pools...of Molten Iron in the rubble. And the point is that the Thermite kept on reacting. This was a bitches brew
of Thermite Chemistry.”
“Molten metal pools under both towers after they collapsed and building 7. Now building 7 wasn’t even hit by a
jet!”
“Part of the problem is that most people simply don’t know much about building 7, due to the extraordinary se-
crecy surrounding this collapse.”
“This was a 47 story skyscraper. This building fell at 5:25 p.m.”
“It was not hit by a plane. This building had fires on only 2 or 3 floors.”
“And it was brought down by what we know was a controlled demolition.”
“Controlled demolitions, they look just like that, kink in the middle and then that building just comes straight
down almost at free fall speed.”
[The 2005, The National Institute of Standards and Technology released its report of WTC Towers 1 & 2.
The 10,000 page report doesn’t not address the actual collapse”]
[In 2008, The National Institute of Standards and Technology released its report on WTC Tower 7.]
[They did not analyze one piece of steel to test a controlled demolition hypothesis
[Rather, they built a computer model with a predisposition that is was a “fire-induced” collapse. The parameters
used have not been released.]
[While admitting there was a period of “free fall” for 2.25 secs (8 floors), they provide no explanation as to how
this is possible since their “progressive collapse” theory is based on systemic collisions and triggered failures.]
[The Law of Conservation of Momentum simply cannot allow for a “progressive” movement through resistance at
the rate of “free fall”.]
[Oh… Did I mention the sub-basement explosions? Which occurred moments before the first plane hit]
”Our office was on the B1 level. As I was talking to a supervisor, at 8:46(am)…and all the sudden we hear BOOM!
An explosion so hard, it pushed up upwards. And it came from the Basement, between the B2 level and the B3
level. And when I went to verbalize… we hear BOOM… the impact of the plane at the top.”
“it would appear to me as if there is more smoke coming from the ground”
“I was down in the basement...came down and all of the sudden the elevator blew up..”
“And as we were coming out, we passed the lobby- there was no lobby...so I believe the bomb hit the lobby first...
and a couple of seconds then the first plane it.”
“As I’m walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor… that’s when I got blown… I mean… the
impact of the explosion threw me to the floor and that’s when everything started happening. All the sudden a
big impact happened again…and all the ceiling tile was falling down… the light fixtures were falling. you know
you got to go clear across the whole… from one to two trade center and then all the sudden it happened all over
again. Something else hit us to the floor, right in the basement you felt it, walls were caving in, everything that
was going on…I know people that got killed in the basement, I know people that got broken legs in the basement,
people who got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face.”
The above fragmented testimony and news reports cover or allude to the follow points:
(1) Pancake / Progressive Col Theory of WTC 1 & 2 collapse.
(2) Buildings designed to take an airliner impact
(3) NIST Final Report & Near “free fall” speed of collapses.
(4) Visual evidence/testimony of explosives used/heard
(5) Molten Melt pools under the three “collapsed” towers
(6) Evidence/Samples of Nano-Thermite found
(7) NIST report on WTC7
(8) Minor fires/limited damage to WTC 7
(9) Sub-basement Explosions
(1) With regard to the “Pancake Theory” (Progressive Collapse) of WTC 1 & 2 collapse.
[ Clarification: ‘Zeitgeist: The Movie’ still maintains the now seemingly outdated notion of a “pancake collapse”. This re-
lates to the original FEMA theories which where later adjusted by NIST. However, it is found that the NIST theory is essen-
tially just a variation ] The “truss failure theory”, a key ingredient of the better known floor “pancake theory”, was endorsed
by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. When NIST later came out with its final report on
the Twin Towers, it claimed a variation on this initial theory put forward by FEMA, stating:
“NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor
systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—
consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively
that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing
required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail
progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.” 1
1
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
So, while FEMA’s truss failure theory blamed the failure of column truss supports for the collapses, NIST’s column failure
theory blames their persistence, stating that they pulled the columns inward -- the first step in the contagious spread of
“column instability.”
Semantics aside, as will be shown here, NIST’s theory proves highly improbable, while the controlled demolition theory
proves highly probable. NIST’s methods will also be addressed, coupled with the “black box” programs used to support its
conclusions in what appears to be a “reverse” model, based on the circular reasoning that fire/plane damage “must” have
brought the buildings down, since the use of explosives is ruled out by default - with no modeling or real investigation into
issues related to evidence found that supports a controlled demolition hypohesis.
