Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? BrighamYoung University Professor

[Guest guest]

A

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:52:54 -0500

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

 

 

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

 

 

DRAFT

 

 

 

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

 

 

 

By Steven E. Jones

 

Department of Physics and Astronomy

 

Brigham Young University

 

Provo, UT 84604

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

 

 

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the

hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just

by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.

I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that

fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three

buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition

hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and

falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports

funded by the US government.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never

hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of

this building as a basis for discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..

 

 

 

 

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall

 

sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.

 

 

 

 

 

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the

discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the

collapse of this building, so go to:

 

 

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the

three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the

videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.

 

 

 

Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its

demise begins:

 

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

 

 

 

What did you observe?

 

Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly

symmetrically) – or did it topple over?

 

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less

than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

 

Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out

of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast

timing of observed puffs or " squibs. " Note that reference to web

pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing

motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of

motion and physics generally. High-quality photographs showing

details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in

books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman,

2005; Baker, 2005) and at

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.

 

 

 

My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while

challenging the " official " fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:

 

 

 

1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even

though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell

about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major

persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel

support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged

asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA,

2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently

requires the simultaneous " pulling " of most or all of the support

columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood

of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the

" official " theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more

likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using

explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

 

 

 

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend

support to my arguments:

 

 

 

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building

to collapse [ " official theory " ] remain unknown at this time. Although

the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential

energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a

low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and

analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5;

emphasis added.)

 

 

 

That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are

needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition

hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA,

NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission

report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01.

(Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant

to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

 

 

 

2. A New York Times article entitled " Engineers are baffled over the

collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, "

provides relevant data.

 

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced

high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.

(Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

 

That's correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or

since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete,

symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of

them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called

" implosion " or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such

an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely

collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.

 

 

 

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and

whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around

the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite

suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... `Fire and the

structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile

that appear to have been partly evaporated', Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett

said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

The observed " partly evaporated " steel members is particularly

upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office

materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere

near the 5,000+ oF needed to " evaporate " steel. However, thermite,

RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel

(thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive

demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that

some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at

lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not

mentioned in the " official " 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

 

 

 

3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the

basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ( " Twin Towers " ) and 7. For

example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The

Structural Engineer,

 

`They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, `ranging

from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to

4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'.

(Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly

by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the

design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that " As of 21

days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel

was still running. " (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

 

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and

Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her

canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

 

`Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in

the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002;

emphasis added.)

 

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from

Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the

Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, " In

some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel. "

Further information on the subject is available at

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.

 

 

 

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in

the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like

molten steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray

fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of

the molten metal.

 

 

 

I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the

use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish

steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The

end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten

iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is

hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while

reacting. On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives)

have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large

quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building

fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the

molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with

NIST) stated:

 

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very

intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed

it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

 

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is

evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to

collapse. So I would very much like to see an analysis of the

elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a

small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy.

Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this

molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited

to speak out and contact the author. This could lead to an experiment

crucis.

 

 

 

4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from

WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building

starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video

clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another

yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing

between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to

collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down

to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the

equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds,

as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

 

 

 

However, the presence of such " squibs " proceeding up the side of the

building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be

observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site

shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It

is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web

site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up

the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional

significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding

this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled " Secretive

C.I.A. Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11, " provides an

intriguing puzzle piece:

 

 

 

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building

at 7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site

were safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able

to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just

before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)

 

 

 

 

 

5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding

the North Tower collapse:

 

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various

angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure

began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was

evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with

one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA,

2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning

of collapse.

 

 

Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos

of the North Tower collapse. (See

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html;

also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times

article also notes this behavior:

 

The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the

north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna

began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building.

The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave

way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

 

 

 

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this

building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly

simultaneously? That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA,

2002, chapter 2) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet

not solved in any official report (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST,

2005). The odd behavior was not even mentioned in the final NIST

report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have not forgotten.

 

 

 

Could random fires burning office materials in the building account

for a near-simultaneous " pulling " of these core supports? Certainly

such an event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of

pre-positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard

demolition practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the

observation, satisfying the " Occam's razor " test (Jones, 2005).

