What the Hell Kind of Paper is This?
The Journal of 9/11 Studies, has not been very prolific lately, with up until now only that single atrocious economics paper since January. I am starting to think that they aren't even trying though, with the most recent post being yet another "paper" by Frank Legge.
If one could actually call it a paper. It is only 4 pages long, and is put together with such bizarre logic and scholarship, that I really am speechless.
If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events,21 like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence. When challenged they behave in very different ways:
If an explanation is in the form of a chain it is only necessary to prove one link wrong todestroy the case. In contrast, with a parallel set of explanations it is only necessary to prove one explanation correct to establish the case. What do we find?
It has already been pointed out that links 2 to 6 of the official explanation are incorrect and link 1, about the fireproofing, has been strongly disputed
Bizarrely though, despite being so short, Legge can't even keep consistent. For example, on page 2 he argues that the steel was not hot enough.
NIST reports that very few samples of steel showed evidence of having been at temperatures higher than 250oC. 3 For collapse to become a possibility the steel would have to be over 650oC and at that temperature it would be red-hot,11 yet no red-hot steel was observed prior to collapse.
By page 3 though, it was.
It was observed that localized heating to temperatures far higher than can be achieved by the burning of jet fuel and office materials occurred in the south tower. Incendiary materials are implicated.