search

Franklin Scandal Omaha

pictorial index

sitemap home

nfu

 

9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS interactive spreadsheet

 

 
 

 

sdfg

Ask Stephen Jones and Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth why they never talk about the who, when, and how much of their much touted nano-thermite was needed in the controlled demoltion of the WTC.

They never mention Zionist complicity in 9/11... Is this a deliberate coverup?

MORE

 

 

 

 

 

AE911Truth

 

 

 
 
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2

Whistleblower Releases Blueprints

In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South Tower.

The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns.

Most of the drawings can be viewed in this multiresolution browser.

This 66th floor core plan included in the detailed architectural drawings shows that most of the core columns retained their full outside dimensions well above the midpoints of the Towers. Of the sixteen columns bounding the long faces of the core, thirteen have outside dimensions of approximately 54 by 22 inches in this 66th floor section. In late 2008 a second set of blueprints became public. This set, which can be viewed by this multiresolution browser, details the electrical architecture of the Twin Towers.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.

FEMA's Building Performance Study

Figure 2-2 of of FEMA's Building Performance Study, labeled "Representative structural framing plan, upper floors", is one of five illustrations in the report that depict core columns. Each of these illustrations depicts the core columns at their minimum dimensions, and none depict them at their typical dimensions. In May of 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released its Building Performance Study, of which Chapter 2, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", was devoted to explaining the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. It advances the "truss theory" or "pancake theory", in which the supposed failure of floor-truss-to-column connections is the initiating event in a series of chain reactions ending in total collapse. Added commentary in our archived copy exposes many deceptive techniques employed in the article. 3

Key elements of FEMA's theory depend on misrepresentations of the Towers' construction made possible by their vague descriptions. For example, to explain other collapse of the core their Study states:

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, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Contrary to the FEMA's hedged assertion that the core columns were freestanding, construction photographs clearly show that large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

FEMA's report seems crafted to hide the structural significance of the core columns, if not their very existence. Examples of features of the Report that minimize or conceal the core structures include:

Figure D-13 from FEMA's Study, bearing the caption "WTC 1 or WTC 2 core column (C-74)", is the only photograph in the Study that shows an identified core column The absence of any illustrations showing core columns of typical dimensions The repeated use of the term "service core" to describe the cores, and avoidance of terminology describing their structural role The use of illustrations that imply the cores didn't exist, such as Figure 2-20 The only photograph of a core column in the Report (Figure D-13) being of an atypical column of very small dimensions The inclusion of only floor plans that show core columns of very small dimensions with no clarification that the core columns that ran most of the Towers' heights were of much larger dimensions NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers

In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:

Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors. The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns. The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?

World Trade Center Master Plan

This illustration from 'Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel' shows a structural system that matches the drawings in the MASTER PLAN. Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel Prior to the release of the detailed architectural drawings, 9-11 Research published the MASTER PLAN, dated December 16, 1963. The MASTER PLAN does not show structural details such as column dimensions, and shows an arrangement of core columns that was later changed. The obsolete core column arrangement indicated in the MASTER PLAN has been reproduced in other publications such as the book 'Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel'. 4