 

 

 

6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported

by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with

explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and

explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower

floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where

the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the

start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

 

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from

the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then

another explosion. " (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)

 

 

 

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

 

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives,

because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the

tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where

the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

 

And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional

insights:

 

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came

down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my

conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to

him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front

of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that

time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result

of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash

flash and then it looked like the building came down.

 

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

 

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they

demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls

down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to

him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just

wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said

did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just

me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner

Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such

explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit

the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated:

" The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes. " (Field,

2005) On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a

plausible and simple explanation for the observations, satisfying

Occam's razor (Jones, 2005). Thus, it cannot be said that " no

evidence " can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter

needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and

thoroughly investigated.

 

 

 

7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and

the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly

in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the

use of explosives – as well-explained in

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also,

Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)

 

 

 

North Tower during top-down collapse.

 

Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization

region.

 

 

Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded " top-down "

rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for

controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in

which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been

placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals

so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered

the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously

considered in an independent investigation using all available data.

 

8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert

fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire

Engineering:

 

 

 

Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are

beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged:

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of

jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

 

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the " official

investigation " blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already

have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to

put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the

marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of

evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-

described by one close source as a " tourist trip " -no one's checking

the evidence for anything.

 

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation

sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the

building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY

probationary firefighter. And so do we.

 

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the

incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic

investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint,

[are considerations] for the… present and future generations…

(Manning, 2002; emphasis added).

 

 

 

9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete

collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the

" official " theory that random fires plus damage caused all these

collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a

great deal of pre-planning and expertise.

 

 

 

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which

way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the

building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This

sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of

Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like

felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters

detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…

 

 

 

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be

preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,

demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its

own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat

requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the

world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of

Thermodynamics.]

 

Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option

is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the

other columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000;

emphasis added.)

 

 

 

Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)

demonstrates a downward " kink " near the center of the building first,

suggesting " pulling " of the support columns, then the building's sides

pull inward such that the building " collapses straight down into its

own footprint " (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed

onto a well-confined footprint:

 

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was

pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The

average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002,

chapter 5.)

 

Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the

collapse of WTC 7, and yet:

 

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition

companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

 

Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of

WTC7 and the Towers, when " toppling-over " falls would require much

less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And

where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the

buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The " symmetry data "

emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an

" inside job. " Proof would require additional investigation and

questioning of suspects outside of Al Qaeda.

 

One of the people a thorough investigation should question under oath

would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled

Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he

said in an interview: " If I were to bring the towers down, I would

put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to

help collapse the structure. " (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

Just right – " explosives in the basement " agrees with eyewitness

reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above).

Also, this would be the way to effectively severe the support columns,

consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC

Tower 1) and the " kink " in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began.

Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux

would know the " handful of demolition companies in the world [that]

will attempt " a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His

company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid

clean-up work following the building collapses. A thorough

investigation might also query the owner of WTC7, who received

billions in insurance monies due to the demise of the WTC buildings on

9-11. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 17)

 

 

 

If you still haven't looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7

for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial " kink " or drop

in the middle, and for the " squibs " blowing in sequence up the side of

the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse --

all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of

further information is presented from a serious scientific

point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).

 

 

 

10. I presented my objections to the " official " theory at a seminar

at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed

evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory.

In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering,

Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and

Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all

of the people present. Two local universities were represented (BYU

and Utah Valley State College).

 

 

 

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended

only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the

material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing

the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed

(by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was

called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had

further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was

needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and

6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the

FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from

private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release

of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team

of scientists and engineers.

 

 

 

11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I

review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

 

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to

withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a

large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant

and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

 

 

 

Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on

that. MIT's Thomas Eager also concurs " because the number of columns

lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to

remaining columns in this highly redundant structure " (Eager and

Musso, 2001).

 

 

 

We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

 

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the

structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained

temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

 

 

 

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: " The initial jet

fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes " and office

material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given

location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel

burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above

800oC. But we continue:

 

 

 

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer

buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure

above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part

starts falling down onto the lower part below… " (Bazant and Zhou, 2002,

p. 2.)