(2) With regard to the buildings designed to take an airliner impact:
Based on testimony from the WTC Twin Tower designers, there was no reason to assume the buildings would collapse
due to plane impact or the associated jet fuel. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Cen-
ter, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that
the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your
screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to
the screen netting.” 1
Les Robertson, the Trade Center’s structural engineer, stated: “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.” 2 He also stated in
a video interview (as shown in Zeitgeist) that: “We designed the buildings to take the impact of a Boeing 707, hitting the
building at any location.” 3
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the
Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707
or Douglas DC-8:
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the
building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed... The building structure would still be there. ” 4
A White Paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600
mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. “The buildings have been investigated
and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.
Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial
damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” 5
Given the above, it is clear that an airplane impact and burning fuel was taken into account- but- it refers to a 707 not a
767 which is what hit the towers on 9/11. So, how different is a 767 from a 707? NIST points out that the 767 is about
“20% larger than a Boeing 707”, implying the size difference would cause more damage. However, is weight the only fac-
tor which would relate to a more powerful and damaging impact? In an analysis done by scientist Jim Hoffman, taking the
cruise speed into account, he states:
“The Kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is...4.136 billion ft lbs force...The Kinetic
energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is 3.706 billion ft lbs force. [So] under normal flying condi-
tions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10% more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767.
That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.” 6
Further Suggested Reading: [ http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html ]
1
This archived video interview was included in a film called “911 Mysteries”
2
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/
3
This video interview was shown Zeitgeist: The Movie.
4
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
5
City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131
6
Jim Hoffman: “The World Trade Center Demolition” http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
(3) With regard to the NIST Report & the near “free fall” speed of collapses:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, often called NIST, issued the “Official” reports on the destruction of all
three towers. It is worth noting that NIST is a part of the US Department of Commerce and all of NIST’s directors are/were
Pres G.W. Bush appointees. It is not an independent agency as some imply. Also, the integrity of science related work in
the Bush admin has been brought into question by the scientific community. In a 2003 document prepared by the House
Comm. on Government Reform, it stated:
“At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Ad-
ministration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted
or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the
political party occupying the White House.” 1
In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report called “Scientific Integrity in Policy Making”, which stated:
“There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administra-
tion political appointees across numerous federal agencies.” 2 As of today, this statement has been signed by over 12,000
scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.
Now, while such precedent and characterization is important in general, it is no substitute for taking each technical point
and evaluating it on its own merit. We are not dismissing NIST because it is a government agency or dismissing the
scientific integrity of the Bush admin just because it has been criticized. All it does is give a possible foundation to the
reasoning for what will be argued as the deliberately bad science that has been put forward by NIST with regard to its
findings about the WTC.
Regarding the specific point of “free-fall” collapses, the first issue to quickly consider are NIST’s ideas about the damage
caused by the airplanes. NIST states that:
“The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the con-
current multi-floor fires that day. Instead...the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and
damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely
dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened
the now susceptible structural steel.” 3
So, we have claims of (a) Severed/Damaged Columns, (b) Dislodged Fireproofing, (c) Dispersed Jetfuel ; Multi-
floor fires.
(a) Damaged Columns:
NIST claims from the following with regard to the twin towers:
WTC 1:
35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged ( out of 240 )
6 Core columns severed, 3 Heavily damaged ( out of 47 )
43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors.
WTC 2:
33 exterior column severed, 1 Heavily damaged
10 core columns severed 1 heavily damaged
39 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors 4
The first thing to point out is that NIST arrived at the above conclusions through a computer model; the
exact parameters/measures of which have not been released. As will be presented, it is very difficult to
consider the above truly accurate, while it might be plausible. Regardless, even if the above is true,
there is little reason to suggest the noted severed columns would create such instability to causes total,
free fall collapse, in any form, since the design of the buildings had taken this into account.
1
Politics and Science in the Bush Administration
[ http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3830&catid=44:legislation ]
2
Scientific Integrity in Policy Making,
[ http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/investigations_and_surveys/reports-scientific-integrity.html ]
3
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
4
NIST, Final Report 22-23, 41
As reported in ‘Engineering News-Record’ in 1964: “the World Trade Center towers would
have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities...live loads on these [perimeter] columns can
be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs...one could cut away all the first story columns on
one side of the building, and part from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could
withstand design live loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction.” 1
The above statement, if true, shows a powerful amount of general redundancy built into the structure.
With regard to 911, MIT professor Thomas Eager confirms this redundancy by stating: “the number of
columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in the
highly redundant structure.” 2
Would an average of 13 severed core columns out of 47 be enough to allow for a complete and total
collapse given the highly redundant nature of the buildings?