2. World Trade Center Tower A Architectural Drawings
Floor Plan At Elevation 274 B3 Level 764x452 1528x905 3056x1810 6112x3621, about 100 more
3. 29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11, June '09
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports Gregg Roberts and Staff The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. These experts lay it all out. For Some, the Doubts Began Early “Something is wrong with this picture,” thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings’ responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?” Lomba was hardly alone in his discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.1 In 2006, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, began raising technical questions among his professional colleagues about the destruction of the Twin Towers and 47-story WTC Building 7. Those who take time to look at the facts overwhelm-ingly agree that vital questions remain unanswered, Gage has found. Today more than 29 structural engineers, experts in what can and cannot bring down buildings, have joined almost 700 other Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in signing the petition demanding a new investigation.2 They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA and NIST offered varying and often imaginative theories to explain how fires brought the towers down. They cite a variety of concerns about the “collapses” and the inadequacies of official reports. Many, like Lomba, find the unnatural symmetry of all three collapses suspicious. The rapidity of collapse – acknowledged by the government as essentially free-fall acceleration – was troubling, too. Some note that the fires were weak; others ask how the tilting upper section of WTC 2 “straightened” itself. Everywhere you look, pieces of the puzzle don’t fit what we’ve been told. New evidence mounting over the years only validated initial discomfort: eyewitness testimony of explosions, unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and chemical evidence of steel-cutting incendiaries – all omitted from government reports. Many engineers attack implausibilities in the Bažant pile driver model, the 2002 FEMA report and the 2005 NIST report, and also slipshod and dishonest methodology. Finally, the collapse of WTC 7, not hit by any airplane, mystified others. The repeated postponement of the government’s report seemed to add fuel to the fire. Artificial Symmetry The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’ “totality and uniformity” and the fact that the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down. The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” writes Howard Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ... small, short-duration fires.” 2 Anders Björkman William Rice The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric and local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agreesAnders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A Swedish naval architect working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.” William Rice, P.E., a Vermont structural engineer, expects fire-induced failures to be “tilting, erratic and twisting.” while Ronald Brookman, S.E., a licensed structural engineer from Novato, California, figures on “a partial collapse to the side.” Symmetrical collapse requires simultaneous failure of all supporting columns, notes Charles Pegelow. “How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant?” Pegelow has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings. His opinion: “Fires could not do that.” Impossible Collapse Acceleration The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) characterized the Twin Towers’ collapse as “essentially in free fall” (Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1).3 Brookman wrote asking NIST investigators why debris fell “with little or no resistance from the intact structure below.” Rice questions how each tower “inexplicably collapsed upon itself, crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining near-freefall speed] as if the 80,000 tons of supporting structural steel framework underneath didn’t exist.”4 Falling objects should take “the path of least resistance,” notes Pasternack, while official explanations claim that Tower debris took the path of greatest resistance – through the strong, cross-braced core structure all the way to the ground. The Twin Towers were overbuilt to prevent office workers from getting seasick on windy days, says Kollar. “There’s so much redundancy.... The building has to be stiff enough so it doesn’t sway.” Perimeter columns designed to endure hurricanes, Scott says, were loaded only to “about 10% of their ultimate capacity” in the gentle breeze on 9/11.5 Gravity was “a negligible part of the loading,” says Kollar, citing a claim by the Towers’ engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson that even with all the columns on one side cut, and several around the two corners, the Tower would still withstand 100 mile-per-hour winds.6 The rapid breakup of this robust structure appears to defy the laws of physics, engineers say. Forty-five years of structural design experience inform the view of Claude Briscoe, P.E., that the government’s collapse theories “seem to defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy, and known structural failure behavior.” In the official story, the kinetic energy of the falling debris would have been largely absorbed by the energy required to dismember the structure, bending and twisting steel components, and pulverizing 220 acres of concrete floors. To accomplish all this while achieving a nearly free-fall-speed collapse is “simply not physically possible,” says Mason. “There is not sufficient energy available.... For this massively strong structure to just crumble away at near-free-fall speed would have required immense amounts of explosive energy.” Weak Fires Vs. Explosive Events Though four official accounts blame fire for the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers, the fires do not appear to have been particularly severe. NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in just ten minutes.7 “They also acknowledged that office furniture burns for only 15 to 20 minutes in any one area” before it’s consumed,8 Scott points out. “There’s ample evidence that the steel temperatures got nowhere close to the “600+ degrees Centigrade 1,200 Ron Brookman Charles Pegelow 3 degrees Fahrenheit] required to cause failure.” We saw no “raging infernos” on TV, David Huebner, P.E., points out. Sooty smoke and dull red flames, Scott says, indicate “cool fires ... fuel-starved fires.” Firemen at the 78th-floor impact zone reported “only two small fires,” Scott adds, “not the 1000-degree-Centigrade inferno” government officials claim. New York Fire Department (FDNY) personnel, trained to assess fires’ structural hazards, had no reason to expect total collapse, Brookman writes. Scott notes that several steel-framed towers have burned longer, hotter – and much more intensely without collapse. “As engineers we know what fire can do to steel and what it can’t.” “Over 100 recorded witnesses reported hearing and seeing multiple explosions,” Rice wrote.9 Brookman cites “numerous eyewitness accounts, including the FDNY oral histories, of secondary explosions ... well below the impact floors.” His letter to Congressional representatives describes “explosive clouds of dust and debris moving horizontally and vertically.” Brookman added: “That does not look anything like a heat-induced, gravitational collapse mechanism.” Rice notes that “perimeter columns weighing several tons each were ejected laterally up to 600] feet.” His conclusion: “Not possible without explosives.” Angular Momentum Arrested As the South Tower began to fail, the top 25 stories tipped as a unit, photos show. “The tilting block doesn’t look right,” Brookman said. It should “continue to rotate and fall to the ground.” Edward Knesl and Lomba say the same thing. The failure mode of such tall structures should have been “a fall over to the side” (Knesl) and “a toppling of the upper floors to one side ... not a concentric, vertical collapse” (Lomba). “It looked like an explosive event,” Brookman said. “ The upper section] began tilting toward the damage zone, and then suddenly dropped straight down and disintegrated in the process.” Building 7’s Mystifying Implosion Baffling as the Towers’ “collapses” were, even more perplexing was the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. “Unprecedented,” says Rice. “Unexplainable,” says Huebner. “No plane hit this building,” points out Graham Inman, a chartered engineer in London. Few Americans have given any thought to the thirdWorld Trade Center high-rise destroyed on September 11th, since it was not repeatedly televised. Kamal Obeid, S.E., ponders it. “A localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building.” Videos show “simultaneous failure of all columns,” wrote Inman, “rather than the expected] phased approach,” in which undamaged columns would show resistance sequentially. Though the building housed “offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others,” Rice notes, the 9/11 Commission left WTC 7’s collapse out of its report. FEMA’s 2002 inquiry blamed WTC 7’s collapse on fires, though it admits that its “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” Rice notes that the media have “basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view.” The Phantom Pile Driver Two days after 9/11, Dr. Zdeněk Bažant offered a rationale for the most catastrophic structural failure in history. Seven years later, his thesis10 still underlies official claims that total collapses were “inevitable.” Bažant’s mathematical model of the The South Tower’s top tilted 22 degrees, then disappeared straight down into the rubble cloud. Zdeněk Bažant Kamal Obeid WTC 7 came down in full free-fall for 2-1/4 seconds and very near free-fall overall. 4 upper floors’ transformation into a pile driver “block” free-falling one story to hammer the entire tower into scrap metal and powder involves “very misty allegations – actually inventions,” says Björkman. His opinion derives from thirty-five years in ship surveying and construction, design of tankers and seagoing ferries, and practical observations of steel vessels after collisions. Never before, Björkman notes, has “a smaller object (the light-weight, upper, actually non-rigid, flexible steel structure consisting of many smaller parts) destroyed the bigger and stronger other object (the complex steel structure below) only with the assistance of gravity.” Björkman scoffs at Bažant’s mythical free-falling top block bringing 287 columns hammering down in perfect array on the 287 columns below. Steel bends and mashes in Björkman’s salty world, and “it is not certain that the hammer even hits the nail.” Real-life columns miss, lodge in horizontal structures, and punch holes in floors, creating energy-absorbing frictions, deformed steel, local failures, and “a soft collision (not impact!)” that tangles damaged floors in a shuffled array – and stops well short of total collapse. Videos show that Bažant’s alleged pile driver disintegrates “within 3.5 seconds after the roof starts to fall.... before global collapse starts!” Björkman challenges Dr. Bažant and his followers to produce a “timetable, analysis, and explanation” consistent with the video evidence. “And tell us ... what happened to the upper block!” Molten Iron “Flowing Like Lava” Steel starts melting at 2700° F, almost 1000° hotter than jet fuel fires, notes Pegelow. “Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage?” he asks. FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo reported seeing in the basements “molten steel ... like you were in a foundry, like lava.”11 Even Leslie Robertson, one of the design engineers of the World Trade Center and a supporter of the official collapse story, reportedly acknowledged on October 5, 2001 that “twenty-one days after the attack, molten steel was still running.”12 Richard Garlock, a structural engineer in Robertson’s firm, said “Going below.... the debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.”13 Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, another supporter of the official story and the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel, told PBS, “I saw melting of girders in the]World Trade Center.”14 Jet fuel can’t melt steel, “but thermite explosives/incendiaries can ... create temperatures in excess of 4000 degrees Fahrenheit...” writes Rice, “instantly melting/severing short segments of steel columns and beams.” Chemical evidence of thermite found in the powdered debris by physicist Dr. Steven Jones15 is cited by Rice, by Obeid, and by Clark Townsend. Brookman challenges NIST to explain tiny “iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust,” which appear to be solidified droplets of once-molten iron.16 Crucial Evidence Survives Discredited 2002 FEMA Report The FEMA 403 report17 was “incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst,” says structural engineer <name redacted by request> of New Jersey, noting that a metallurgical study in its Appendix C.2 found “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel ... with subsequent intergranular melting” forming a “sulfur-rich liquid” that “severely weaken ed]” the structural steel. FEMA scientists later state in Appendix C.6 that “no clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.” <redacted> finds that unacceptable. “The report has uncovered an unexplainable phenomenon within the context of the official story] that may have led to the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings,” he writes, “and has stated that further study is needed, but FEMA has not Other Engineers Agree Not all the structural engineers who have signed the petition at AE911Truth.org are quoted in this article. But all of them support a new investigation, primarily because of the evidence of controlled demolition presented on our website. Capt. Philip Ruvolo Dr. Steven Jones 5 proceeded with further research.” Evidence was not just ignored; it was destroyed. Firemen rioted at Ground Zero,18 protesting the desecration of the dead in a hasty “scoop and dump” clean-up of the structural steel debris. “The destruction of the crime scene evidence is inexcusable,” Huebner writes. Scott laments the “masses of vital forensic evidence” lost, and Bill Manning, Editor in Chief of Fire Engineering magazine, called FEMA’s investigation “a half-baked farce.”19 Steel components were stamped with identification numbers that would have aided their reassembly for study, but that reassembly never took place. Brookman asks, “Why was the steel ... not thoroughly examined by fire-safety and structural experts before being shipped to Asia for recycling?” Pegelow charges that “FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation,” citing Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl’s complaints in 2002 to the House Committee on Science that FEMA held back essential engineering drawings and videotapes and photographs. Such flawed methodology was accompanied by inadequate theories that “cannot explain the loss of the cores,” Scott points out. He says FEMA’s notion that floor connections all failed simultaneously at the outer wall and at the core is “not too plausible.” Bill Genitsaris, structural engineer and builder based in Melbourne, believes that a pancake-style collapse should have left supporting columns standing. Such a collapse would have left at least dozens of shattered floors in the building footprint below. Only very small floor sections were found, and not many of them. Deceptive presentation further damaged FEMA’s credibility. Tom Lackey, who designs bridges for the Vermont Agency of Transportation, cites the Minneapolis Bridge collapse study as the “kind of analysis and straightforward explanation” the WTC needs. FEMA’s reports stack up poorly. Some of its graphics “omit the cores altogether,” says Scott, and some depict columns half as wide and twice as far apart as they actually were. Scott decries “attempts to distort important technical information.” The Australians use more colorful terminology: Mason says we have been “taken for suckers;” Genitsaris says we’ve been “stooged.” Truncated and Fudged Computer Model Undermines NIST Report (2005) NIST’s $20 million report is generally believed, by those who haven’t read its 10,000 pages, to explain how fires and plane impacts destroyed the WTC. “The report not only fails to explain why and how the towers completely collapsed,” Brookman points out, “but it states that the collapse became inevitable without any further explanation.” He asks why NIST “considered conservation of energy and momentum principles only up to the moment prior to collapse.” NIST stopped its computerized models before the onset of collapse,” Scott complains. “No work was done to calculate what happened during the failure. Why are we content with this?” Ron Brookman adds: “The complete collapse mechanism ... cannot be ‘omitted for brevity’ in any comprehensive analysis.” NIST’s claim that a kinetic “attack” exceeded the building’s reserve strength is not supported by any calculations or “by any evidence whatsoever or any serious structural analysis,” states Anders Björkman. While NIST fails to show essential work on central issues, its numerous volumes are packed with distracting trivia. Huebner, whose twenty-five years of A Note About 9/11 “Debunkers” It could be hoped that the comments from the structural engineers quoted in this article would silence the “debunkers” who dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. That was never true to begin with. After AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings. Since the 29 engineers interviewed for this article do in fact possess that knowledge, the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again. This kind of behavior should make clear the nature of the game that is being played. One word for it is sophistry. NIST’s Report on the Twin Towers WTC steel sample after hot corrosion attack. FEMA, Appendix C 6 structural engineering experience includes forensic investigation of structural collapses, compares NIST’s effort to a “college paper where you just keep adding stuffing] to make the paper longer. Lots of pages of nothing! Definitely trying to cover up something.” Brookman asked NIST investigators to explain the “complete pulverization of building materials and contents” and “visibly explosive clouds of dust, ash, and debris.” He received no reply. “I believe in the laws of physics,” wrote Brookman, “and rely on them every day.” NIST’s reports “seem to require multiple leaps of faith in highly improbable events,” wrote Pasternack. Computer models using NIST’s best estimates of temperature and damage could not even generate a collapse, Scott points out. They’d “simply adjust the input until the desired outcome is achieved.” NIST probably overestimated core column damage, Scott believes, almost certainly overestimated steel temperatures, and definitely overestimated damage to fire protection. So important an inquiry should “rely on logical deduction, reason and first-principle analysis,” Scott says, “not circular reasoning and adjusting models to get agreement with a preconceived explanation.” 47-Story Building 7’s Near-Freefall Collapse Defies NIST Report (2008) "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7,” NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder acknowledged to New York Magazine over two years ago. David Topete, S.E., asks why no other nearby buildings collapsed when some were much more severely damaged by fire and Twin Tower debris. NIST’s recent report blames one buckling column, number 79, for WTC 7’s global and near-symmetrical collapse, yet characterizes WTC 7’s fires as “normal office fires” which only burn twenty minutes in any given location before moving on. Obeid rejects the suggestion that one failing column could pull adjacent columns down. “It is not possible for a local failure within the lower structure to spread horizontally,” he wrote recently. “Such a failure would cause a break-away ... instead of pulling the structure with it.” Even if NIST’s horizontal progression were somehow triggered, Obeid says, “the building would not have collapsed so neatly and symmetrically. All core columns have to be severed at the same time to make such a collapse.” Disturbing Questions That Must Be Answered To preserve America’s “unprecedented freedoms,” Clayton Simmons says, “we must pursue the truth.” He is troubled by “my profession’s involvement in this apparent cover-up and the media’s refusal to address important questions.” Scott too expresses wonder that structural engineers’ response “has been amazingly muted,” even “uninterested.” Rice found that politicians also lacked interest. Many people “remain willfully ignorant,” writes Genitsaris. “They believe that 9/11 does not affect their lives ... regardless of the fact that our freedoms are being taken from us.” Perhaps few are questioning, Brookman says, because it’s “painful to look directly at the events and consider the implications.” William Acri, P.E., believes that the engineer’s oath “to hold public safety above all else” demands that they raise questions. If three modern steel high-rises really underwent total progressive collapse in less than two hours of fire, merely because of the fires and some damage to the fireproofing, “we need to understand WHY!” Scott writes. If WTC 7 failed from a localized fire event, Inman asks, why didn’t the owners and insurers sue the designers? “Either the building design was criminally faulty, or other causes not related to the structural design or fire” brought down WTC 7, he says. Why Should Science-Based Forensic Evidence Be Taboo? From all across America, and from Australia, Canada, the UK, and France, the structural engineers we spoke with for this article join more than 675 other Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in calling for a new investigation into the catastrophic destruction of the threeWorld Trade Center high-rises on September 11. “The implications of the controlled David Topete 7 demolition hypothesis as outlined on the AE911Truth.org website are staggering,” says founding member Richard Gage, AIA. “We therefore invite all Americans to examine the science-based forensic evidence very carefully and come to their own conclusions.” Lomba’s conclusion, drawn from his initial perceptions and validated by subsequent developments, is clear: “Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?” References 1http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html 2http://www.ae911truth.org/ 3http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf 4http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml 5 “How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings,”Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964. 6 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center ( New York: Times Books, 2003) 7http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807 8 http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf, p. 183. 9http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 10http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/Bažant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf 11http://la.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=9840845 12 http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf 13http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html 14 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html 15http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf 16http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf 17 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf. 18 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/45256_zero03.shtml 19http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225 8 All the structural engineers below have signed the AE911Truth petition. Not all of them were interviewed for this article. Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio William W. Acri P.Eng. Lic: 143016 BASc Toronto, ON – Canada Construction Engineer, and Structural Consultant, in Toronto, Alberta, and BC. I have used explosives on many road projects. Antonio Arthay P.E., Lic: 57912, M.S., Structural Engineering, Illinois; West Palm Beach, FL Licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of experience in building design. Anders Björkman Naval architect & Marine engineer *M.Sc. Beausoleil, Alpes Maritime – France 40 years of steel structural design, operations, damage analysis and repairs (of ships) but the principles are same for other structures, e.g. towers Jim Bomford P. Eng., B.A.Sc. Engineering, UBC, Cowichan Bay, BC – Canada A civil engineer and former structural engineer practising in the Province of BC for thirty five years. Claude Robert Briscoe P.E. Lic: Civil Engineer C17546 -- California BS Engineering, UCLA Santa Rosa, CA 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and construction with project work in bridges, buildings, foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and various commercial, industrial and public works facilities. Ronald H. Brookman Structural Engineer Lic: Structural Engineer 3653 CA Civil Engineer 44654 CA, B.S. & M.S. Engineering, U.C. Davis Novato, CA Mr. Brookman is a licensed structural engineer in the state of California. He obtained B.S. Civil Engineering (1984) and M.S. Structural Engineering (1986) degrees from the University of California at Davis, and has over 21 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California. Frank J. Cullinan P.E. Civil Engineer Lic: C 50794 CA B.S. Civil Engineering Trinidad, CA My expertise is in structure construction of bridges and to a lesser extent demolition of bridges. 