutzend der neuen Videos ist auf der Youtube-Seite des Zentrums zu finden. Unter den Videos stehen zum Teil Hinweise, wo solche Explosionen zu sehen oder h"oren sind. Augenzeugen hatten immer wieder von Explosionen berichtet, bevor die beiden T"urme zusammenbrachen." 54.^ Blanchard, Brent (2006). "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 &amp; 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint". implosionworld.com. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 55.^ "Seismic Spikes". Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Popular Mechanics. March 2005. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 56.^ Narain, Jaya (September 6, 2006). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'". Daily Mail. Retrieved December 8, 2009. 57.^ Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time. o the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion 58.^ Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Puffs Of Dust. Popular Mechanics. March 2005. 59.^ Gross, John L.; McAllister, Therese P. (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". NIST. p. 320. Retrieved 2009-03-21. 60.^ Diplomats depart as Ahmadinejad speaks Associated Press Published by Newsday September 22, 2011 61.^ Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Guardian (UK) 28 September 2011 62.^ "Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse". wtc7.net. Retrieved 2011-07-30. 63.^ "7 Facts about Building 7". rememberbuilding7.org. Retrieved 2011-07-25. 64.^ Webster, Stephen C. (November 14, 2010). "Geraldo 'much more open minded' about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads". The Raw Story. Retrieved 2011-07-27. 65.^ CNN Political Unit (December 1, 2010). "Fox takes heat from left and right over analysts". politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com. Retrieved 2011-07-27. 66.^ CNN Political Unit (December 1, 2010). "Fox takes heat from left and right over analysts". politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com. Retrieved 2011-07-27. 67.^ a b SALAZAR, CRISTIAN (July 30, 2011). "Mystery surrounds loss of records, art on 9/11". Associated Press. Retrieved 2011-07-30. 68.^ a b "Q&amp;A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. July 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-05. 69.^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4. 70.^ "BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm (September 11, 2001)". Archive.org. 2001-09-11. Retrieved November 9, 2010. 71.^ Porter, Richard. "Part of the conspiracy? (2)" March 2, 2007. The Editors, BBC. Archived 2 March 2007 at WebCite 72.^ The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower The Independent July 6, 2008. 73.^ "Identifying Misinformation: 9/11 Revealed?". usinfo.state.gov (as recorded by http://www.archive.org). 2005-09-16. Archived from the original on 2008-02-14. Retrieved 2009-04-30. 74.^ a b Barber, Peter (2008-06-07). "The Truth Is Out There - Part III". Financial Times. p. 14. Retrieved 2008-08-22. 75.^ a b c d e "Questions and Answers about the NIST 7 WTC Investigation". NIST. 2008-08-21. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2008-08-21. 76.^ "NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7". NIST. November 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-25. 77.^ "NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7". NIST. November 2008. p. 15. Retrieved 2010-04-26. 78.^ 9/11 Commission Report 79.^ "Testimony of Dr.James Harris, PhD, P.E.". American Society of Civil Engineers. October 26, 2005. Retrieved 2010-07-16. 80.^ "Welcome - The Institution of Structural Engineers". Istructe.org. Retrieved 2012-12-02. 81.^ Professors of Paranoia? - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education 82.^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09. 83.^ Brent Blanchard (February 2002). "A History of Explosive Demolition in America". Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers. pp. 27-44. ISSN 0732-619X. 84.^ Blanchard, Brent. "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 &amp; 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT". implosionworld.com. August 8, 2006 85.^ Thomas, Dave. "The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade Later". Skeptical Inquirer. July/August 2011. Pages 34-40 86.^ a b Mol, Phil. "eSkeptic >> Monday, September 11th, 2006". Skeptic. Retrieved 2009-09-19. 87.^ a b Knight, Peter (2008). "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States". New German Critique 35 (1). Retrieved September 19, 2009. 88.^ "American Thinker: A Conspiracy of Ignorance". Retrieved 2009-09-19. 89.^ "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". america.gov. 2009-05-05. Retrieved 2009-09-22. 90.^ Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. Archived from the original on April 30, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2010. 91.