The NIST computer simulation evidently shows that the South tower, where all video evidence shows it
being struck near the corner of the building, suffered more core column loss than the North tower which
was hit straight on, in the center where the core columns were. Where did NIST get “10 columns severed”
from? Evidently NIST researchers started with a “base camp” based on average estimates and
then would choose different estimates/simulations ranging in extremity from “less severe to more severe.”
NIST estimated that from “three [less severe] to ten [most severe] columns” were broken, then- very
simply- they chose the most severe estimate - why? -because only with ten core column severed scenario would
cause the tower, in the computer model, to collapse 3
This could be called “Reverse Black Box Engineering”. NIST has obviously started with the empirical
assumption that the plane impact ‘must’ have severed enough of the columns to weaken the building to
such an extent so collapse could occur. This is biased circular reasoning and the give away is that they
allowed themselves a great deal of flexibility to create a model/scenario which would be plausible to their
preconceived conclusions. So, instead of 3 columns severed, which would be reasonable considering
the corner impact and the light aluminum wing / single engine being the cause of most core column damage, they
simply ramped up the estimate, at will, to 10 columns. How convenient. This reality brings into question the
integrity of the entire investigation for it, again, shows a presupposed conclusion and circular logic.
For a more detail assessment of this point, please see:
[ http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf ]
(b) Dislodged Fireproofing:
NIST’s theory states that dislodged fireproof insulation caused “softening” of the stripped core columns
by the fires, helping lead to total collapse. In the South tower, for example, NIST claims six floors of core
columns had insulation removed (43 out of 47).
In a document explaining the basic criteria used to determine this, NIST simply made the
assumption that the fire insulation for an entire floor would be dislodged if there was any evidence
damage occured in any room on a given floor. 4 That’s it. With regard to physical test, NIST’s idea to
examine this subject was to simply shoot a total of 15 rounds from a shotgun at non-representative
samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of actual column samples. 5
Now, even if NIST is correct with its severe estimates, it does not change the fact that the 106 floors
around these compromised columns did not suffer any damage. The relevance of this will be come more
clear as we proceed to address the fire themselves and the physical nature of the steel, with or without
fireproofing.
1
“Structures can be Beautiful: World’s tallest Buildings pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John Skilling” and “How
Columns will be designed for 110-Story Building,” Engineering News-Record 2 April 1964
2
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
3
Eric Douglas, “The NIST WTC Investigation...”9-10, citing NIST NCSTAAR 1-2B: 390
4
Therese McAllister, “Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft,” Builsing and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST, 15
September 2005
5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm [appendix c, 263ff]
(c) Dispersed Jet fuel; Multi-floor fires.
NIST states “the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now
susceptible structural steel.” 1 In turn, “ the melting point of steel is about 1500 Celsius (2800F)...
NIST reported maximum “upper layer air temperatures of about 1000c (1800f).” 2 NIST then states that
“When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000c...it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10
percent of its room temperature value.” 3 However, NIST also reports that it’s metallographic analysis
of recovered steel found “no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600c
(1112f)” and this is referring to all metal types recovered from the building for examination. 4
So, while NIST argues that the fire itself might have reached temperatures of 1000c, which, if equally
transferred to the steel, would cause substantial weakening, it does not show that the core column steel
ever achieved those temperatures. On the contrary, based on the samples they had, it did not go past
600c. It is also highly implausible to assume that 1000c fires would sustain for a period long enough to
heat the columns in such a way. Also, since the columns are very large and interconnect to other
beams, there would be a great deal of dissipation as the heat is conducted and spread throughout the
column itself and beyond.
MIT’s Thomas Eager expands:
“It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true...The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual...In combustion science, there are three basic types
of flames, namely, a jet burner, a per-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame...A fireplace is a diffuse flame
burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame
types...The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about
1000c [1832f]... it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing
to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.” 5
Also, video footage of the burning towers before the collapses show black smoke being emitted. This is
a text book indicator of oxygen starved fires / low scale temperatures. In the end, NIST passively implies
that the steel was consistently heated to 1000c to weaken the steel enough for collapse. They provide no
evidence for this and the idea that a diffuse flame fire, showing signs of deprived oxygen, with the fire’s heat
being conducted out and beyond the immediate area and hence dissipation, makes the case that the core
columns- with fireproofing or not- would not have be compromised to a point of failure as described. The
fires simply didn’t get that hot and if they did, it was only for a very short period time, for a diffuse fire
does not sustain such temperatures unless in a very controlled environment. Not to mention, by NIST
own admission: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” 6 As can be seen in the
footage, most of the fuel was burnt off in the huge fireball that commenced after impact. The jet fuel isn’t