9 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Erwin De Jong MSc Mechanical and Structural Engineering, Master, The Hague, Zuid Holland – The Netherlands Master degree Mechanical Engineering obtained at University of Twente (Netherlands) Currently occupied in offshore (steel structure) and aerospace engineering. <name redacted by request> <redacted> <redacted> Rick Fowlkes P.E. Lic: 13162 AZ/ 35889 CA BSCE & MBA Mesa, AZ Registered professional engineer - Arizona Structural - PE; California - Civil-P.E. President of Fowlkes Enterprises, Inc. since 1983 in Mesa, AZ. Republican Party candidate for Arizona State Corporation Commissioner. Bill Genitsaris Consulting Structural Engineer & Builder BA Engineering, Uni. of Melbourne Melbourne, VIC – Australia Consulting Engineer with over 20 years experience in Civil and Structural Engineering. Worked in the fields of structural engineering design, construction, demolition, investigation of building movements and disputes. Worked for many years as a senior consulting structural engineer in the residential and commercial fields. In those years, provided professional services from engineering design advise for new and existing buildings, construction and demolition advice/procedural recommendations, to remedial works recommendations for buildings which are cracking/moving…. David G. Huebner P.E. Lic: 6201036077 MI Professional Engineer BSCE Auburn Hills, MI Since graduating college in 1982, I have worked in the structural engineering field. In 2000, I started my own consulting business as a structural engineer. I have experience with wood, concrete, and steel design as well as some forensic experience investigating collapses of structures. I also have experience as a paid on call fire/rescue worker. Edward E. Knesl P.E., S.E. Lic: C 22102 AZ, S 22172 AZ M.S. Engineering Phoenix, AZ Full Master Degree study of Civil and Structural Engineering. Thirty five years of experience domestic and overseas in commercial and transportation projects : - Structural Design and Analysis - Construction Administration and Management - Plan Review - Special Inspection 10 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Dennis J. Kollar P.E., Structural Engineer Lic: 34422-6 Professional Engineer exp 2008 B.S. + Graduate Coursework West Bend, WI I began my career in the 1980's as a Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993 with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+ Years experience in the structural design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel, concrete, masonry and timber. Thomas H. Lackey P.E. Engineer Lic: 018-0005701 VT B.S.C.E., UVM 1985 Stowe, VT I began my career as a Geodetic Surveyor in the US Army in Germany from 1979-1982. I studied Civil Engineering at and graduated from the University of Vermont with a BSCE from 1982-1985. I practiced as an EIT in Alaska, New Hampshire and Vermont primarily in land development from 1985-1989. I passed my P.E. exam and became licensed in Vermont in 1989. I joined the Vermont Agency of Transportation in 1989 where I have worked in the Structures Section since 1995. Nathan S. Lomba P.E., S.E., M.ASCE; 4132 C/S ID, C43284 CA; B.S.C.E., U. of Colorado; Eureka, CA Consulting civil/structural engineer with over 22 years in private practice (39 years total). Experience ranges from custom residential to heavy industrial structures. Some major project involvements include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million project for the US Air Force; structural design engineer for a 41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a 550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Idaho PE, 1980 Idaho SE, 1990 California PE, 1987 BSCE, 1976, University of Colorado, Denver/Boulder, CO Professional Affiliations: Member, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Charter member, Structural Engineering Instititute (SEI) Professional member, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Paul W. Mason Structural Engineer; Engineers Australia Member #34040 (Also Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists & Managers, Australia, member # 222349); Melbourne, VIC – Australia 33 years experience designing, constructing and maintaining major structures for state government agency. 11 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Travis McCoy Design Engineer, BS Civil Engineering, Cincinnati, OH I received my BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 2007. I am currently working on my MS in Structural Engineering at the University of Cincinnati as well as working for a local structural engineering consulting firm. Dr. Robert T. Mote PhD, Structural Engineer, Lic: APEGGA, B.Eng (Hons), Calgary, AB – Canada +20 years experience in structural design. Special interest in dynamic and explosion behaviour of structural elements and foundations. Arthur Nelson P.E. Lic: MA PE 32785 M.Sc., Structural Eng, Northeastern Seekonk, MA Structural engineer since 1986. Involved in design of hundreds of steel structures though none have been involved in airplane collisions. Kamal S. Obeid SE, PE Lic: Structural Engineer 2826 CA, Civil Engineer 35214 MSCE, UC Berkeley, Fremont, CA Consulting structural engineer specializing in building and other structures design and retrofit. California SE 1985 California PE 1982 MSCE 1980, UC Berkeley BSCE 1978, University of Texas, Austin Howard Pasternack B.A.Sc., P.Eng. Lic: 90261421 B.A.Sc. Civil Eng., U. of Toronto Toronto, ON – Canada B.A.Sc. Civil Engineering (specializing in Structural Engineering) 1986 Graduate work at U. of Alberta to 1989 Design, Analysis and Inspection of Structures: Anrep Associates to 1990 Design, Analysis and Inspection of Structures: Morrison Hershfield to 1993. Design, Analysis and Inspection of Structures: CanDesign Engineering Services 1993-present. 12 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Charles N. Pegelow PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 exp 2008 Houston, TX (none provided) William Rice P.E. Lic: 018-0002991 VT MS Civil Engineering, Cornell Univ. Randolph Center, VT I earned my BSCE degree from the University of Massachusetts with a major in structures and later an MS degree in civil engineering from Cornell University. After graduation from UMass, I was employed in the field by two of the nation’s largest building construction companies, first the Austin Company (a design/build firm) and later the George A. Fuller Construction Company. The construction of one of the Austin Company building projects was the basis of my master's thesis. I also taught building design and construction related courses to civil engineering and architectural students at Vermont Technical College for twenty years. Jérôme Royer Engineer, Mechanical Engineering, Paris – France Degree in mechanical/structural engineering and degree in engineering for high energy physics experiments. Alaa Rustom Structural and Geotechnical Civil Engineer, BSC Structural and Geotechnical Civil En Ottawa, ON – Canada With over a year's experience in the structural field, I am a new graduate of structural and geotechnical Civil Engineering. I have just graduated from the University of Ottawa, and pronounced an Obligated Engineer by ward 12 on an obligation to work with the highest quality of workmanship in my field. David Scott AMICE, CEng, MIStructE Beng Auchterarder, Perthshire – Great Britain Consulting Structural Engineer, with 20 years experience of building design and founding director of a structural and architectural design practice in Perthshire, Scotland. 13 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Clayton J. Simmons P.E., Associate Engineer Lic: 72749 (CE) CA B.S.C.E., Brigham Young University, Santa Rosa, CA Mr. Simmons studied at Brigham Young University, graduating with degrees in Russian and Civil & Environmental Engineering with an emphasis in structures. He had the unique privilege of being one of Dr. Steven Jones' physics students prior to 9/11, learning from him the principles of conservation of energy and momentum. Following his formal training, he returned to his native Santa Rosa, California and has worked for the past three years in the engineering profession, analyzing and designing water-based infrastructure and residential structures. David Topete S.E. Lic: S4793 CA C59280 CA B.S. Civil Engineering, Santa Clara U San Francisco, CA After working as a Junior Engineer, I returned to pursue a Master's degree (just short). I have been a designer throughout my career, mainly residential, commercial and light manufacturing facilities. Clark W. Townsend Civil Engineer Lic: C47921 CA BSCE CSU-Fort Collins, Colorado Sacramento, CA I received a BS in Civil Engineering from a four year accredited university in 1986. I became a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California in 1991. I have worked in several fields of civil engineering including structural
 4. Republic Magazine — Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center, Building 7 on 9/11, Sept '09
700 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth PRESENT Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center, Building 7 on 9/11 Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler 24 core columns - removed within a fraction of a second – by !re? 􀀧􀀧 􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀂙􀀕􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫 􀁈􀁪􀁗􀁨􀁘􀁧􀁞􀁗􀁚􀀕􀁄􀁣􀁡􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀁤􀁧􀀕􀀸􀁖􀁡􀁡􀀕􀀦􀀢􀀭􀀫􀀫􀀢􀀩􀀨􀀬􀀢􀀫􀀪􀀬􀀥 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢 NIST initially denied the fact of free-fall in its final draft report released in August 2008. In the technical briefing that followed, NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder explained, “A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” He claimed that WTC7 took 40% longer than “free-fall time” to collapse, “and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.” However, physics instructor and AE911Truth associate David Chandler had used network television videos to carefully measure the acceleration of the building during its fall and shown conclusively that a significant period of free-fall was an indisputable fact. He publicly challenged NIST’s claims at the technical briefing. Along with several others, he filed formal requests for corrections during the public response period. In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free-fall could be compatible with its fire-induced progressive collapse analysis. For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – NOT caused by it – because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall. Yet NIST’s admission of the fact of free-fall, together with Shyam Sunder’s acknowledgment of the simple meaning of that fact, led to no reconsideration of its fire-induced, single-column-initiated, progressive collapse hypothesis. Moreover, in what looks like an attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the question of free-fall was omitted from the list of changes in its final report. Symmetry The overall building mass fell uniformly and with almost perfect symmetry through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – 40,000 tons of structural steel. This requires a precisely timed patterned removal of critical columns – which office fires, a gradual organic process, is not capable of. Only a carefully engineered implosion could cause this 47-story building to collapse in on itself – and land mostly within its own footprint. After all, demolition companies are paid large sums to accomplish this feat, and only a few can do it with tall buildings. Also, the destruction was complete. The building had been built especially strong so that alternate floors could be removed in case a tenant needed an extra tall space. Yet its forty-seven stories were reduced, in less than seven seconds, to about four stories of debris – like a house of cards – with the virtually complete dismemberment of the steel skeleton, including both braced and welded moment-resisting (bendresistant) frames. Did the Dog Eat Their Homework? NIST Withheld Crucial Evidence Had officials taken all the relevant evidence into account and provided a superficially coherent explanation, it would at least make sense to entertain the idea that, 1) fire might have acted in ways that it had never acted before, 2) modern structural steel might have acted in ways that it had never acted before, and 3) that this all just happened to occur on a day when terrorists did something they had never done before. Yet, officials have not taken all the relevant evidence into account and they have not provided even a superficially coherent explanation. “A High Temperature Corrosion Attack” and Molten Iron/Steel: Undeniable Evidence of Thermitic Incendiaries Prior to the NIST investigation, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had conducted a preliminary, cursory, underfunded investigation and produced a Building Performance Assessment Report. In Appendix C of that report, FEMA described steel samples from Building 7 that had undergone a “high temperature corrosion attack” that had turned a heavy steel flange “into Swiss cheese.” They found “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting….” FEMA’s metallographic analysis showed that the steel had not only melted but some of it had even “evaporated”. “A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.” The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” What did NIST say about this mystery described by FEMA? They did not mention it. Neither jet fuel nor office fires can reach anywhere close to steel’s melting point, much less its boiling point, even if those critical temperatures had been lowered by the presence of free sulfur. So what could have caused this “high temperature corrosion attack”? Thermite is a mixture of powdered iron oxide and elemental aluminum which, when ignited, Free-fall acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steel? WTC 7: In free-fall acceleration - for 8 stories Total dismemberment of steel structure – fell like a house of cards 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢 􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫􀀕􀂙􀀕􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚 􀀧􀀨 reacts violently at 4000-4500° F. – well above iron’s melting point of 2800° F, producing aluminum oxide and molten iron in a very dangerous, volcaniceruption- like display. When free sulfur is added to the mixture, the iron melts at a lower temperature. Thermite with sulfur added is called thermate. Structural steel in contact with ignited thermate also melts at a lower temperature. Contrary to what NIST and others have claimed, the sulfur could not have come from gypsum wallboard in which it is an inert, chemically “locked” ingredient. (FEMA metallurgists would have proposed that explanation themselves if it were within the realm of possibility.) Still, additional evidence of molten iron and/or steel abounds – for all three high-rises. Photos and numerous credible witnesses (including first responders and structural engineers) confirm the existence of several tons of molten metal under the debris pile – described by some fire fighters as “flowing like lava.” Photos clearly reveal molten metal dripping out of the material held in the jaws of “crab claw” excavators. Video taken of the South Tower shortly before it came down shows a spout of molten metal spewing from near the impact hole, brightly glowing orange-yellow in daylight, unlike molten aluminum which appears silvery under these conditions. It could only be molten iron or steel. John Gross, lead engineer for NIST, publicly denied the existence of molten metal despite the abundant evidence. Shyam Sunder of NIST later acknowledged it but could not offer a rational explanation for it. NIST’s afterthought Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage attributes the spout’s color to mixing of office contents with the aluminum – a hypothetical phenomenon that physicist Steven Jones and independently a NASA engineer have been unable to reproduce in two laboratory experiments. Given the stakes, one might expect NIST to have used some of the 20 million dollars allocated to the WTC study to show us – not just speculate – that this miraculous mixing of light, fluffy office materials with heavier aluminum makes a poured stream of impure aluminum appear, in bright sunlight, like the orange molten metal seen in the South Tower videos. Hot Spots With Extreme Temperatures Measured by USGS/NASA USGS used NASA thermal imaging of the surface of the WTC rubble pile to document hot spots with extreme temperatures of almost 1,400°F. These temperatures, too, are hotter than most office fires produce. And there were no fires on the surface of the WTC7 pile following the collapses. The detected surface temperatures indicate much higher temperatures deep in the pile, which persisted for several weeks despite the continuous spraying of millions of gallons of water onto Ground Zero – so much water that one worker described the result as “a giant lake.” Thermite contains its own source of oxygen and burns just as well under water. Molten Iron Droplets in the WTC Dust Chemical and micrographic analysis of the dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan after the destruction of each of the Twin Towers revealed the presence of iron-rich “microspheres.” These microspheres were found in separately collected samples of the dust both near and far from Ground Zero, some of it collected before cleanup operations had begun. Their shape indicates that they were previously molten fragments that were pulled into spherical form by surface tension into droplets which solidified before hitting the ground. They are direct evidence that temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron were present during the buildings’ destruction. These microspheres could not have been produced by friction or any other known process during the Towers’ collapses. Furthermore, they lack the chromium present in structural steel and contain manganese, an ingredient of potassium permanganate, a common thermite additive. Aluminothermic Nanocomposites – Unignited Nanothermite in the WTC Dust An even more definitive discovery arose during a scientific examination of the dust: red-gray chips. An international team of chemists, physicists, and others confirmed that the chemical makeup of the red layer O"ce !res don’t do this to steel O"ce !res are not hot enough to create the molten metal seen by dozens of witness Jet fuel and o"ce !res can’t create molten iron Impossible temperatures on the surface of Ground Zero a week after the collapses Billions of previously molten iron spheres found in all WTC dust samples Demolition of Building 7 􀀧􀀩 􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀂙􀀕􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫 􀁈􀁪􀁗􀁨􀁘􀁧􀁞􀁗􀁚􀀕􀁄􀁣􀁡􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀁤􀁧􀀕􀀸􀁖􀁡􀁡􀀕􀀦􀀢􀀭􀀫􀀫􀀢􀀩􀀨􀀬􀀢􀀫􀀪􀀬􀀥 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢 of these chips, their granular structure, and thermal behavior, were all consistent with those of advanced thermitic explosives. Particle sizes of less than a tenth of a micron in the red layer classify this material as nanothermite. The significance of the extremely small particle sizes is that the surface area is much greater for a given volume of the components, so chemical reactions are greatly accelerated. The team published its findings in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009. Members of the team had earlier asked that NIST test the dust for evidence of explosives. NIST repeatedly refused to do so, even though such testing is called for by NFPA 921, the National Fire Protection Association guideline for fire and explosion investigations throughout the United States. NIST did not see fit to even discuss the issue of thermite or explosives in its formal reports. In its FAQ, referring narrowly to tests for ordinary thermite and thermate, they explained that “such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive” because “The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers…” This is technically correct, and NFPA 921 does emphasize the need to make inferences cautiously: “Presence of remains from the oxidizers does not in itself constitute an intentionally set fire.” (section 22.2.4, 2008 edition). However, NFPA 921 does not provide any justification for not performing tests, especially when there is evidence of “high temperature accelerants (HTAs),” such as “melted steel” (22.4.1) The guidelines refer to thermite specifically: “Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.” Moreover, the team of scientists who did look at the dust found an exotic, highly engineered form of thermite, known as nanothermite, or superthermite. It doesn’t just melt steel; it explodes. It can be chemically tuned to do so with less noise than conventional explosives. And it cannot be confused – even by overworked government engineers – with structural steel, rust, primer paint, aluminum cladding, or other “construction materials.” It contains ultra fine grain particles of aluminum and iron oxide, 1000 times smaller than a human hair, “intimately intermixed” and embedded in a matrix of organic material. When it is heated slowly to about 430° C it “goes off ” thermally, producing molten iron in spheroids reminiscent of those found in the dust. Clearly the reaction, triggered at only 430° C, releases enough energy to raise the temperature beyond the melting point of iron (1538° C.). Look Who’s Here Nanothermite could not have been made in a cave in Afghanistan. It was developed in the 1990’s in US national laboratories, and is produced by only a few defense contractors. Some of those same contractors contributed personnel to the NIST investigation of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Very highly placed personnel, in fact, in positions of leadership at NIST: Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nanothermites…. And military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nanogelled explosive materials…. TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels… Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic materials…. Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the focus…. Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials. (Kevin Ryan, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites”, July 2, 2008, Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/ Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf) How did people with such expertise miss all the features of controlled demolition, and the nanothermite in the dust? For them to avoid even discussing the possibility in their 11,500 pages of “final” reports, and to wave it away with a few sentences on their website, is an outrage to science, at a minimum. What About the Twin Towers? The collapses of the WTC Twin Towers represent the worst structural failures in modern history. The official story suggests that the jetliner impacts and resulting fires weakened the structure, resulting in a gravitational collapse. The evidence, most of which was omitted from the NIST report, supports a different conclusion – one that points squarely to a unique type of controlled demolition. A future Republic Magazine article will reveal the surreal details of this additional evidence in the explosive behavior of the building: 1. Rapid onset of destruction Hundreds of Red/Grey chips of “Unignited thermite” in every WTC Dust sample Nano-thermite particle sizes are 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. This material is not made in a cave in Afghanistan South Tower: A very explosive event 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢 􀁈􀁪􀁗􀁨􀁘􀁧􀁞􀁗􀁚􀀕􀁄􀁣􀁡􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀁤􀁧􀀕􀀸􀁖􀁡􀁡􀀕􀀦􀀢􀀭􀀫􀀫􀀢􀀩􀀨􀀬􀀢􀀫􀀪􀀬􀀥 􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫􀀕􀂙􀀕􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚 􀀧􀀪 Before the Stimulus Wipes You Out Buy Gold Now Gold • Silver • Numismatic Coins ~ Family Owned and Operated ~ ~ Fast Confidential Delivery ~ ~ No Computer Records Kept ~ ~ • ~ ~ • ~ Call 800-225-3126 2925 Newmarket, Suite 107 Bellingham, WA 98226 ~ • ~ PACIFIC RIM TRADING 2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light heard and seen by over a hundred first responders before “collapse” 3. Continuous acceleration of the building mass straight down through the path of what was greatest resistance 4. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 feet at 50 mph 5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete 6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 7. 1,200 foot diameter of improbably equal debris distribution 8. Isolated explosive ejections 20-60 stories below demolition waves 9. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 10. No stack of floors found at the base of either tower If powerful insiders had the foreknowledge and technology to rig Building 7 long in advance of the jetliner impacts, the same is true for the Twin Towers. Every American must face his own conscience squarely when confronted with the gruesome evidence of the destruction of these high-rises on 9/11 – especially considering the resulting death of over a million people in the wars that followed, and the loss of many of our precious freedoms through extremely rapid legislation. When you are ready to take action here are a few ideas: a) Educate yourself and others. Send the AE911Truth.org link to every architect and engineer that you can find and everyone else that you know. b) Support AE911Truth.org. Sign the petition, volunteer, and become a sustaining donor. c) Write your local news media and congressional representatives and send them the DVD 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. d) Demand a new, independent investigation. Until the truth about 9/11 is exposed, we are at grave risk for the next “9/11.” Act soon, for we have been told by Dick Cheney, members of Congress, and the media that it will be far worse than the first. Demolition of Building 7 􀀧􀀫 􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀂙􀀕􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫 􀁈􀁪􀁗􀁨􀁘􀁧􀁞􀁗􀁚􀀕􀁄􀁣􀁡􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀁤􀁧􀀕􀀸􀁖􀁡􀁡􀀕􀀦􀀢􀀭􀀫􀀫􀀢􀀩􀀨􀀬􀀢􀀫􀀪􀀬􀀥 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢
5. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, 2009
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 7 1874-4125/09 2009 Bentham Open Open Access Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3 1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite. INTRODUCTION The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance. A great deal of effort has been put forth by various government- sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA 1] and NIST 2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well *Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark; Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: harrit@nano.ku.dk, (SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885; E-mail: Hardevidence@gmail.com publicized but are no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day 3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical material, and on available photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three skyscrapers. The collapses of the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their completeness, their near free-fall speed 11] their striking radial symmetry 1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of fine toxic dust 13] that was generated. In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an attempt to ascertain their compo8 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. sition and properties. The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company 14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 15], McGee et al. 13] and Lioy et al. 16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar 5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in this study have apparently not been discussed in previously published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up operations 17]. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1. Provenance of the Samples Analyzed for this Report In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction 6], a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings. It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig. (1). Fig. (1). Map showing collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2: Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org; copyright terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/2.0/).  