^ Newspapers, McClatchy (August 22, 2008). "World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2009-04-24. External links http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=694_1364314255 fdal World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:49:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=888_1363610830 english-patriot33 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/cardiffonline/cardiff-news/2013/03/15/court-hears-of-cardiff-family-s-extensive-links-with-terrorism-91466-32998374/ The true scale of a Cardiff family's extensive links to terrorism was revealed in court today. Jahangir Alom, who admitted getting involved in terrorism, is the husband of Cardiff woman Ruksana Begum, whose brothers plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange. Begum was jailed in December for a year at the Old Bailey for having al Qaida terrorist material in her mobile phone. She was arrested in July along with her new husband Alom, 26, who lives near the London Olympics site in Stratford. The link between the couple could not be made until today when a court order was lifted. Begum, 22, who has a first-class accountancy degree, had been married for a month when anti-terrorism officers raided their home. Her brothers, Gurukanth Desai and Abdul Miah, pleaded guilty to a plot to blow up the Stock Exchange and were sentenced in February to a respective 12 and 16 years in jail. Mohammed Chowdhury, jailed for 13 years for the same December 2010 plot, asked to marry her but she had never met him. She married Alom in June last year and moved from Wales to London with her new husband. Begum previously lived next door to her brother Miah in Ninian Park Road, Riverside, Cardiff, while Desai lived on Albert Street in Riverside. Begum pleaded guilty to having material which was likely to be useful to someone committing or preparing an act of terrorism. This was two editions of al Qaida's Inspire magazine on a micro SD memory card in her mobile. Begum, of the Provost Estate, Hoxton, north London, appeared with only her eyes visible beneath a black veil to be sentenced after being remanded in Holloway prison. Kate Wilkinson, prosecuting, said: "These items contained both instructional and ideological material." The terrorist material included instructions on remote control detonation, handgun training and how to ignite forest fires. Hossein Zahir, defending, said Begum downloaded the material a few weeks before because she wanted to understand why her brothers had taken the path they had. "She is an intelligent and articulate young woman who does not share the views of others who do not care," he said. The family's extensive links to terrorism were heard yesterday as Alom pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorism. Alom, along with Muslim convert Richard Dart and Imran Mahmood, plotted to go to Pakistan to train at a terrorist camp and to travel abroad to commit acts of terrorism. Alom, 26, of Abbey Road, Stratford, east London, Dart, 29, of Broadway, Ealing, west London, and Mahmood, 21, from Dabbs Hill Lane, Northolt, west London, admitted being involved in the offence between July 2010 and July last year. The case against them was that they intended to use their training to attack targets. The three bearded men appeared by videolink and were remanded in custody by Mr Justice Simon for reports before being sentenced, on a date to be fixed. Police recovered bits of text messages from a computer in Dart's home which referred to "even to just deal with a few MI5 MI6 heads". Another referred to WB, thought to refer to Wootton Bassett, the town through which repatriated British military heroes are driven. Details of the allegations were not given in court and lawyers will have to discuss their basis of plea before the facts are finalised. Dart, the son of teachers from Dorset, appeared in the BBC Three documentary My Brother The Islamist by Robb Leech. In it, Dart is said to have been turned into an extremist in months after joining the Muslims Against Crusades group and listening to controversial activist Anjem Choudary. He changed his name to Salahuddin al-Britani. He worked as a BBC security guard. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=888_1363610830 english-patriot33 Court hears of Cardiff family's extensive links with terrorism islam, terrorism, wales, outlaw islam, Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:12:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfb_1333120015 canestsal Drunk NAMBLA enthusiast and former Heaven's Gate cult member, Robert Wilkinson, is arrested for DUI, and then sings Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Officer tells him "pullover", when clearly he is wearing a cardigan. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfb_1333120015 canestsal Full Rhapsody Arrest Video - Robert <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span> by the RCMP Robert Wilkinson ReplyGirl TheReplyGirl Myartforever Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:51:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa7_1275518761 alankabout Kendra Wilkinson Topless-2 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa7_1275518761 alankabout Kendra <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span> Topless-2 Kendra, Wilkinson, Topless Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:45:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a6_1275518457 alankabout Kendra Wilkinson Topless-1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a6_1275518457 alankabout Kendra <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span> Topless-1 Kendra, Wilkinson, Topless Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:53:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=466_1244533279 Hypnojive2 The veggie platters are delicious. Try the seafood bar.Bring the family! Wilkinson's Restaurant has delicious menu items.Bluebird special 3pm till 6pm Mon thru Thurs. