Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials

Multiple analyses have shown that the ejection speed of the squibs was too high, at 100+ mph, to have been the result of air pressure. These are explosive speeds. They have also been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second.

Q: What caused the "squibs"? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?

A: The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.

by Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal, 11/16/11

Editor’s note: Journalist Chris Mohr, an ardent defender of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, recently wrote an article for Skeptic Magazine in which he attempted to rebut several key pieces of evidence that prove the WTC skyscrapers were brought down by controlled demolition. Researcher Jeremy R. Hammond exposes the fallacies in Mohr’s arguments in this response published in the Foreign Policy Journal.

Chris Mohr at Skeptic magazine writes that “conspiracists” are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition.” He mentions a debate he had with Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where more than 1,500 professional architects and engineers who question the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings have signed a petition calling for a new—that is to say, a real—investigation. “I thought initially that Gage might be on to something,” Mohr writes, “until I examined his science carefully” and debated him. In his article, he lists his responses to the controlled-demolition hypothesis. Sticking to the question of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), let’s examine Mohr’s arguments against the science behind the controlled-demolition hypothesis and in favor of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. If you’re unfamiliar with WTC 7, you can watch it collapsing on 9/11 in the video below.

By Perla Trevizo, Chattanooga Times Free Press, 11/16/11

Editor’s Note: The "The Science of 9/11 Truth” symposium at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga drew over 300 attendees and the support of many University faculty. Journalist Perla Trevizo provided an unbiased and accurate report of the event for the Times Free Press. We applaud Trevizo and the Times Free Press for covering this important news story in a fair and balanced manner, and we encourage other mainstream news outlets to follow their lead.

An audience of over 300 looks on as University faculty and technical experts discuss the science behind the destruction of the three WTC high-rises

Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, "The Science of 9/11," which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.

The discussion "is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were," said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event's coordinators.

UK’s Daily Mail newspaper claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse

Editor’s note: In this incisive article, Infowars journalist Paul Joseph Watson refutes the illogical claims of an overambitious reporter from the UK Daily Mail, who asserts that video footage confirms the destruction of WTC Building 7 by office fires. The Daily Mail article comes in stark contrast to the easily accessible and understandable evidence of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11.

Official sources claim that small isolated pockets of fire, like this one, destroyed the mammoth WTC 7 high-rise – dropping it in just seconds into its own footprint

In perhaps one of the weakest and downright laughable 9/11 hit pieces ever published, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, not noted for its commitment to accuracy, presents old footage as new to make the ludicrous claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to “exterior” damage caused by fires.

The Mail article claims the video was recently released via a FOIA request and represents new footage, yet virtually identical footage has been available for years, as well as high quality photographs which depict the same scene showing World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, shortly before its collapse in the late afternoon of 9/11.