 

    Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 21 A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section). That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 °C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling. 5. Flame/Ignition Tests The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) Fig. (21). Spheroid found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be considered indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron beam. 22 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust. The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive endproduct of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip of the test (including slow-motion) is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_sl ow.mov In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C. DISCUSSION All of the dust samples that were inspected were found to contain red/gray chips. The chips are characterized by a red layer in which XEDS analysis identifies carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon, and iron, and a gray layer in which mainly iron and oxygen are found. The ratios of these ele- Fig. (22). Applying a small torch to a minute red chip (left), followed a few seconds later by ejection of material, producing a horizontal orange streak running toward the operator’s hand (right). (Frames from video of this flame/ignition test). Fig. (23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip from sample 1; some of the porous red material remains; both can be seen in the corresponding SEM image (right).                Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 23 ments appear to be similar especially when this analysis is performed on a clean cross-section of the layers. The BSE imaging also shows the consistency of the red layers by revealing the size and morphology of the particles that are contained in the bulk of the layers. The results clearly show the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four sites. There are a number of questions raised by our results. 1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction? In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings. 2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature? Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris. Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine grain (UFG) aluminum in air 18]. These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives 19-21]. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide: 2Al + Fe2O3 􀀃 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), 􀀂H = 􀀁 853.5 kJ/mole. Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited 6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite” reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as “super-thermite” 20, 22]. We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study. Meanwhile, we compare with products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we have observed that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered. These particles tend to become spherical due to surface tension and, being small, are rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall through the air, thus their spherical shape is preserved. To facilitate comparisons between the products of red/gray chip ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we juxtapose the respective images and XEDS spectra. We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of red chips (Figs. 25, 26) possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of thermite. Images of spheroids XEDS spectra of spheroids Fig. (24). Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum.              24 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue). Fig. (26). Residue of red chip subjected to flame test; XEDS spectrum of left-most microsphere. Fig. (27). Spheres extracted from WTC dust. Fig. (28). XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust.





 30 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio, Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe. We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan, Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage, Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis, Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John Parulis for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial thermite. REFERENCES 1] Federal Emergency Management Authority, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data collection, preliminary observations and recommendations, May 2002, Figure 1-7, Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented damage, pp. 1-9. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from partial mirrored version: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm 2] Sunder S, Grosshandler W, Lew HS, et al. Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD 2005. 3] Gourley JR, McIlvaine B, Jones SE, Ryan K, Gage R. Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 17:1-16. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:

6. Thermite: The Smoking Gun, Sept '09
THERMITE:The Smoking Gun If you are new to the volumes of research that have been compiled on the crimes of 9/11, it will quickly become apparent which parties have made an honest and unbiased attempt to discover the truth about what happened that fateful day and which parties have sought to cover up or ignore evidence damning to the government’s official account. The discovery by an international cadre of scientists of molten iron, pulverized concrete, residual particles from thermitic reactions, and small bi-layered chips in the dust from the area around Ground Zero, should compel the uncorrupted and inquiring mind to follow the scientific method to re-evaluate the presently accepted official theories. An unemotional and unbiased search for the truth would require science, logic, and factual evidence. A systematic approach to researching the matter would strictly adhere to the scientific method. By Michael Schmidt 􀀨􀀥 􀁇􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀀕􀁂􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀂙􀀕􀀾􀁨􀁨􀁪􀁚􀀕􀀦􀀫 􀁈􀁪􀁗􀁨􀁘􀁧􀁞􀁗􀁚􀀕􀁄􀁣􀁡􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀕􀁤􀁧􀀕􀀸􀁖􀁡􀁡􀀕􀀦􀀢􀀭􀀫􀀫􀀢􀀩􀀨􀀬􀀢􀀫􀀪􀀬􀀥 􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀣􀁧􀁚􀁥􀁪􀁗􀁡􀁞􀁘􀁢􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁯􀁞􀁣􀁚􀀣􀁘􀁤􀁢 Heat material that most likely caused the demolition of the buildings. In fact, Underwriters Laboratory whistleblower Kevin Ryan wrote a paper entitled “The Top Ten connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” detailing the extent to which NIST should have been well-acquainted with and likely to study nano-thermites. We can conclude, then, that NIST intentionally did not test for explosive residue, though such testing would have been the prudent and necessary thing to do. Not only that, but since NIST had previously been studying the very particles found in WTC dust by researchers from around the world, it follows that NIST would be interested in these results. Former BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones was one of the original non-federally funded researchers to investigate 9/11 by following the scientific method. His findings were released in his first paper on the subject of the destruction at the WTC, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” which can be found in the June 2006 issue of “The Journal of 9/11 Studies.”10 In this paper, Jones identifies 13 compelling pieces of evidence that support an investigation into controlled demolition, including the presence of pools of and flowing molten metal, extremely high temperatures that could not be present if the government’s official explanation were true, the manner in which towers 1, 2, and 7 collapsed (into their own footprint), and eyewitness reports of flashes, dust from the bottom of the towers before they collapsed, and explosive charges going off on the day. Dr. Jones presents the evidence in a manner that makes it clear that he used the scientific process, particularly to prove the circumstances that must have been present surrounding the molten metal. In the May 2007 issue of “The Journal of 9/11 Studies” Dr. Jones released a paper titled, “Revisiting 9/11/2001 – Applying the Scientific Method.” This paper further stressed the drastic need for scientific investigation with the announced discovery that “iron-aluminum rich spheres are seen in both the WTC dust and in spherules produced in thermite-control reactions.”xi This discovered residue of possible thermitic materials demanded independent confirmation and attention from others in the scientific field. In an attempt to foster a more collaborative research partnership, Dr. Jones, along with four other leading 9/11 scientific researchers, made an attempt to reach out to NIST through their peer-reviewed paper, “Fourteen Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction.”11 NIST ignored this attempt. Continuing his 9/11 research, Steven Jones was joined in his effort to investigate the spherical thermitic residue as well as the unknown red/ gray chips later found in the dust and debris from Ground Zero. Steven Jones, with lead author Niels Harrit and seven other international scientific researchers, released the peer-reviewed paper “‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” which concluded that a thermitic material was in fact present in the dust of WTC 1, 2, & 7.12 The researchers conclude that, “ b]ased on these observations… the red layer of the red/gray chips… in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” If the towers did indeed collapse in the manner in which the government stated in their reports, there is no reason these chips should contain unreacted thermitic material. It would not have been present at all. The fact that it is present should tell NIST that controlled demolition should absolutely have been a point of research in their studies. Scientific research continues using new testing methods to acquire new knowledge, correct and integrate previous knowledge, which support the hypothesis that thermitic materials were involved in the demolition of all three WTC buildings. Independent researchers and activists from all over the world and average Americans from all walks of life will continue in their efforts to obtain an independent investigation to finally get to the bottom of what really happened on September 11, 2001. Government-funded entities, on the other hand, will continue with their own efforts to suppress such knowledge. Who do you trust? Michael Schmidt holds a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from University of Illinois - Urbana/ Champaign, 5+ years engineering and construction management experience, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition signatory. 1 “Scientific Method.” Princeton WordNet Search 3.0. July 2009 2 “Scientific Method.” Wikipedia. July 2009 <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>.
7. World Trade Center Tower A Electrical  
NewCoreTowerElevations-SchematicSections low medium high original, about 200 more here
8. Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust Jim Hoffman   
Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers

by Jim Hoffman Version 1.00, April 3, 2009 Version 1.01, April 9, 2009 Version 1.02, October 23, 2009 Version 1.03, December 7, 2009 Introduction

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.