 

 

 

Hold on – Bazant & Zhou do not explain how " more than half of the

columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling " at the same time

to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed.

There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such

support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

 

 

 

The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core

 

columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total.

 

Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to

 

collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect

explosives.

 

 

 

Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice

workers standing on floor pan which is

 

firmly attached to the interconnected

core columns.

 

 

 

 

 

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were

achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST

notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes,

then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently

not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as

required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of

the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due

to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity.

Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

 

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels,

only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures

above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint

remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not

reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that

there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures

above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate

" addendum " that burning natural gas might have been a source of the

needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report

(FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:

 

 

 

Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas

main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however,

this proved not to be true. " (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)

 

 

 

12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST

report on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is

interesting to note that NIST " decoupled " and delayed their final

report on WTC 7, which is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005;

NISTb, 2005) I agree with some of the NIST report; for example:

 

Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing

for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with

structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable

reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact

vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period

nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged

structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)

 

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures

near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the

calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below. " (NIST, 2005, p.

127, emphasis added.)

 

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests

to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in

the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design

load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing. " (NIST, 2005, p.

140, emphasis added.)

 

However, I along with others challenge NIST's collapse theory. NIST

maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated

despite the observations above, particularly the fact that fire

endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse. In a

paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

 

The basis of NIST's collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire...

However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward

displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much

greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory

to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in

contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the

truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the

time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal

expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to

this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and

Lamont, 2005.)

 

 

 

I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the " response

of the whole frame " of each building should be considered, especially

heat transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the

" core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor. "

(Lane and Lamont, 2005)

 

The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which

incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01,

are less than convincing. The Final report states:

 

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by

combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the

influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle

cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing.

The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results

were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case

A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural

response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed

events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases

based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in

building collapse. But `we must save the hypothesis,' so more severe

cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST

report:

 

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC

2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of

simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that

the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness

reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted

the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for

instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging

floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

 

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to

provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter

columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

 

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses --

until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked

computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice

that the " the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging

floors were adjusted " (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the

perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were

" adjusted " by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts

complained that " the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e.,

perimeter] columns in via the floor. " (Lane and Lamont, 2005;

emphasis added.)

 

 

 

I also agree with Kevin Ryan's objections regarding the NIST study.

Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),

makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his

letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:

 

 

 

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel

components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In

requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business

manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand

that UL was working with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to

help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies.

But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should

have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel,

paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

 

 

 

That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected

to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

 

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests

to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in

the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design

load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation

Team was cautious about using these results directly in the

formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues

raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11,

and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially

different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the

[empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was

capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a

substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in

any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis

added.)

 

 

 

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual

models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused

high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated

hypotheticals for very " severe " cases, called cases B and D (NIST,

2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us.

And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical

nature of the collapses.

 

 

 

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of

their Final Report:

 

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the

instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each

tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the

" probable collapse sequence, " although it does not actually include

the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse

initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

 

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only

proceeds until the building is " poised for collapse " , thus ignoring

any data from that time on.

 

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each

tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the

building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST,

2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

 

 

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of

the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the

antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten

metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and

WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any

data after the buildings were " poised for collapse. " Well, some of us

want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are

" adjusted " to make them fit the desired outcome.

 

 

 

13. Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did

his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST

report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be

calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood

analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan's analysis is

that the probability that fires and damage (the " official theory " )

could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a

trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete

collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or

the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the

basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

 

 

 

So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,

 

This [ " official " ] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of

great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events

of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And

the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11.

(Ryan, 2004; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report " does not actually

include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for

collapse initiation were reached. " (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis

added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for

explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as

seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

 

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several

engineers/scientists

(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,

2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the

southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an

object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds.

This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very

rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly

as ejected debris which provide free-fall references

(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,

2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to

conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics?