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=466_1244533279 Hypnojive2 Eat at <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span>'s Family Restaurant wilkinsons,wilkinson's family restaurant,buffet items,seafood,crabs,lobster,fine dining,all you can eat,veggie platters Sun, 02 Sep 2012 04:19:04 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ce_1346572764 scarfilm Police continue to hunt for Dale Cregan, 29, from Droylsden, and Anthony Wilkinson, 33, from Beswick, who are wanted in connection with the two grenade attacks on Friday 10 August 2012, during which David Short was killed. Anyone with information they wish to pass to police in relation to this investigation is asked to call police at the Major Incident Team on 0161 856 3301 or 101, or call the independent charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ce_1346572764 scarfilm Manchester Police offer lb50,000 Reward for information in hunt for Dale Cregan and Anthony <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span> man hunt, manchester, 50k lb reward, grenade attack, police Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:14:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bd_1191683697 barnesy MARSEILLE, France (AFP) - Defending champions England again proved Australia's nemesis dumping the match favourites out of the Rugby World Cup with a high-pressured 12-10 quarter-final victory at Stade Velodrome Saturday. (Advertisement) England, who downed the Wallabies in the 2003 final in extra-time and the 1995 quarter-final both with drop goals, handled the high stakes better and came home from 10-6 down at halftime to advance to next weekend's semi-final against New Zealand or France in Paris. England, with Jonny Wilkinson setting a new World Cup points-scoring career record, had the Australians under continual pressure for most of the game with the Wallabies rarely able to get any flow against the tenacious Englishmen. Wilkinson again proved the winning difference just as he was in Sydney four years ago with his extra-time drop goal, kicking four penalties with the Wallabies scoring the only try of the match through winger Lote Tuqiri. The dominant English forwards won their battle and the Australians looked hesitant at times with scrum-half George Gregan slow to keep up with the play and rookie fly-half Berrick Barnes under pressure in his big test as injured Stephen Larkham's replacement. Stirling Mortlock had 47-metre shot at penalty goal to win it for the Wallabies with two minutes left but it went wide. The Wallabies began well and had three penalty attempts in the first 12 minutes before England got their momentum flowing with a strong passage of play, switching angles and forwards driving the ball downfield. Wilkinson broke the World Cup point-scoring record of 227 points by Scotland's Gavin Hastings with his second penalty goal to kick England to a 6-3 lead in the 26th-minute after Stirling Mortlock's seventh-minute penalty. But England took the game to the Wallabies and came close to scoring on a couple of occasions before Mike Catt lost the ball for Matt Giteau to clear the danger. The first scrum came after 11 minutes and broke up with punches flying after three collapses. Irish referee Alain Rolland whistled a penalty to the Australians. The Wallabies looked rattled for a time with passes from Gregan and Barnes going astray under grinding England pressure. But the Australians hit back seven minutes before halftime when after six phases they flung the ball along the backs where Giteau and Mortlock made an opening for winger Lote Tuqiri to break his try-scoring drought and scoring in the right-corner. It was Tuqiri's first Test try since scoring two against Fiji in Perth on June 9. Mortlock's conversion pushed the Wallabies out to a 10-6 halftime lead but they gave signs of losing their composure and gave Wilkinson four shots at goal in the opening half, the English fly-half only kicking two of them. England had the Wallabies under pressure straight after halftime with the Australian scrum coming under serious examination 10m out from its try-line. England had nine phases before the Wallabies conceded a penalty for Wilkinson to land his third and put his team within one point after 53 minutes. A wayward Gregan pass put the Australians under pressure with Tuqiri and Barnes scrambling to hold possession, byt England got a turnover and then were awarded an attacking scrum close to the Wallabies' try-line. Rocky Elsom conceded a penalty for Wiklinson to put England in front for the second time 12-10 on the hour. Australia's nerves was jangling as Barnes missed a long-range drop goal. Another Gregan error in a ruck gave Wilkinson another shot at penalty but his attempt was wide with six minutes left. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bd_1191683697 barnesy <span class="highlight">Wilkinson</span> Kicks England To Win Over Wallabies In Rugby Quarter-Final,Sorry Smeb,I Had To Put It On.. england,do,the,aussies,again,had to put it on smeb,sorry Sun, 11 Dec 2011 05:50:49 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c2b_1323597123 Zipper10 Wilkinson Sword Ninja Baby Commercial http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c2b_1323597123 Zipper10 Ninja Baby Wilkinson Sword Ninja Baby Commercial