Contents

Introduction Contents Aluminothermics 101 Composition Reaction Rate Energy Density and Power Density Energetic Nanocomposites Aluminothermics at the WTC Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids Unignited Aluminothermics: Bi-Layered Chips Provenance of the Samples Physical Structure of the Chips Chemical Composition of the Chips Thermal Behavior of the Chips Ignition Residue Analysis Conclusions Discussion FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges? Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires? How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing? Glossary of Analytical Methods References Aluminothermics 101

Image from AmazingRust.com of a simple thermite reaction involving iron oxide and aluminum. This video shows thermite melting through a car. Aluminothermic reactions are a class of energy-releasing oxidation-reduction chemical reactions in which elemental aluminum reduces a compound, typically by stealing the oxygen from a metal oxide. Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar to conventional high explosives.

Backers of the official account of 9/11, including NIST officials, have dismissed evidence that aluminothermics were used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers, claiming that thermite's slow reaction rate makes it an unsuitable tool for demolishing buildings. Despite repeated requests by scientists and researchers to address the potential role of advanced aluminothermic composites with high explosive power, officials have refused to acknowledge such materials.

Composition

2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe The canonical thermite reaction is simple, lacks the aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrogen found in conventional high explosives, and is highly exothermic. The most familiar aluminothermic material is thermite, a mixture of a powdered metallic fuel such as aluminum, and a powdered oxide of another metal such as iron or copper. The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal).

Because oxygen atoms bind more tightly to aluminum atoms than to iron or copper atoms, the reaction releases large amounts of energy and is described as highly exothermic. Whereas primitive thermite preparations release most of their energy as heat, modern preparations, such as found in munitions employed by the US military in recent decades, produce a targeted mix of heat and pressure through an accelerated but controlled reaction rate and the addition of pressure-generating compounds such as hydrocarbons.

ABOVE: Relationship of particle size to reaction rate in thermites BELOW: General relationship of reaction rate to the form of energy released in compositions that have the capacity to be high explosives Reaction Rate

The reaction rate of a thermitic material determines how quickly its aluminum atoms find oxidizer molecules to react with, and therefore how quickly the energy is released. Whereas the energy density of an explosive is determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material, is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the reaction rate increases with the fineness of the metal and oxide powders and the uniformity with which they are mixed.

Because the particle sizes of the reactants must be very small to attain rapid reaction rates, such thermites are often referred to as nano-thermites. Such nano- or "super-thermites" typically have particle diameters on the order of a few hundred nanometers, requiring their synthesis by special methods. The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car's engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite explosive will blow the car apart.

Nano-thermite composite explosives typically embed the metal and oxide particles within a matrix containing compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and silicon. These additional elements generate high gas pressures upon exposure to the thermite reaction, which may be instrumental in imparting high-explosive properties to such materials.

Energy Density and Power Density

material energy density by mass: MJ/KG by volume: MJ/L aluminothermic incendiaries Thermite (Al + Fe2O3) 4.13 18.40 Copper Thermite (Al + CuO) 4.00 20.90 nitro-aromatic explosives TNT (Trinitrotoluene) 4.61 6.92 In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. 1] 2]

Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives -- a classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack. Despite the fact that high-tech aluminothermics have existed and been used by the military since the mid-1990s or earlier, methods of identifying explosive residues at crime scenes are frequently limited to analysis of nitro-aromatic explosives. 3]

Energetic Nanocomposites

The term 'nano-thermite' applied to the unignited thermitic material discovered in World Trade Center dust is potentially misleading because it doesn't capture the complexity and sophistication of this material or its known analogs. Perhaps a better term is energetic nanocomposites, a class of materials that has been used by the military for some time in applications spanning propellants, armor-piercing munitions, and reactive armor. In their diverse roles, energetic nanocomposites fulfill a range of requirements including: "high density, good mechanical properties, low sensitiveness, good stability, low cost, ease of manufacturing, and environmental acceptability." 4] To achieve these requirements, scientists developing advanced aluminothermic materials have learned to embed the fine powders in a carbon- and silicon-rich matrix. Kevin Ryan explains:

The mixing of ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides] is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called "sols", and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting "sol-gel" is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. 5]

Graphic from a DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center) Review publication on advanced energetic materials. Energetic materials such as aluminothermic sol-gels have been an active area of research in the US national labs since the mid-1990s or earlier, including under the auspices of NIST itself -- a fact documented by Kevin Ryan in his extensively footnoted article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites. Also called "metastable intermolecular composites", "nano-structured energetic materials", or just "nanoenergetics", these materials have been the subject of numerous conferences, research papers, and patents in the past two decades. 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] It's also not difficult to find recent published papers on methods of reliably igniting such materials with minute low-power devices described as MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) and manufactured much like conventional integrated circuits. 12] 13] 14] 15] 16] 17] 18] It requires little imagination to grasp how such techniques could be exploited to implement a covert, all-wireless controlled demolition.

Aluminothermics at the WTC

The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers.

Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined.

Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids

Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack. 19]

Two images of iron-rich spheroids from the USGS Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust. 20] Illustration from a damage assessment report prepared for Deutsche Bank, the owners of a skyscraper severely damaged by projectiles from the South Tower. The report was commissioned, in part, to determine the nature and extent of contamination of the building, which is slated for demolition. Although it may be overlooked, the significance of these nearly microscopic iron-rich droplets is not difficult to grasp. Molten iron is one of the two principal products of the thermite reaction, the other being aluminum oxide, which tends to dissipate as an aerosol. The molten iron condenses and solidifies into particles whose size is a function of the thermite's reaction rate. Fast-acting super-thermites produce tiny droplets that become very nearly spherical due to surface tension.

The inescapable fact is that these spheroidal droplets in the WTC dust look exactly like the products of the combustion of nano-thermite explosives, and their discovery in consistently substantial concentrations in diverse samples of dust from the day of the attack weighs heavily against theories that they were generated by something other than the Twin Towers' destruction. Elemental analysis of these droplets described below would show that they are dead ringers for known aluminothermic residues.

In a 2007 paper, Steven Jones described the importance of the iron-rich microspheres. 21]

Dr. Steven E. Jones describing molten metal seen at Ground Zero. As usual, we search for possible prosaic explanations for these metallic spherules in the WTC dust. The most obvious possible source is the melting of large quantities of steel in the buildings followed somehow by formation of tiny droplets of molten steel. As discussed above, however, steel melts at about 1538ºC (2800ºF) – and the temperatures in the buildings were no where near sic] hot enough to melt steel, and certainly not in large quantities required for the amounts seen in the dust (and pouring out of the South Tower before collapse). Furthermore, we have looked at the chemical compositions of a number of iron-rich spherules as well as that of steel, and the compositions are not the same at all. It should not be surprising, however, as we analyze more spherules to find some that are steel-like in composition, assuming that thermite cutter-charges were in fact used to cut through steel. We should then find both steel- and thermite-residue spherules.

Could these droplets be due to molten aluminum alloy (from the jets) striking rusty steel and/or other office materials to somehow generate the iron-rich spheres? We performed experiments with molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel, then onto crushed gypsum and concrete (on the rusty steel) – and observed no formation of iron-rich droplets at all nor any sign of vigorous chemical reactions. After addressing arguments that the iron-rich droplets could have been produced by the rubble pile or clean-up operation -- the dust samples were collected too early and were too distant from the site to have been thus contaminated -- Jones makes a rough estimate of the total quantities of reactants involved in the attack based on the fraction of the dust comprising the iron-rich spheres.

One can estimate the implied amount of thermite needed to generate so many iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust. In a sample of 32.1 grams of WTC dust, I observed with the unaided eye two metallic-looking spheres, in addition to the micron-sized spherules collected using a magnet. The mm-size spheres proved to be iron-aluminum rich. The mass of these two larger spheres (0.012g) found in this sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%. If the mass of the WTC dust was about 30,000 tons, then the iron-rich spherule content would be of the order of ten tons. This is a very rough estimate based on one small sample, and is only provided to give an idea of the amount of thermite-type reactants and products which may be involved here. An investigation well beyond the scope of this paper would look for purchases of aluminum and iron-oxide powders (and sulfur) in multi-ton-quantities prior to 9/11/2001. A paper published a year earlier than Active Thermitic Material Discovered showed that metal-rich spheroids in WTC dust had iron-to-oxygen ratios indicating abundant elemental iron, such as found in thermite residues. It also pointed out several other features of WTC remains that indicated exposure to temperatures far above what could be produced by fires burning jet fuel and office contents, including: iron-rich and silicate spherules, volatilized lead, a molybdenum spherule, and materials with a "Swiss-cheese appearance". 22] Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC.

Unignited Aluminothermics: Bi-Layered Chips

If finding aluminothermic residues in the form of spheroidal micro-droplets was like finding fired bullets at a crime scene, then the discoveries presented in Active Thermitic Material Discovered are like finding the gun loaded with several rounds of unspent ammunition that match the fired bullets.

Fig. 2 from Active Thermitic Material Discovered showing chips from the four different dust samples.

Map of Lower Manhattan showing locations of the four samples (blue points) and the Twin Towers (red points). First described by Steven Jones in late 2007, distinctive chips found in the dust samples had red and gray layers, were weakly attracted to a magnet, and were composed mostly of iron, oxygen, aluminum, silicon, and carbon. Jones and his colleagues subsequently subjected the chips to detailed analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and published their results in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Provenance of the Samples

The paper's findings are based primarily on the analysis of particles derived from four separate samples of dust generated by the destruction of the Twin Towers, samples whose provenance the paper describes in detail. Each of the samples was collected by a different individual who has described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing their sample. Each individual collected dust that had settled directly after the fall of one of the Twin Towers, with the one exception, Janette MacKinlay, who collected dust when allowed to re-enter her apartment a week after it was carpeted with shovel-fulls of dust and debris from the South Tower.

Physical Structure of the Chips

Chips having distinctive and similar physical features were found in all four of the dust samples, ranging in length from from about 0.2 to 3 mm. Each chip has stratified layers of two types: a red layer and a lighter gray layer, where each layer is between roughly 10 and 100 microns in thickness. Despite their small size, the chips are readily visible in the samples because of their flat shapes, distinctive color, and layered structure. The chips are tough despite being as thin as eggshells.

Portions of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5: Two scanning electron microscope images of bi-layered chips. Magnification reveals that the gray layers are composed of an opaque homogeneous material, whereas the red layers have small particles embedded in a matrix of slightly translucent material.

Fig. 9, showing a highly magnified view of the red layer. Note the hexagonal plate-like particles, and the smaller faceted particles, both lighter in color than the porous matrix. At magnification of 50,000 the structure of the two types of particles is clear: small bright particles having a faceted shape and measuring about 100 nm in diameter, and larger particles having a flat and often hexagonal shape and measuring about 1000 nm across and 40 nm thick.

The particles are held in place and in close proximity to each other by the porous matrix. Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, caused the red layer to swell while remaining intact.

Up to this point, I have reviewed only characteristics of the chips revealed by macro- and micro-scopic visual examination, but already the implications are stunning: the chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material. The student of energetic materials will appreciate that this description matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant particles are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a substrate.

Chemical Composition of the Chips

Chemical analysis of the chips relied primarily on performing elemental analysis of the materials and their components using XEDS, and making inferences about the materials' molecular composition based on the distributions of elements in different structures. The paper first examines the gray and red layers, and then zooms in on the components of the red layers.

XEDS spectra of red and gray layers shows a remarkable similarity across the different samples.

Fig. 7: "XEDS spectra obtained from the gray layers from each of the four WTC dust samples ..." Fig. 6: "XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples ..." Whereas the gray layers contain mostly iron and oxygen, the red layers have abundant aluminum as well, and the three elements are in the ratio approximating that of Fe2O3 + Al thermite. Thus, the red layers could be active thermitic material, depending on their molecular composition. If active, the material will have much of its aluminum in a metallic state, unbound to oxygen or silicon.

The authors show that the aluminum is indeed mostly in a pure metallic form, and that much of the oxygen is bound to the iron. They ultimately show this conclusively through elemental analysis of the components of the red layers: the thin hexagonal plates, faceted grains, and embedding matrix revealed by microscopic inspection.

Performing accurate elemental analysis of the red layer components would require some ingenuity. Because the XEDS machine steers an electron beam over a sample's surface to gather information about its elemental composition, it can be used to generate maps of the abundance of different elements over the surface of the sample. However, the particles in the red layer are slightly smaller than what can be resolved by XEDS.

Fig. 10, showing the BSE image and accompanying XEDS maps for Fe, Al, O, Si, and C of a portion of an untreated red layer. Nonetheless, considering the XEDS maps in conjunction with the much higher-resolution SEM images of the corresponding portions of the sample makes clear that the faceted grains are abundant in iron and oxygen and the thin plates are abundant in aluminum. Also, although the distribution of particles in the matrix is precisely homogeneous overall, there are local clumps of grains and of plates, and when the electron beam is focused on these clumps the XEDS detector registers higher concentrations of the constituents of iron oxide and of elemental aluminum, respectively.

To obtain more precise measurements of the elemental compositions of the red layer components using XEDS, those components somehow had to be separated, so that the electron beam could be focused entirely on one component at a time. Perhaps the porous matrix could be dissolved, allowing the particles to be separated by centrifuging. Or better -- as the investigators discovered serendipitously in an earlier experiment to see if the chips dissolved in the paint-dissolving solvent methyl ethyl keytone (MEK) -- the matrix could be expanded by a factor of five while leaving the layer intact, allowing in-situ examination. When the chips were soaked in MEK with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate. Because of these structural changes produced by the MEK soaking, it was possible to make much more accurate XEDS measurements of the elemental compositions of the red layers' components.

Fig. 15, showing the BSE image and accompanying XEDS maps of Fe, Al, O, Si, and C for a red-layer sample soaked in MEK. XEDS maps of a soaked red layers show correlations much more clearly than the untreated material. In particular, oxygen is highly correlated, individually, to iron, silicon, and carbon. Aluminum is inversely correlated to the other elements.

Even more striking are the XEDS spectra found by zooming in on areas having high concentrations of particular elements. The three graphs below show the results of focusing the electron beam on areas with: first, high silicon; second, high aluminum; and third, high iron. The area of high silicon is composed almost entirely of silicon and oxygen, the area of high aluminum has aluminum far out of proportion with the other elements, and the area of high iron is rich in oxygen, where the oxygen and iron atoms are in the same 3-to-2 ratio as in the thermite oxidizer Fe2O3.