That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact

steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the

impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then

the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –

somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with

the falling floor pans.

 

 

 

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve

momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by

FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum

and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved

by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly

remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow

near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

 

 

 

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the

falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a

piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from

non-explosive-caused progressive collapse ( " official theory " ), we find

that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is

converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The

Towers' collapses are not a typical implosions, but quite possibly

series of " shock-and-awe " explosions – at least the evidence points

strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.

 

 

 

Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may

wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC

Tower on 9-11:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

 

 

 

 

 

Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

 

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

 

 

 

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a

block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored

by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on

this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and

this I'm still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in

mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without

explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US

government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of

course, the Final NIST 9-11 report " does not actually include the

structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse

initiation were reached. " (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

 

 

 

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the

data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the

NIST team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific

procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of

political constraints on what was supposed to be an " open and

thorough " investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)

 

 

 

So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope

the international community will rise to the challenge. The field is

wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here,

due to its neglect by studies funded by the US government.

 

15. Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and

inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time.

The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the

fires in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel

in the buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris

Wise in a BBC piece spouted out false notions with great gusto

 

" It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth

that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel

burning… The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted

and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other. "

(quoted in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)

 

But as we have seen from later serious studies, the jet fuel burned

out within minutes following impact. Recall the statement of expert

Dr. Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were

sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:

 

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very

intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed

it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)

 

Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the

majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to

reach sustained temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) –

at the same time. But as we've seen, such temperatures are very

difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected

steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport.

(Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to reach the 800oC at the

same time, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

 

So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA,

2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager

(Eager and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA

presentation " Why the Towers Fell " (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having

the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers

warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams

break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below,

initiating " progressive collapse " or pancaking of one floor pan on

another. Very simple. But not so fast – what happens to the enormous

core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don't

these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down

around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away?

This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock. FEMA does not

totally ignore the core:

 

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the

exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported

height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no

mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted

column splice connections and also collapsed. " (FEMA. 2002; emphasis

added)

 

This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of

the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to

bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of

requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to

break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less

simultaneously.

 

That didn't work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing

board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to

vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA's model), but rather

that the floor pans " pull " with enormous force, sufficient to cause

the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final

failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed

above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model -- but realistic cases

do not actually lead to building collapse. So they " adjust " inputs

until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe

cases. The details of these " adjustments " are hidden from us, in

their computerized hypotheticals, but " the hypothesis is saved. " NIST

also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC

trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT

collapse. (See above for details.)

 

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless

one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the

model fire-tests, which I'm not willing to do. And none of the

" official " models outlined above accounts for what happens to the

buildings AFTER the building is " poised for collapse " (NIST, 2005, p.

142) – namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing

central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are

not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors

far from where the jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet

hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble

piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

 

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts

for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower

floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with

explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on

now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The

collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying

squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite

(whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams

readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the

rubble piles.

 

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable

than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond

what I have been able to outline in this treatise. It is quite

plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings, and

set off after the two plane crashes – which were actually a diversion

tactic. The science is sound. The implications are

paradigm-shifting: Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing

down the WTC buildings after all.

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

I have called attention to glaring weaknesses in the " final " reports

funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely

alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks

repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since

9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed

fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have

been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of

pre-positioned explosives. The " explosive demolition " hypothesis

better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is

not " junk science. " It ought to be seriously, scientifically

investigated and debated.

 

A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable

hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not

by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and

calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning

(preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal

and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could

be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed

in the United States.

 

 

 

None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses

of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps

are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all

the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not

add up.

 

 

 

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans and to all those

threatened by American military and security units in the wake of the

9-11 events (Ryan, 2004). Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives

in the WTC buildings would imply an " inside job " (Griffin, 2004,

chapter 2). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC

skyscrapers to collapse as they did.

 

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300

hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which

it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and

analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in

the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the

international community of scientists and engineers immediately.

Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all

relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team

of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be

considered: all options will be on the table.