A collage of Figs. 16, 17, and 18, whose captions read, in the order of the back- to front-most graphs: "XEDS spectrum from a silicon-rich region on the porous red matrix of the MEK-treated red material" "XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the region of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip", and "XEDS spectrum obtained from a probe of the region of high iron concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip acquired with a 15 kV beam", respectively. The authors draw the obvious conclusions from their elemental analysis of components of the red layers: the aluminum-rich particles are mostly elemental aluminum, with the relatively small quantities of oxygen being accounted for by an oxide layer on the particles' surfaces; the iron-rich particles are primarily oxygen and iron, probably in the form of the oxidizer Fe2O3 which matches the observed 3:2 ratio of oxygen to iron atoms; and the matrix is composed almost entirely of silicon, oxygen, and carbon, where most of the carbon was washed away by the MEK. The matrix also may contain hydrogen, which is not detected by XEDS analysis.

Given the data in Active Thermitic Material Discovered I summarize the composition of the chips as follows:

gray layer: a hard homogeneous ceramic composition: iron and oxygen red layer: an engineered nano-composite substance, comprising: matrix: a nano-structured semi-transparent porous material composition: silicon, oxygen, and carbon particles: homogeneously embedded in the matrix and consisting of: thin predominantly hexagonal plates dimensions: ~40nm thickness, ~1000nm diameter composition: mostly aluminum, with small amounts of carbon and oxygen rhombic faceted grains dimensions: ~100nm diameter composition: mostly iron and oxygen, probably as Fe2O3, with small amounts of silicon, sulfur, and carbon Thermal Behavior of the Chips

The structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that, in every relevant aspect, they fit the description of an engineered thermitic nanocomposite. This prompts the obvious question: do the chips have the thermal characteristics of an explosive aluminothermic material?

Although it might be difficult or impossible to measure the explosive power of the chips, given their minute size, it is possible to measure their exothermic behavior and thereby calculate their energy density using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), a device that gradually increases the temperature of a sample and records the amount of heat it absorbs or emits as a function of temperature.

Fig. 19 compares the DSC traces of a chip from each of the four samples. A DSC trace is an approximate graph of energy density with respect to temperature, the height of the trace indicating the rate at which the sample's material absorbs or emits thermal energy. DSC traces of energetic materials such as incendiaries and explosives have a characteristic shape that remains near zero up to a certain temperature range -- the ignition temperature -- and thereafter spikes sharply upward. The energy density of the material can be estimated by calculating the area under the curve.

Chips from each of the four samples, when subjected to thermal analysis using the DSC, clearly show the exothermic behavior of an energetic material. As seen in Fig. 19, the heights of the graphs vary significantly from one chip to the next. The authors attribute this variation to the fact that the chips had different ratios of active red material to inert gray material.

Based on the DSC analysis, the authors estimate the energy density of the four chips at 1.5, 3, 6, and 7.5 kJ/g, respectively. This compares with a maximum yield from conventional thermite of slightly less than 4 kJ/g. In a final section of the paper underscoring the need for further research into the red-gray chips, the authors suggest a possible explanation for the exceptional energy content of the red-layer material: perhaps elements in the porous matrix, such as oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, contribute to the reaction.

Fig. 29, labeled "DSC trace of sample 1 (blue line) compared with DSC of xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite (from Tillotson et al. 28]). Both DSC traces show completion of reaction at temperatures below 560ºC". A comparison of DSC traces of the red-gray chips to a published DSC trace from an xerogel/nano-thermite energetic nanocomposite shows the chips to be more energetic and to have a lower ignition temperature.

Ignition Residue Analysis

Because DSC processing causes the chips to ignite, the investigators studied the residues and found, not surprisingly, minute iron-rich spheroids, as well as silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected to XEDS analysis, the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen, as expected in an aluminothermic residue.

The paper contains the following micrographs and corresponding XEDS spectra of spheroids from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips, and World Trade Center dust.

Fig. 24: "Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XDS spectrum"

Fig. 25: "Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum ..."

Fig. 27 and 28: "Spheres extracted from WTC dust" and "XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust" Conclusions

I hope that my review of Active Thermitic Material Discovered, being summary and somewhat interpretive, will serve as encouragement to read the paper itself, which, as scientific papers go, is remarkably accessible. The paper's conclusions -- a clear and cogent summary of the results -- are reproduced here in their entirety:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. 4,6] The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing. On treatment with methyl-ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components was observed. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430ºC, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900ºC) but very likely a form of super-thermite. After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and of many of the micro-spheres found in the WTC dust. 5] The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of this organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction. Discussion

The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.

That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .

I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. "Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?

As the work of explaining away the direct evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient such workability arguments are:

That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too prone to exposure. That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers' crash zones was technically unfeasible. That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition. These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their continued repetition -- including by NIST itself -- after being publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the existence of explosive variants of thermite.

FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics

With the publication of Active Thermitic Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most frequently-heard questions about the implementation of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers -- answers that thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions using aluminothermics was not feasible.

Following are the three arguments listed above re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active Thermitic Material Discovered.

How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?

As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?

Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 900ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?

The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

Glossary of Analytical Methods

An electron microscope equipped with an EDAX GENESIS 2000 X-Ray Microanalysis System.

EDS spectrum of a yellow paint sample, from ModernMicroscopy.com. EDS spectra allow the easy identification of the most abundant elements in a sample, while requiring some analysis to estimate relative quantities. BSE: Backscattered Electron imaging A method of SEM imaging based on the detection of scattering of the electron beam.

DSC: Differential Scanning Calorimetry A technique that determines the difference in the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of an experimental sample and reference. A differential scanning calorimeter outputs a DSC trace which shows the relationship of heat flux to temperature, and thereby exothermic or endothermic behavior of the sample. 23]

SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy A type of electron microscopy in which a beam of high-energy electrons scans the surface to a sample to image its structure or composition.

XEDS: X-ray Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy A technique for determining the elemental composition of a sample using an instrument that analyzes the spectrum of emitted X-rays from a sample as a beam of high energy electrons is directed onto its surface. 24]

A single workstation may provide integrated BSE and XEDS capabilities using SEM equipment fitted with specialized BSE and XEDS detectors, where software controls the electron beam, sample positioning, and detector parameters.

References

1. Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives, llnl.gov, cached] 2. Daniel Tappmeyer studies how nanoparticles can be used for quick ― but controlled ― energy release, undergradresearch.missouri.edu, cached] 3. Analysis of Trace Residues of Explosive Materials by Time-of-Flight LC/MS, www.chem.agilent.com, 3/16/2005 cached] 4. Advanced Energetic Materials: New Energetic Materials, National Academic Press, cached] 5. The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, 7/2/2008 6. Reactive Projectiles Comprised of Metastable Intermolecular Composites, lanl.gov, cached] 7. Energy dense explosives, USPTO.gov, cached] 8. Inorganic metal oxide/organic polymer nanocomposites and method thereof, USPTO.gov, cached] 9. Nano-scale energetic materials fabrication, characterization and molecular modeling, European Materials Research Society, cached] 10. Formation of Nanostructured Energetic Materials via Modified Sol-Gel Synthesis, mrs.org, cached] 11. Metastable intermolecular composite, en.wikipedia.org, cached] 12. On-Chip Initiation and Burn Rate Measurements of Thermite Energetic Reactions, mrs.org, cached] 13. Unique Porous Copper Structure Enables New Generation Of Military ..., sciencedaily.com, 14. Integrated thin film explosive micro-detonator, www.dodtechmatch.com/, 15. Military eyes MEMS weapons detonators that could be fabbed on IC lines, pennwellblogs.com, 16. MEMS microdetonator/initiator apparatus for a MEMS fuze, USPTO.gov, 17. In-plane MEMS thermal actuator and associated fabrication methods, USPTO.gov, 18. Method and system for making integrated solid-state fire-sets and detonators, USPTO.gov, 19. Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property, RJ LeeGroup, Inc., 12/2003 cached] 20. Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, pubs.usgs.gov, cached] 21. Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method, JournalOf911Studies.com, 22. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, JournalOf911Studies.com, 23. Differential Scanning Calorimeters, tainstruments.com, cached] 24. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDAX), AmazingRust.com,

 

9. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 7 1874-4125/09 2009 Bentham Open Open Access Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3 1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite. INTRODUCTION The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance. A great deal of effort has been put forth by various government- sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA 1] and NIST 2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well *Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark; Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: harrit@nano.ku.dk, (SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885; E-mail: Hardevidence@gmail.com publicized but are no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day 3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical material, and on available photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three skyscrapers. The collapses of the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their completeness, their near free-fall speed 11] their striking radial symmetry 1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of fine toxic dust 13] that was generated. In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an attempt to ascertain their compo8 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. sition and properties. The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company 14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 15], McGee et al. 13] and Lioy et al. 16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar 5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in this study have apparently not been discussed in previously published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up operations 17]. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1. Provenance of the Samples Analyzed for this Report In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction 6], a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings. It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig. (1). Fig. (1). Map showing collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2: Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org; copyright terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/2.0/).  

Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 9 The earliest-collected sample NewsFollowUp.com came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony 17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape 17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7, which fell hours later. On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of 1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm). Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and, on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis. Another sample was collected from the apartment building at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008 for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit) sample; he wrote: “This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’ World Trade Center Towers, was collected from my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission to use my name in connection to this evidence”. Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence of a witness who also signed his name]. On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006 paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November 2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms. MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored. She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report. Another dust sample was collected by an individual from a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore his material is not included in this study. That sample, however, contained red/gray chips of the same general composition as the samples described here. 2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/ Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center destruction. An FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to perform secondary-electron (SE) imaging and backscattered electron (BSE) imaging. The SE imaging was used to look at the surface topography and porosity of the red/gray chips, while the BSE imaging was used to distinguish variations in average atomic number, Z. The microscope was also equipped with an EDAX X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) system. The XEDS system uses a silicon detector (SiLi) with resolution better than 135 eV. The spectrum resolution was set to 10 eV per channel. Operating conditions for the acquired XEDS spectra were 20 keV beam energy (unless otherwise specified) and 40-120 second acquisition time (livetime). XEDS maps were acquired using the same system at a beam energy of 10 keV. For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples were mounted to carbon conductive tabs. The samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified. In order to more closely observe the characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles, several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then studied by BSE imaging and XEDS. 10 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Some samples were also tested in a differential scanning calorimeter (Netzsch DSC 404C) to measure heat flow into or out of the red/gray chips. The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C. During heating, the samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating. The plots were generated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points per °C or 200 points per minute. The equipment was calibrated to display the data in watts per gram. The plots were set to display positive heat flow out of the sample such that exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endothermic behavior a trough. The dust samples were also examined by visible-light microscopy (VLM) through a Nikon Epiphot 200 stereomicroscope, an Olympus BX60 stereomicroscope and a Nikon Labophot microscope and camera. RESULTS 1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips. Fig. (2) displays photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. Note the scale marker in each image as they were acquired at different magnifications. At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7 mg. All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. The inset image in Fig. (2d) shows the chip in cross section, which reveals the gray layer. The gray layer is also partially visible in Fig. (2b). Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs. Fig. (3) shows three images for comparison of views of the same set of chips using different methods. Fig. (3a) is a VLM photomicrograph of a group of particles, which shows the red material and in some cases the adhering gray material. Fig. (3b, c) are, respectively, a secondary electron (SE) image and a backscattered electron (BSE) image of the same group of particles, using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) without a conductive coating over the sample. It can be seen in the SE image that the red layer of the particles has very bright regions caused by a slight accumulation of charge under the electron beam, owing to the relatively poor conductivity of the red layer (see Discussion section). The BSE image shows the red layer darker than the gray layer, Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 11 indicating that the red layer is composed of material that has a relatively lower average atomic number than the gray layer. A higher-magnification BSE image of the corner of one of the chips, shown in Fig. (4), allows for closer examination of the difference in grayscale intensity of the two layers and confirms the higher average atomic number of the gray layer. The red material also shows specks and other heterogeneities, in marked contrast to the smooth gray layer. Newly fractured cross sections of red/gray chips from the four different dust samples are shown by BSE imaging in Fig. (5). These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples. The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. The size and presence of the particles was found to be consistent throughout the layers, but the concentration of the particles was found to vary locally, as can be seen from the images. Fig. (3). A series of images of the same group of particles extracted by magnet from sample 2. The color photomicrograph in (a), obtained by VLM, locates and identifies the red/gray particles. An SE image (b) acquired by SEM gives a better indication of size and shape of the particles, and a BSE image (c) shows, by grayscale intensity, the difference in average atomic number between the red layer, gray layer and other dust particles. Fig. (4). Higher magnification BSE image of one of the chips in previous image. The red layer appears darker and is on top of the gray layer. 

        ! "      # 12 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and a significant carbon (C) peak as well. At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8). The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to about 1 micron across. Furthermore, by comparing the BSE image in Fig. (8a) to the SE image in Fig. (9), it can be seen that all of the particles are embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE intensity. XEDS maps of the cross-section surface of the red layer were acquired at a beam energy of 10 kV. The acquisition area of the maps is shown by the BSE image in Fig. (10a). The XEDS maps, several of which are shown in Fig. (10b-f), indicate by color, the degree to which the particular element is present at or near the surface from point to point across the area. The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both. The carbon map appears less definitive, that is, it does not appear to be associated with a particular particle or group of particles, but rather with the matrix material. In order to learn more from these findings, a focused electron beam was placed directly onto the different particles, and the XEDS data were collected. By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired Fig. (5). BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The cross sections from sample 2 (b) and 4 (d) also show the adhering gray layer. 78 7%8 7#8 78

            18 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. oxygen may not accompany it commensurately. To confirm and to quantify these observations, XEDS spectra (subsequent plots) were acquired from specific regions of high Si, Al and Fe concentrations. Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically. The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles. Fig. (15). (a) BSE image and (b)-(f) accompanying XEDS maps from the red layer of the chip which was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours. The maps for (b) Fe, (c) Al, (d) O, (e) Si, and (f) C are shown. Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 19 Fig. (16). XEDS spectrum from a silicon-rich region on the porous red matrix of the MEK-treated red material. Fig. (17). XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the region of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip. Next a region of particularly high iron concentration was analyzed, yielding the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig. (18). Fig. (18). XEDS spectrum obtained from a probe of the region of high iron concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip, acquired with a 15 kV beam. Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK solvent (Fig. 15), and in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is found relative to iron. Based on quantification of the XEDS spectra, and after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace elements, it is found that the Fe:O ratio for the spectrum in Fig. (18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is oxidized and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that Fe2O3, or perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present. To check the quantification method, tests were performed with the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the elementalquantification was found to yield consistent and repeatable results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made eight 50- second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found consistency for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1 sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected. The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite. However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic. 3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip. 4. Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope, and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20). The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide 5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction occurred. Using back-scattered electron (BSE) imaging, spheres were selected in the post-DSC residue which appeared to be rich in iron. An example is shown in Fig. (21) along with the corresponding XEDS spectrum for this sphere. - )  0       6 : 9 < = > ;    / )0        

                20 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Fig. (19). Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) traces for four red/gray chip samples found in World Trade Center dust collections. Fig. (20). Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns.                             

  

    Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 21 A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section). That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 °C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling. 5. Flame/Ignition Tests The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) Fig. (21). Spheroid found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be considered indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron beam. 22 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust. The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive endproduct of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip of the test (including slow-motion) is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_sl ow.mov In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C. DISCUSSION All of the dust samples that were inspected were found to contain red/gray chips. The chips are characterized by a red layer in which XEDS analysis identifies carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon, and iron, and a gray layer in which mainly iron and oxygen are found. The ratios of these ele- Fig. (22). Applying a small torch to a minute red chip (left), followed a few seconds later by ejection of material, producing a horizontal orange streak running toward the operator’s hand (right). (Frames from video of this flame/ignition test). Fig. (23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip from sample 1; some of the porous red material remains; both can be seen in the corresponding SEM image (right).                Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 23 ments appear to be similar especially when this analysis is performed on a clean cross-section of the layers. The BSE imaging also shows the consistency of the red layers by revealing the size and morphology of the particles that are contained in the bulk of the layers. The results clearly show the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four sites. There are a number of questions raised by our results. 1. How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction? In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings. 2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature? Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris. Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine grain (UFG) aluminum in air 18]. These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives 19-21]. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide: 2Al + Fe2O3 􀀃 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), 􀀂H = 􀀁 853.5 kJ/mole. Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited 6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite” reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as “super-thermite” 20, 22]. We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study. Meanwhile, we compare with products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we have observed that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered. These particles tend to become spherical due to surface tension and, being small, are rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall through the air, thus their spherical shape is preserved. To facilitate comparisons between the products of red/gray chip ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we juxtapose the respective images and XEDS spectra. We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of red chips (Figs. 25, 26) possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of thermite. Images of spheroids XEDS spectra of spheroids Fig. (24). Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum.              24 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue). Fig. (26). Residue of red chip subjected to flame test; XEDS spectrum of left-most microsphere. Fig. (27). Spheres extracted from WTC dust. Fig. (28). XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust.  - )  0  )     6 : 9 < = > ; 3         

                  ! "# $ %$ #!                    



              Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 25 In addition to the red/gray chips, many small spheres have been found by our group in the WTC dust. These contain the same elements as the residue of thermite, as noted in a previous paper 5]. We show spheres found in the WTC dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from such a sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare these results with those found for ignition of commercial thermite and for ignition of red/gray chips (above). 3. Could the Red Material Be Unreacted “Super- Thermite”? We have noted that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary when ignited. However, when the ingredients are ultrafine- grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively 20]. Thus, there is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or “super-thermite,” composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon 19-28]. “Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum and metal oxides can be significantly greater than those observed with traditional micron-size thermite powders. Reactions occurring between metal and metal oxide powders are accompanied by the generation of high temperatures (>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result in energy release rate by two orders of magnitude higher than similar mixtures consisting of micron size reactants” 22]. The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)). Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader trace than super-thermite 21]. All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains. 4. Did the Technology to Make Highly Exothermic Nanocomposites Exist Prior to 9/11/2001? We find the answer in a report by Gash et al. dated April 2000, seventeen months before the tragedy: “Nanostructured composites are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm. Energetic nanocomposites are a class of material that have both a fuel and oxidizer component intimately mixed and where at least one of the component phases meets the size definition. A sol-gel derived pyrotechnic is an example of an energetic nanocomposite, in which metal-oxide nanoparticles react with metals or other fuels in very exothermic reactions. The fuel resides within the pores of the solid matrix while the oxidizer comprises at least a portion of the skeletal ma- Fig. (29). DSC trace of sample 1 (blue line) compared with DSC of xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite (from Tillotson et al. 28]). Both DSC traces show completion of reaction at temperatures below 560 °C.                               









                 # $  ! "     %%   % #&&'    26 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. trix.” “As an example, energetic nanocomposites of FexOy and metallic aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be readily ignited” 19]. We gather that the technology to make materials remarkably fitting the characterization of the red chips was available by April 2000. In the same report, the scientists noted that “polymers” can be added to the nanocomposite: “This sol-gel method allows for the addition of insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon gelation. Al metal (as a fine powder, ~6μm diameter) was added to some FexOy gel syntheses just before gelation to produce FexOy /Al(s) pyrotechnic nanocomposites…. These nanocomposites were subsequently processed to make both a xerogel and aerogel of the material…. The pyrotechnic nanocomposite can be ignited using a propane torch” 19]. Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed 29]. A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time: The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided a good representation of the breadth of work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10 years old.… At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management 20]. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level. 5. Can Super-Thermite be Handled Safely? The April 2000 report by Gash et al. states: “The nature of the wet nanocomposites also affords an additional degree of safety. In our hands, the wet pyrotechnic nanocomposites cannot be ignited until the drying process is complete. This property should allow the production of a large quantity of the pyrotechnics that can be stored safely for some time and dried shortly before its use” 19]. Safe handling of the malleable sol-gel material allows easy coating of surfaces (such as steel), which the same group, in a subsequent report, says they have achieved. “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dipcoat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe2O3/Al/Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film.” “We have prepared fine powders, pressed pellets, cast monoliths, and thin films of the hybrid inorganic/ organic energetic nanocomposite” 25]. Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction. We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction. While the application of a thin film might have suited specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting. The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive. Clapsaddle et al. further noted in their report: “These results indicate that under ambient conditions the hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite is very stable to impact, is spark insensitive, and only very slightly friction sensitive. As noted in the Experimental section of this report, in our hands wet hybrid nanocomposites are safe to handle and difficult to thermal sic] ignite. However, once dry the material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species” 24]. The organic component contributes to the rapid gas evolution and explosive nature of these energetic superthermites when dry 24]. “Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition” 30]. It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 27 similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust. With regard to the safety of super-thermite matches, the Los Alamos announcement notes: “Unfortunately, conventional electric matches use lead containing compounds that are extremely sensitive to impact, friction, static, and heat stimuli, thereby making them dangerous to handle. In addition, these compounds produce toxic smoke. The Super-Thermite electric matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition. They can be designed to create various thermal-initiating outputs—simple sparks, hot slag, droplets, or flames—depending on the needs of different applications” 30]. 6. What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives? A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials 21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)). It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g 27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive 6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component. 7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint? We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula: Specific resistivity = RA / L where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L = thickness (m). Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m 31]. Another test, described above, involved subjection of red chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent. Further, we have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across) in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite composite. Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the pro- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Energy (kJ) HMX TNT TATB Al/Fe2O3 WTC Chip 1 WTC Chip 2 WTC Chip 3 WTC Chip 4 Energy by volume (kJ/cc) Energy by mass (kJ/g) Fig. (30). Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, 21] and energy release by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. 28 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. duction of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in Fig. (20) above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses. 8. What Future Studies are Contemplated? We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material. We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers. In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32). Fig. (31). Photomicrograph of a red/gray chip found in sample 3, showing multiple layers and an unusual light-gray layer between the red layers. The red-mesoporous material is on the left in this view, with the touching dark-gray layer next and a lighter-gray material on the right as seen in a photograph of the same chip (right hand image in Fig. (32)). The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig. (33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6). Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material. One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers, remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments. Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot. This chip had been treated in MEK solvent so that the red layer has expanded and porosity is evident.                Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 29 Fig. (33). XEDS spectrum for gray layer which touches the red layer of the chip shown above. No red/gray chips having the characteristics delineated here were found in dust generated by controlled demolition using conventional explosives and methods, for the Stardust Resort & Casino in Las Vegas (demolished 13 March 2007) and the Key Bank in Salt Lake City (demolished 18 August 2007). Of course, we do not assume that the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers occurred conventionally. The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches 30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues 11]. CONCLUSIONS We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics: 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper. 2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing. 3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material. 4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite. 5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not. 6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite. 7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite. 8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction. 9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust 5]. 10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction. Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

    

 30 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio, Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe. We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan, Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage, Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis, Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John Parulis for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial thermite. REFERENCES 1] Federal Emergency Management Authority, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data collection, preliminary observations and recommendations, May 2002, Figure 1-7, Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented damage, pp. 1-9. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from partial mirrored version: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm 2] Sunder S, Grosshandler W, Lew HS, et al. Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD 2005. 3] Gourley JR, McIlvaine B, Jones SE, Ryan K, Gage R. Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 17:1-16. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf 4] Ryan KR, Gourley JR, Jones SE. Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials. Environmentalist 2009; 29(1): 56-63. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ 5] Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf 6] Jones SE. Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse? J 9/11 Studies 2006; 3: 1-47. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf 7] Roberts G, Jones V. Robertson: a physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 10: 1-37. Accessed February 7, 2008]. Available from: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones- RobertsonTranscript.pdf 8] Jones SE. Revisiting 9/11 – applying the scientific method. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 11: 55-82. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf 9] Legge F, Szamboti T. 9/11 and the twin towers: sudden collapse initiation was impossible. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 18: 1-3. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf 10] Gourley J. Discussion of ‘mechanics of progressive collapse: learning from World Trade Center and building demolitions’ by Ba􀀃ant ZP, Mathieu V. J Eng Mech 2008; 134(10): 915-16. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000134000010000915000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes 11] Jones SE, Legge FM, Ryan KR, Szamboti AF, Gourley JR. Fourteen points of agreement with official government reports on the World Trade Center destruction. Open Civil Eng J 2008; 2: 35-40. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM 12] Hoffman J. The Demolition-Like symmetry of the Twin Towers’ falls. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html 13] McGee JK, Chen LC, Cohen MD, et al. Chemical analysis of world trade center fine particulate matter for use in toxicologic assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2003; 111: 972-80. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html 14] Lee RJ Group. WTC dust signature report, composition and morphology. December 2003. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WT C%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf 15] Lowers HA, Meeker GP. Particle atlas of World Trade Center dust. September 2005; Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html 16] Lioy PJ, Weisel CP, Millette JR, et al. Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in lower manhattan after the collapse of the WTC 11. September 2001. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110(7): 703-14. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html 17] Delessio F, Breidenbach T. Videotaped testimonies at Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA, December 2007. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250 , start at timestamp 34:54. 18] Sun J, Pantoya ML, Simon SL. Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of aluminum nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO3. Thermochim Acta 2006; 444(2): 117-27. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4JRVFRD- 2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb52f0f9dbc4 aa13bc6fc39e223afa2f 19] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15007525 20] Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf 21] Gash AE, Satcher JH, Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: 55-66. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115856&action=detail 22] Puszynski JA. Reactivity of nanosized Aluminum with metal oxides and water vapor. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: AA6.4.1. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115976&action=detail 23] Puszynski JA, Swiatkiewicz JJ. Research Topic: Investigation of Ignition Characteristics of Heterogeneous Strongly Exothermic Reactions. Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Current Projects. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://ret.sdsmt.edu/projectdescr.htm 24] Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115879&action=detail 25] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Satcher JH. Energetic nanocomposites with sol-gel chemistry: Synthesis, safety, and characterization. LLNL UCRL-JC- 146739, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 2002. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 31 26] Zhao L, Clapsaddle BJ, Satcher JH, Jr, Schaefer DW, Shea KJ. Integrated chemical systems: the simultaneous formation of hybrid nanocomposites of iron oxide and organo silsesquioxanes. Chem Mater 2005; 17(6): 1358-66. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/cmatex/2005/17/i06/abs/cm048231i.html 27] Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D, et al. Formulation and performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators prepared by sol–gel methods. LLNL UCRL-PROC–210871, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; March 2005; Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf 28] Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non- Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-435KKJV- 2G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=96168ef14a 007c2cc1dee1667b0d1b2f 29] Bandyopadhyay A, de Sarkar M, Bhowmick AK. Polymer-filler interactions in sol-gel derived polymer/silica hybrid nanocomposites. J Polym Sci Part B. Polym Phys 2005; 43(17): 2399-412. Accessed August 4, 2008]. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110572549/abstract 30] R&D Awards. super-thermite electric matches. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf 31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/1280440604.html Received: August 12, 2008 Revised: February 10, 2009 Accepted: February 13, 2009 © Harrit et al.; Licensee Bentham Open. This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http: //creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/ 3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

 

10 Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint
By Niels H. Harrit, May 2009
WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT Niels Harrit, May 09 It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC collapse catastrophe1 could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE PRIMER PAINT The primer paint applied to the steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D.2 The primer paint is red/orange and was originally applied in order to protect the steel against corrosion. Examples of typical beams are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 1. M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98) from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2. 2 Figure 2. Perimeter columns in WTC towers. From NIST. The color is due to the pigments in the paint. Iron oxide is red and zinc chromate (”zinc yellow”) is – well - bright lemon yellow (Figure 3). Figure 3. Composition of primer paint from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2. 3 Since the ”vehicle” is obviously fluid, the values for the ingredients in it must refer to the paint before application in percentage by weight. Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4: Figure 4 Extract from Material Safety Data Sheet for Tnemec pigment.3 Talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. The content of calcium silicates and aluminates is inexact and the relative contribution of aluminates is not specified. Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was: Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 – 10 % Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % Mineral spirits: 7.6 % After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint. 4 That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the pertinent ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen): Component Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 % Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 – 10 % 12 – 17 % Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % 3.3 – 5.5 % Table 1. Pertinent components of primer paint corrected for solvent evaporation. COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY CHIPS The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode.1 Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1. 5 Figure 5. SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) spectra from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips. Left: Figure 7 in Harrit et al.1, showing the four different samples investigated. Right: The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium. In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!). 6 Figure 6. SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) from unbroken chip before soaking in MEK. The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate). The signals from zinc and chromium could be from a surface contamination with primer paint. Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1). It should also be noticed, that the only possible source of aluminum in the primer paint is the rather vague reference to ”calcium silicates or aluminates” in 3.3 – 5.5 % presence. Without attempting any quantitative estimates (not a trivial matter in XEDS), it is still very hard to accept this component as the source of the bright-and-clear signals for aluminum from the red phase of the red/gray chips. THERMAL STABILITY OF PRIMER PAINT NIST was interested in the thermal response of the primer paint since examination of the condition on the recovered steel beams could be indicative of the temperatures they had been exposed to. NIST carried out temperature studies on selected beams and made the following observations.2 The paint is unaffected to temperatures up to 250 C (Figure 7a). At higher temperatures the paint starts showing ”mud-cracks” as they can be seen in Figure 7b (left). This fracture is due to the different expansion coefficients of the steel and the paint. It gets worse at 650 C (Figure 7, right) at which temperature black ”scales” (layers) begin to form 7 between the paint and the steel (Figure 8). NIST took the samples beyond 800 C at which temperature the scale formation and peeling off of the paint from the steel was prevailing. One may hypothesize that formation of the black scales is due to charring of the organic binder. Figure 7. Left: Primer paint on exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 C (panel a) and beyond (panel b). Right: Exposure of primer paint on steel to 650 C for 1 hr 8 Figure 8. From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2 showing formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 C. Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 C. COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 C, since the residues from molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9). Figure 9. Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument.1 CONCLUSION The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent. The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST. 9 REFERENCES (1) Harrit, N.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K.; Legge, F.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J.; Larsen, B. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Chemical Physics Open Journal 2009, 2, 7-31. (2) NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf (3) http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf
11,  Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
 