 

 

 

AFTERWARD

 

 

 

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the

hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just

by damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of

explosives. I have presented ample evidence for the

explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and

yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by

the US government.

 

At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in

the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible

hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by

no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the video " In Plane

Site " promotes the theory that a " pod " holds a missile under the wing

of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).

Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the

explanation that the so-called " pod " was merely a reflection from the

bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the

" pod theory " is very weak and distracts from central issues.

 

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners

hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of

photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in

fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March

2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims

and proceeds to ridicule the whole " 9-11 truth movement " (Chertoff,

2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written

(Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005;

serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

 

 

 

Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may

be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important

issues by poisoning the process with " junk science " . Likewise, the

notion that the " explosive demolition " hypothesis should not be

debated since it would imply a " conspiracy theory " departs from good

science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical

conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not

be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

 

 

I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and

Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Steven

Benzley, David Long, Bryan Peterson and Harold Stokes.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

Baker, Jeremy (2005). " Contrary to Popular (Mechanics') Belief, "

Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 14 (Spring-Summer 2005).

 

Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (2002). " Why Did the World Trade Center

Collapse? Simple Analysis, " J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.

 

Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (March 2002). " Addendum to `Why Did the

World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis, " J. Eng. Mech. 128:369,

March 2002.

 

Bollyn, Christopher (2002). " New seismic data refutes official

explanation, " American Free Press, September 3, 2002, available at:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html.

 

Chertoff, B., et al. (2005). " 9/11: Debunking the Myths, " Popular

Mechanics, March 2005.

 

Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,

Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.

 

De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). " Many Questions Still Remain About Trade

Center Attack, " American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attac\

k.html

 

Dwyer, James (2005). " City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of

9/11 Today, " New York Times, August 12, 2005, with quotes of

eyewitnesses available in New York Times archives at

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histo\

ries_01.html

and

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC\

_histories_full_01.html.

 

Eager, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). " Why Did the World Trade Center

Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation " , Journal of the

Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

 

FEMA (2005). " World Trade Center Building Performance Study, "

released May 2002, available at:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.

 

Field, Andy (2004). " A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC

Collapse, " Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Available at

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46 & id=25807

 

Glanz, James (2001). " Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7

WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, " New York Times,

November 29. 2001.

 

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). " Towers Withstood Impact, but

Fell to Fire, Report Says, " Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

 

Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing

Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Northampton,

Massachusetts: Interlink.

 

Griffin, David Ray (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and

Distortions, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink.

 

Harris, Tom (2000). " How Building Implosions Work, " available at:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000.

 

Hoffman, James (2005). " Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth, "

Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).

 

Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the

September 11th Attack, Goleta, California: Endpoint Software.

 

Jones, S. E. (2005). " The Official 9-11 Story as `Bad Science', "

Paper in preparation.

 

Lane, B., and Lamont, S. (2005). " Arup Fire's presentation regarding

tall buildings and the events of 9/11, " ARUP Fire, April 2005.

Available at: http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

 

Manning, William (2002). " Selling out the investigation, " Editorial,

Fire Engineering, January 2002

 

Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science, New York, NY:

Basic Books.

 

NIST (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf ( " Final

Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of

the World Trade Center Towers (Draft) " ), Sept.-Oct. 2005.

 

NISTb (2005).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf%2\

0WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

(Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.

 

 

 

NOVA (2002). " Why the Towers Fell, " originally broadcast Tuesday,

April 30, 2002; see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.

 

Paul, Don, and Hoffman, Jim (2004). Waking Up From Our Nightmare : The

9/11/01 Crimes in New York City, San Francisco:

Irresistible/Revolutionary.

 

Penn Arts and Sciences (2002). Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002 ,

available at

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html.

 

Risen, James (2001). " Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on

Sept. 11, " New York Times, November 4, 2001.

 

Ryan, Kevin (2004). Letter to Frank Gayle, available at

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

 

Ryan, Kevin (2005). " A Call for a Personal Decision, " Global Outlook,

Issue 10, p. 96 (Spring-Summer 2005).

 

Williams, James (2001). " WTC a structural success, " SEAU NEWS; The

Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October

2001, p. 1,3.

 

 

Fair Use Notice

 

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

of criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes. For more information see:

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.