12.  Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst
Mysteries of the Twin Towers A Survey of Available Evidence On the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers R. Herbst; BAAE, ME Rev. 12.0 February 2009 The WTC Complex 1] Thanks to Eric Hufschmid, Dave McGowan, and the webmaster of serendipity.li for explicit permission in the posting of images. Thanks to Sami Yli-Karjanmaa for corrections to the text in discussing his 9/11 activism. Special thanks to Connie Eichenlaub for help in text editing up through version 11. Background According to media reports, American Airlines Boeing 767 Flight 11 crashed between floors 94 and 98 of the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. The North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m. According to media reports, United Airlines Boeing 767 Flight 175 crashed between floors 78 and 85 of the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. Crash and collapse times are based on seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. US Department of State times were essentially identical, except time of collapse of the South Tower was given as 10:05 a.m., rather than 9:59 a.m. According to the State Department, 92 people were on board Flight 11, and 64 people were on board Flight 175. 2] Architect Minoru Yamasaki was commissioned to design the World Trade Center with the New York firm of Emery Roth and Sons. Structural engineers John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson (WSH&J), the Seattle based World Class structural engineering Firm of Record, worked on the project. This firm is responsible for the structural design of many major modern structures, including Columbia Center in Seattle. 3] Some sources have suggested the new “tubular” design of the WTC Towers made them structurally suspect 4]. Others have suggested the WTC towers were otherwise “vulnerable.” 5] However, their “tubular” design creates a very strong and resilient structure, and continues to be very successful. 6] The horrific “collapse” of 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the “Twin Towers”, was the key event of the attacks which has provided the Bush administration almost limitless power to do as it pleases, merely by invoking the phrase "Remember 9/11". That power was solidified by the passage of S.J. Resolution 23 on September 14, 2001, authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 7] We now have perpetual war, wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, the “Unitary Executive”, the Military Tribunal Act (which effectively creates an American dictatorship), billions in profits for the military industries, and world-wide angst. So, why did the towers collapse? By now, six years later, we should have a definitive answer, but we do not. We have the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) study, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Performance Assessment (FEMA BPA), the Silverstein reports, the 9/11 Commission Report; the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) reports, the so called “Purdue Study,” and ARUP commentary. Although these reports vary in details, and in some cases contradict one another, what we finally have is the Official Story, quoted verbatim by the US media: the impact of commercial aircraft and the ensuing fire caused by aircraft fuel led to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the North and South World Trade Center Towers, on September 11, 2001. The truth of the Official Story has never been proven but has been implicitly assumed by all of the “Official” investigation reports. David Ray Griffin’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions discusses this concept as applied to the 9/11 Commission Report. 8] This paper does not presume to know what happened on 9/11. It merely collects and organizes available information. Although some analysis is provided, it is up to the reader to decide what it means. Section 8 provides a brief list of relevant questions. (Please note that a lot of information is provided in the end notes, which appear in a separate file. Also note that mainstream articles are disappearing from internet archives, so links to original articles may not work. This is especially true for the New York Times. In these cases, links to copies of the articles are provided wherever possible. ) Similar studies on 9/11 aircraft may be available at http://seattle911visibilityproject.org/911_aircraft.htm Contents at a glance: 1.0 The Case for Controlled Demolition 1.1 First experts suggest explosives were used. 1.2 Explosives Considered 1.2.1 Problems with the Dust 1.2.2 North Tower Antenna and “upper block” 1.2.3 Symmetrical, quickly, completely 1.2.4 Sliced Steel 1.2.5 Squibs 1.2.6 Ejected material 1.2.7 Molten metal in the Basements for weeks 1.2.8 Surface Hot Spots 1.2.9 Vaporized Steel 1.2.10 Massive Destruction 1.2.11 Afterglow 1.2.12 Vaporized Humans? 2.0 Eye and Ear Witness Reports 2.1 Suppression of Photographic Evidence? 2.2. Reports of explosions. 2.2.1 Reports of explosions prior to aircraft impact and/or emanating from lower floors 2.2.2 Reports of explosions probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse. 2.2.3 Unexpected Damage on the 22nd floor, lobby, and basement of N. Tower probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse 2.2.4 Reports of explosions and tower swaying at the time of collapse. 2.3 Reports of explosions by members of the NYC Fire Department 2.3.1 Attempt to Discredit NYFD? 2.3.2 Statements going directly to the media 2.3.3 Real time audiotapes of communication between rescue services during the attacks 2.3.4 Interviews and Oral Histories taken after the attacks 3.0 How does the seismic data fit in? 3.1 The Earthquakes 3.2 Is the seismic record consistent with NIST conclusions? 3.3 Seismic activity at time of aircraft impact 4.0 WTC Security 4.1 Insurance 4.2 Damage to FBI Offices 4.3 Anomalies leading up to the Day 4.4 Security firms 4.5 A note on “Urban Renewal” of the Twin Towers 5.0 History and its Revision 5.1 The History of Fire Induced Collapse of Steel Buildings 5.2.0 The First Wave of Politically Correct Revisionist Theories 5.2.1 Fire Theory 5.2.2 Steel Melted By Heat 5.2.3 Steel Weakened By Heat 5.2.4 Refutation of Early Fire and Heat Theories. 5.2.5 The Problem of a Completely Symmetrical collapse 5.2.6 Pancake Theory 5.3.0 The FEMA Building Performance Assessment (BPA) 5.3.1 Executive Summary 5.3.2 Deepest mystery makes Appendix C 5.3.3 Immediate Reaction to the FEMA BPA Report 5.3.4 Structural Engineers 5.3.5 Firefighters 5.3.6 Congress 5.3.7 Media 5.4.0 The 9/11 Commission 5.4.1 The 9/11 Commission Report 5.4.2 9/11 Commission Makeup 5.4.3 9/11 Commission Behavior 5.5.0 The Silverstein Studies 5.6.0 The NIST Investigation 5.6.1 Review of Documents: 5.6.1.1 Many relevant documents not mentioned or missing 5.6.1.2 Original tower design features and claims 5.6.2 Interviews 5.6.3 Lab Tests: Fire and NIST 5.6.4 Analysis and Simulation 5.6.4.1 WTC tower structure 5.6.4.2 NIST Simulation of Aircraft Damage to Tower Structure. 5.6.4.3 Descending Block Scenario during “collapse initiation.” 5.6.4.4 Where is the momentum transfer analysis? 5.6.5 Steven Jones on Kevin Ryan and NIST: 5.6.6 The Engineering Community 5.6.7 Purdue Study: A NIST prop? 5.6.8 Secrecy 5.6.9 The real goal of the NIST “investigation” ? 5.6.10 Legal challenges filed against NIST 5.6.11 More Scientists Architects and Engineers question NIST Results 5.7.0 How do the Official Investigations Compare? 5.7.1 A Continuity of Faces 5.7.2 North Tower Antenna 5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC towers 5.7.4 References to explosives, explosive, or anomalous characteristics 5.7.5 Aircraft Impact Damage 5.7.6 “Pancaking”, “Progressive Collapse”; Mode of failure; New building codes 6.0 Bush Science 7.0 Alternative Theories 7.1 Steven Jones Thermite/Thermate Alternative 7.2 Gordon Ross Four Phase Attack Alternative 8.0 Wrapping it up with a few questions 9.0 Fair Use Notice ATV Units assist in cleanup September 11 2001 – June 12 2002 9] 1.0 The Case for Controlled Demolition 1.1 First experts suggest explosives were used. On September 11, 2001, American explosives expert Van Romero said: "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The Albuquerque Journal further noted: “The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy,” Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device,” Romero said. “Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,” he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. 10] The next day, Mark Taylor, demolition expert noted in New Scientist: “it cascaded down like an implosion.” 11] Webster Tarpley notes European expert sources who immediately suggested the possibility of explosives in the towers. On Sept. 12, the Danish "bomb expert" Mr. Bent Lund stated: "an estimated amount of circa 1 tons of Extra high-explosives Bombs must have been detonated inside the World Trade Center complex in order to make the Towers collapse in the manner they did." 12] Jens Claus Hansen, a high ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy, on 9/11/01 stated in an interview: “Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers--otherwise they would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Former NATO General Keld Hillingsoe in the same interview stated: “Additional bombs must have been installed inside buildings.” On Sept 13, 2001, Hugo Bachmann, Professor Emeritus of building dynamics and earth quake engineering at the Swiss Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich saw two possible scenarios, and felt that both should be investigated. The first was fire and its effects on the steel supports; the second, an additional terrorist action. The article quoted by Tarpley noted that Bachmann “could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” 13] 1.2 Explosives Considered Why would explosives experts say that explosives were used? Eric Hufschmid, J. M. King, and more recently Dr. Steven Jones, have noted that the explosives theory explains very well the apparent removal of all structural support and the neat demolition-like collapse of the towers. 14] Dr. Jones notes: “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.” As first proposed by Eric Hufschmid in his book Painful Questions, Jones notes that 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.” 15] Although Van Romero later “changed his mind”, he still admitted the collapses looked like demolitions 16] This is true in a number of ways. Dr. David Ray Griffin has noted eleven characteristics of the WTC collapses consistent with “Controlled Demolition”: 1) Sudden Onset; 2) Straight Down; 3) Almost Free-Fall Speed; 4) Total Collapse; 5) Sliced Steel; 6) Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials; 7) Dust Clouds; 8) Horizontal Ejections; 9) Demolition Rings; 10) Sounds Produced by Explosions; 11) Molten Steel. 17] 1.2.1 Problems with the Dust Concrete and all other non-metallic objects were pulverized to dust. Rather than a piling up of shattered concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse ("official theory"), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. 18] Danish video expert Henrik Melvang claims his four hour video shows five distinct "DUST CLOUDS" from Demolition Bombs exploding far below the point of airplane impact within the WTC. 19] The first event in the collapse of each building was a mushroom cloud of dust above each building. Jeff King (2003), notes: " A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . when] concrete slabs would have been] bumping into each other at only] 20 or 30 mph.” As King points out, dust clouds were created far above the impact zones. 20] What is the energy source needed to produce this fine dust at the beginning of the collapses, before gravity has a chance to do anything? 21] Using a photograph from Chapter 5 of the FEMA Building Performance Assessment, Jim Hoffman estimated that the dust cloud from the North Tower grew to about 5 times the volume of the building within 30 seconds of the start of the collapse. He then calculated the energy required to allow the observed volume of expansion of dust, and found that it exceeded energy available from gravitational collapse by a factor of 10. 22] WTC Complex: From FEMA BPA 22] This is in marked contrast to the official theory which, according to Derrick Grimmer, proposes that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris. 23] 1.2.2 North Tower Antenna Video frames show that the North Tower antenna droops prior to the adjacent columns prior to collapse. 24] A sinking antenna suggests the building core failed, which is usually how buildings are intentionally demolished. Frames 5,6,7:the white portion of the antenna at the top of Frame 7 is a bit longer, while the walls have not yet moved. This suggests the antenna, and thus the building core, began to collapse first 24] 1.2.3 Symmetrical, quickly, completely The collapses progress rapidly, at almost free fall speed, so they are completed in under 16 seconds 25]. The collapses proceed floor-by-floor in a nearly perfectly balanced and symmetrical manner, with debris falling largely within a symmetric boundary around the buildings’ footprints. 26] S. Tower “Collapse”: From Hufshmid 26] 1.2.4 Sliced Steel Griffin has noted that in controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces of desired lengths. 27] Controlled Demolition Incorporated, the company selected to remove the rubble from the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, was also selected to cleanup rubble from the WTC. CDI advertises its ability to demolish steel columns into pieces matching the lifting capacity of available equipment. Interestingly much of the WTC steel rubble could be stacked conveniently on standard flatbed trailers. 28] Jones notes that slicing of steel for demolition purposes is routinely done by use of high temperature “cutter charges” made from exothermic materials such as thermite, HMX, and RDX. 29] He notes these “cutter-charges” are typically placed at about a 45 degree angle to the length of the vertical steel beams of a building to be demolished. 30] Workers place cutter charges in building demolition. Jones 30] He also notes several instances of photographs of WTC wreckage showing truncated steel columns very similar to what would be expected from the use of such cutter charges. 31] Jones has also argued that WTC cleanup crews used only oxy-acetylene torches, and did not use thermite. Angle cut box columns: Jones/Hufschmid 31] 1.2.5 Squibs Photographs show symmetrical “squibs” well below collapsing floors. As opposed to the dust blown out of successive floors below the collapse, these “squibs” are stationary and ere eventually overtaken by the collapsing floors. Such squibs are associated with controlled demolition. 32] Jets of Material (squibs) From North Tower. Courtesy Eric Hufschmid 32] Griffin notes still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are “demolition rings” in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. 33] 1.2.6 Ejected material Some material was ejected horizontally at high speeds. Objects were thrown laterally several hundred feet. At bottom, debris was scattered in 500 ft radius. Some clips show material thrown upward, and building fragments were found imbedded in surrounding buildings. 34] Debris ejected from S. Tower 600,000 lb. Steel beam imbedded in WFC 3 35] WTC steel imbedded in adjacent building 34] Dr. Stephan Grossman has presented much evidence documenting the incredible energy of the “collapses” as well as the resulting destruction. He notes a steel beam weighing 600,000 pounds (270 metric tons; about twice the weight of a 767-200ER), which was thrown laterally for over 390 ft, to imbed deeply into the World Financial Center 3. 35] 1.2.7 Surface Hot Spots Five days after the collapse, on September 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to collect thermal data at the WTC site. The data revealed a number of surface thermal hot spots in the region of collapse. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800 deg F in these hot spots (some over 1300 deg. F). 36] From U. S. Geological Survey Report see 36] 1.2.8 Molten metal in the Basements for weeks The surface hot spots were indicative of what was below the surface: Numerous confirmed references to “molten steel” appear in the 9/11 WTC literature. According to Mark Loizeaux, president of CDI, "pools of molten steel were found” at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers down seven basement] levels, "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed." As has been noted, construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit 1535° Celsius]. 37] Steven Jones cites several confirmations of molten metal, including Dr Keith Eaton, and Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. 38] A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero. 39] The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddishorange some six weeks after 9/11. 1.2.9 Vaporized Steel A February 2002 New York Times article noted that pieces of steel were found that were "apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the firewise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes." 40] This anomaly was cited in Appendix C of the FEMA Report. 1.2.10 Massive Destruction On September 8, 2002 Colonel John O'Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, appeared on The History Channel. O'Dowd, who is no stranger to disaster scenes, had never seen anything like the remains of the twin towers. "At the World Trade Center sites," he said, "it seemed like everything was pulverized." There was nothing recognizable in the debris -- nothing to indicate that that pulverized debris had been, just seconds earlier, a functioning 10,000,000-square-foot office building. O'Dowd had been present at the scene of the partially collapsed Oklahoma City federal building. Though the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah building was definitely facilitated by one or more powerful explosive charges, the debris from that collapse was not pulverized to the degree that it was at the site of the WTC towers, which presumably was acted on only by gravity. 41] Dr Grossman provides an image from CNN.com showing damage to dozens of buildings around the WTC Complex. 42] One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble was an object which has come to be known as "the meteorite" a combination of steel and concrete fused by the heat into one single element. 43] 1.2.11 Afterglow Many videos show an afterglow or a “flare” at the end of the collapses of both the North and South Towers. 911research.wtc7.net has several videos showing this effect. 44] Afterglow of WTC1 Collapse 44] 1.2.12 Vaporized Humans? According to an Associate Press article of 1/15/02, Dr. Charles Hirsch, chief medical examiner of the City of New York, triggered an angry response when he told grieving relatives that many bodies had been "vaporized." The goal of his office was to identify at least 2000 of the 2823 victims. Dr. Michael Baden, the state's chief forensic pathologist said that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires ... did not reach the 3,200-degree 1760 deg C.], 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a top forensic pathologist in Pittsburgh said the combination of fire and compression from tons of rubble could reduce a human body to a small amount of tissue and bone. 45] After one year, Hirsch's office had identified 1,401 victims. 46] Almost six years later, as of April 2007, more than 1100 victims still do not have identifiable remains. 47] After the Oklahoma City bombing, all 168 people killed were eventually identified. And the towers, according to the official story, were acted upon by nothing more than the effects of fire and gravity. 2.0 Eye and Ear Witness Reports 2.1 Suppression of Photographic Evidence? Photographs at Ground Zero were prohibited, ostensibly for “humanitarian” reasons. Tarpley notes Rudolph Giuliani’s autobiography Leadership, in which he states “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon – hundreds of people carrying disposable cameras and hand held video cameras. I understood the impulse…At the same time, this was a crime scene and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt or to damage evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots.” The result was his infamous order that all photos were illegal around the complex. 48] 2.2. Reports of explosions. The mainstream media generally did not report explosions. Reports continue to surface however, and there is now much photographic 49] and eye witness evidence which suggests that explosions actually did occur within the Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Steve Evans, BBC 59] Mike Pecoraro, Engineer 54] W. Rodriguez/G. Bush 53] 2.2.1 Reports of explosions prior to aircraft impact and/or emanating from lower floors All damage in both towers was implicitly assumed in the “Official Story” to have occurred only after, and because of aircraft impact and fire. Not all reports support these views: The Christian Science Monitor reported the experience of Tom Elliott, who was at work in his office at the Aeon Corp., an insurance brokerage firm, on the 103rd floor of the South tower. Sometime after 8:30 a.m., a bright flash of light startled him, and a rumble shook the structure. Flames appeared to be crawling up the outside of the building, along with dark smoke and debris, burning paper and ash. Elliott and two others headed down the building stairwell. As they reached the 67th floor, United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the 78th floor of their tower at 9:03 a.m. Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliot, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an “exploding sound” – shook the building and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up.” 50] William Rodriguez, age 44, worked at the WTC for 20 years in building maintenance. He was in an office on sub-level (basement) 1 of the North Tower when it was hit by flight 11. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. "Seconds after …. I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower …" Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story. Subsequently Rodriguez helped to save hundreds of people in the North tower, by opening doors with a master key for fire fighters before he was finally turned back at the 39th floor. He also added that he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors. Although initially considered an official hero, he soon concluded that the explosions occurring before flight 11 hit the tower proved the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has approached and been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As of 2005, he was being represented by Attorney Phil Berg in a RICO law suit against GW Bush and his administration. 51] Other independent reports corroborate explosions emanating from the basement, but it is not clear if these occurred prior to aircraft impact: Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the subbasement level of the North Tower, gives a harrowing eyewitness account of numerous ground and subbasement level explosions in the on-line publication Chiefengineer. For example, from D level: The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. “There was nothing there but rubble” Mike said. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!” The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything” he said. 52] Regardless of time of occurrence, the notion that all lower floor damage was caused by aircraft impact/fireballs is further refuted by testimony from NYFD Lieutenant William Walsh, who stated that North Tower elevators, which serviced the lower 30 floors, were “blown off the hinges ” from below. Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, in a study of seismic activity, reasonably conclude Lieutenant Walsh was referring to local elevators which serviced floors 34 down to the lowest level of the building, Level B6 in the basement. In other words, since these elevators did not go above floor 34, they could not have been affected by aircraft impact between floors 94-98. Furlong and Ross conclude that explosions generating seismic activity did occur prior to aircraft impact. 53] 2.2.2 Reports of explosions probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse. According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices in the former WTC, Fiduciary employees trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing "bomb-like explosions" throughout the towers. Forbes, who had helped prepare the South Tower for an unusual power outage the weekend before 9/11 discussed under WTC Security ] had the day off, and saw the towers collapse on TV. 54] Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on ... We got down as far as the 74th floor ... then there was another explosion." 55] Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower: noted : "The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run." 56] On Sept. 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans: I was on the ground floor … There was huge bang… But seconds later, there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook. At which point, people came - I nearly said screaming, but they weren't screaming - it was a mild panic… We all streamed out, some people running, some people crying, nobody really screaming, across the road and you look up and you can see the top of one of the towers, smoke billowing out from it, the odd flame coming out of the top of these towers. 57] 2.2.3. Unexpected Damage on the 22nd floor, lobby, and basement of N. Tower probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse Members of the WTC security department dug thru the debris of the security office on the 22nd floor prior to collapse, to rescue several trapped employees. 58] The 22nd floor was also affected by fire. On September 12, 2001, NY News Day reported that officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center. "When the fire started, the room was sealed," said Hermina] Jones, who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building. "Flames were shooting off the walls....We started putting wet towels under the doors. The Fire Department unsealed the door and grabbed us by the hand and said, 'Run!' " 59] According to Peter Wong, who was right under the elevator lobby of WTC 1 between the two ID checkpoints: "I heard the sound of broken glass, smelled burning gas what kind of gas??], a door blown off about twenty feet in front of me, heat was coming my way. I stepped back and hid myself at the middle elevator of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield section when the strongest wave of explosion passed by with chunks of glass and debris flying around." 60] NY1.com reported the following: “Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft.” 61] It has not been determined who verified the origin of the fireball. On March 11 2002, CBS aired a film consisting largely of documentary footage on the firefighters of the FDNY's Engine 7, Ladder 1, all of whom survived the collapse of the towers. 62] The footage was taken by a team of two French brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who have now become suspect in helping to “stage” the photographic capture of Flight 11 striking the North Tower as merely luck, when they actually may have known what was going to happen. 63] Jules Naudet reports that as he entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film. 64] However, to their surprise, the firefighters of engine 7 also found something else completely unexpected: widespread damage to the entire lobby area of the North tower. Over and over, these professional firefighters expressed their complete puzzlement over the damage in this area. According to a World Trade Center Task Force deposition from the New York Times Archives, "The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby." 65] Fire officials were "informed... by certain federal officials" that the lobby damage occurred because ‘burning jet fuel’ had poured eighty stories down the elevator shafts and then exploded in the lobby.” Unexpected damage on the 22nd floor and basement of the N. Tower prior to collapse was also attributed to this fireball. Phillip Morelli, a 37-year-old Queens native, describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. 66] 2.2.4 Reports of explosions and tower swaying at the time of collapse. Genelle Guzman McMillan was the last person pulled alive from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. She was discovered on Sept 12, 2001, 27 hours after the towers had fallen. With a group of 16, she was descending from the 64th floor of the North Tower. On the 13th-floor landing, McMillan heard a rumble. "A big explosion," she now calls it. "The wall I was facing just opened up, and it threw me on the other side," she says. She was struggling to reach a friend "when the rubble just kept coming down....Everything just kept coming harder and harder," McMillan says. 67] On viewing a September 11, 2001 Fox 5 News video, Retired Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes: "A few seconds after 10:00 a.m. we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the South] tower. The anchor gal exclaims '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! …'" 68] Conor O'Clery stated on seeing the South tower collapse: "I shifted my eyes upwards to the first tower that had been hit and was still standing, and saw that several more people had appeared in the upper stories where they had smashed windows. The man with the white cloth was still there, hanging precariously by one hand with his body out over the abyss. I wondered why there was no attempt to rescue them by helicopter as part of the roof of the 1350-foot building was clear of smoke. But then the tower began to sway slightly and two people fell in quick succession from the windows as if unable to maintain their grip....Then the building collapsed ]." 69] 2.3 Reports of explosions by members of the NYC Fire Department 2.3.1 Attempt to Discredit NYFD? According to Tarpley, members of the NYFD were the greatest immediate threat to the official myth of the cause of the collapse of the towers. For this reason he argues, they were the target of psychological warfare. Stories were circulated about looting by the NYFD which supposedly had began to take place even before the towers had collapsed. Giuliani tried to limit the number of firemen working on the WTC rubble pile, who were trying to recover the bodies of fallen firefighters before the rubble was removed . A firefighter demonstration against his WTC policies degenerated into a full scale riot between the firefighters and the police. 70] Several types of reports are available which give an accounting by first responders to the 9/11 tragedy: 1) Statements going directly to the media; 2) Real time audiotapes of communication between rescue services during the attacks, some of which have found their way to the media; and 3) oral histories or interviews taken in interview format after the attacks. 2.3.2 Statements going directly to the media In the September 12, 2001 issue of People Weekly magazine, Louie Cacchioli tells of his rescue work inside the South tower: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty fourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." 71] Shortly after 9 o'clock Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. 72] 2.3.3 Real time audiotapes of communication between rescue services during the attacks According to the New York Times, the City of New York held hundreds of documents and audio tapes recording the response of emergency services to the September 11 attacks on the WTC, which it said should never be released to the general public. The Bloomberg Administration, in response to a lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court by the New York Times, cited a number of reasons for keeping the documents secret. These included citing its value in the government's case against Zacarias Moussaoui, who is accused of being the ''20th hijacker.” “The administration has argued that releasing these materials would be an invasion of privacy for the families of those who died at the trade center, and for the firefighters who responded to the disaster scene.” Michael A. Cardozo, the city's corporation counsel. Noted “both the oral histories and the radio transmissions, especially the 911 calls, contain highly personal and emotionally charged material. Victims were recorded as they were experiencing life-threatening circumstances, in some instances as they were dying.” In its suit, which was filed in May, The Times rejected each of the city's claims, arguing that much of the material reflected information and images that had already been viewed by millions of people through news accounts, documentaries and books. Included in the material the administration said should never become public were the oral histories given to Fire Department officials by firefighters and chiefs after Sept. 11. Administration officials say that the firefighters and chiefs were promised confidentiality when they gave their accounts. A former senior official in the Fire Department however, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, advised the Times that the firefighters were, in fact, never told that their remarks would be kept confidential. ''The histories are more than for historical purposes,'' said the former official,. ''They are of great value to understanding what happened there. I tend to think that people should be able to see them.'' 75] In response to a petition by the New York Times, which had been trying to get copies of these materials, New York State Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun ruled in February 2003 that the city had not provided sufficient reason for withholding these documents. The City of NY initially appealed this ruling. 76] Meanwhile, the 911 Commission subpoenaed the New York Tapes. (see section 5.4) The Bloomberg Administration responded that the mayor was "dismayed" by the subpoena and that “the city had offered to share material with the commission after it was edited to remove the intensely emotional statements of people who lost their lives or whose lives were in jeopardy on Sept. 11.” The Commission noted that "the city's failure to produce these important documents has significantly impeded the commission's investigation," The Mayor’s office also noted “It also is puzzling why the commission is trying to distract the public by focusing on the city's response as opposed to the question we all want answered — how this savage terrorist attack was planned and executed without any warning. “ 77] A "compromise" was reached. According to the New York Times, In an abrupt reversal, the Bloomberg Administration, announced it had agreed to release records of emergency 911 calls and other materials sought by the Commission. “Under the deal, the city secured the right to block out information …” handed over to the Commission, but would allow panel members on their premises to review the unedited versions of those records. Notes could be taken. 78] In the final court ruling, portions of the oral histories and tapes containing the opinions and recommendations of the interviewees and dispatchers will be redacted, "since such opinions and recommendations are to be distinguished from factual material." 77] Apparently the New York Supreme Court, as well as the City of New York, do not trust the opinions of those entrusted with the safety of NYC citizens. The press will get only expressions of personal feelings. This suppression of firefighter comments was perhaps made more palatable by discrediting of members of the NYFD. The decision to allow "redacted" versions to be released could be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, but the New York Times has not indicated any plan to appeal. 78] In an NBC exclusive: 911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11 (Part 2) June 17, 2002 "Tapes Released For First Time," the quoted dialog references explosions: "Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion." 79] Perhaps this is an audiotape that was released before the decision was made to suppress such communications. Interestingly, access to the original "lost" audiotape of firefighters, showing they reached the 78th floor of the South Tower was severely restricted by the Justice Department. The relatives of the 16 firefighters whose voices were identified on the tape were allowed to hear their last words, but were first required to sign a statement prepared by lawyers that they would not disclose what was said on the tape. 80] Senior FDNY officials also heard the tape, but agreed to keep its contents under wraps at the behest of federal prosecutors in Virginia, who “planed to use a copy at the trial of accused ‘20th hijacker’ Zacarias Moussaoui”. 81] 2.3.4. Interviews and Oral Histories taken after the attacks Subsequent to his comments regarding explosions to the press, Turi was “interviewed”, providing the following clarification:.. And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the garage…. The New York Times took pains to make sure this “clarification” was posted on the internet as “Turi’s Own Words.” 82] Very telling oral histories were released in 2005, and reported by the New York Times. These constitute about 12000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics, collected from October 2001 through January 2002. For example, 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.” 83] 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. Question: . Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? Answer: 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. 84] In January of 2006, an article entitled “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories” by David Ray Griffin, appeared. 85] Griffin referenced roughly 31 witnesses to explosions. Graeme MacQueen provided additional research to try to establish if other FDNY witnesses to explosions could be found, and to see if there were any witnesses whose testimony supported a nonexplosive collapse of the Towers. 86] MacQueen concludes in his analysis that there is little evidence of coercion of the interviewees by interviewers. However, the oral histories show how many people who originally thought they had witnessed critical explosions later changed their minds (as did Albert Turi, whose accounts appeared in the mainstream media soon after the attacks), believing they were mistaken, often opting for a non-explosive alternative such as “pancaking.” “We now have solid evidence that, for the FDNY, non-explosive collapse is, indeed, a revisionist theory.” Still, even after applying a fairly stringent set of criterion for what constitutes expression of a belief in the “explosive hypothesis (EH)” versus a “non-explosive hypothesis”(NEH), he finds 118 out of 503 witnesses chose an EH, while only 10 chose an NEH. 87] These insights may afford more credibility to an apparently far-fetched story appearing much earlier. Auxiliary fireman Lt Paul Isaac Jr., in an interview by Randy Lavello, also spoke of bombs in the towers: “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Isaac further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, was sending a gag order down the ranks. 88] Several DVDs show audio and video of NYFD firefighters describing a series of explosions in the towers: “floor by floor it starts poppin’ out…It was like … as if they had detonated…Yeah detonated… As if they were planned to take down the building Boom boom boom boom boom” 89] Louie Cacchioli with life size photo in background 71] NYFD firefighters: “boom boom boom boom boom ” 89] 3.0 How does the seismic data fit in? 3.1 The Earthquakes Seismic waves from the collapses of the towers were recorded by at least 13 of the 34 seismograph stations operated by Lamont-Doherty for Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: LDEO] . The closest station, at Palisades N.Y., 21 miles North of the WTC complex, recorded minimal earth shaking, at the time of aircraft impact, but recorded significant earthquake activity around the time of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake of 10-second duration during collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. 90] Traces showing seismic activity: aircraft impact and tower collapse 91] According to the often quoted American Free Press (AFP) , "A huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground… The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth." 92] According to AFP, experts apparently could not explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." 93] However, while AFP assumes seismic activity began before debris hit the ground, in the form of explosions, LDEO, in its report : “Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at WTC, N Y,” assumes the earthquakes were caused by the tower collapses (i.e., material hitting the ground, over a 10 and 8 second period) and were considered small, the energy being absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures. 94] These times have apparently incorrectly been taken as the time for collapse of the towers. Calculations done by Derrick P. Grimmer, Ph.D. indicated that the seismic spikes of the WTC events represented energies close to those of the energy of collapses themselves, i.e., without explosions. 95] Jim Hoffman writes: "There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy (equivalent to 2.9207 e8, or 292,070,000. foot pounds) stored in the elevated mass of each tower." Further, Hoffman notes: "Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel." 96] A problem with assessing the seismic data is in coordinating the precise recorded time of the seismic activity with the precise time of physical events at the World Trade Center. As Hoffman notes, “While it's true that the station recorded 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude quakes, Bollyn provides no evidence that the spikes occurred at the beginning of each ‘collapse.’” On the other hand, reports of explosions and tower swaying at the time of collapse seem to suggest the possibility of some seismic activity prior to material hitting the ground. Genelle Guzman McMillan heard "A big explosion" at the time of collapse. see] The seismic activity at 9:59:04 may be compared with the September 11, 2001 Fox 5 News video that Colonel Donn De Grand Pre reported. see ] The concept of possible seismic activity prior to collapsed material reaching the ground is also suggested by the commentary of Conor O'Clery. see] 3.2 Is the seismic record consistent with NIST conclusions? Although Hoffman rejects the Hufschmid/AFP notion that the large spikes provided evidence of controlled demolition, he argues that the seismic data and LDEO interpretation is inconsistent with the conclusions of the NIST WTC study. NIST concluded, as we will see, that “Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued”. Hoffman notes that only small signals precede the larger signals, which according to LDEO represent the main mass of debris hitting the ground. Thus the time duration of the small signals must include the instant when NIST’s alleged “huge mass” of the upper block impacted the lower block. From this we must conclude that the purported “tremendous energy of the falling building section” did not even show up on the seismographs. 97] 3.3 Seismic activity at time of aircraft impact Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross also argue that seismic data is proof that 9/11 was “an inside job.” They make the case that two seismic events occurred immediately prior to aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. They conclude these seismic events can only be explained by evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others in WTC1. (There were a total of fourteen people in the office, including Rodriguez, at the time. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.) Two separate precision data time sets recorded the time of aircraft impact into the Towers. “Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible.” The authors note that these two data sets record different impact times. The two data sets are from LDEO and the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission’s times are reported to be based on FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic. 98] The authors state: “There is no question: AA Flight 11 died exactly at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 UTC – 4 hrs].” Since the planes crashed at those times, the authors ask: what caused the LDEO seismic activity 14 and 17 seconds earlier? “What caused those seismic spikes?” Since Rodriguez and 36 others felt and heard an explosion prior to aircraft impact of WTC1 , the authors argue the seismic signals were due to the pre-impact explosions. The authors go on to argue that the NIST derived times of aircraft impact appear to have been “fudged,” supported by neither the NTSB nor radar data. Interestingly, in 2005, NIST contracted for the services of Dr. Won-Young Kim of LDEO to re-analyze the original seismic data times originally issued in 2001. The new study added on 3 seconds to the original times of aircraft impact. The authors ask why the fudging; why the re-analysis? 99] 4.0 WTC Security 4.1 Insurance Only three months before the attack, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America signed a rental contract for the WTC, agreeing to pay a total of 3.2 billion dollars in leasing installments over 99 years to the Port Authorities. 100] According to The Financial Times Ltd., terms of the lease allowed the new owners to walk away from their investment in the event of "an act of terrorism." 101] Despite not being the owner of the buildings, Silverstein demanded to be the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion dollars. Steve Solomon, his spokesman, said: “The Port Authorities agreed with Silverstein's demand." 102] 4.2 Damage to FBI Offices Severe damage to the 22nd (security office) floor of the North Tower has been previously noted. Dick Eastman of Yakima Washington notes: “It is known that these floors contained the New York FBI offices -- Peter Jennings actually did a two-day network news story on the effects of the destroyed evidence and files on American financial crime investigations around the world.” Interestingly, the entire accumulation of evidence and investigation briefs on two highly important cases were being stored in the security (FBI) office. 103] 4.3 Anomalies leading up to the Day Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote “security reasons.” 104] Victor Thorn of Wing TV has reported the WTC 9-11 security concerns of Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices in the former WTC. Forbes reported that his company was notified three weeks in advance that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up on the weekend prior to 9-11, ostensibly to implement a computer cabling upgrade. Forbes noted that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC's first occupants after it was erected, and that a "power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion. Forbes recalled the power was out approximately 36 hours between early Saturday morning (September 8th) and mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) As a result of the power outage, the WTC's security cameras, ID systems, and elevators to the upper floors were rendered inoperative. Forbes noted that many "engineers" going in- and-out of the WTC had free access throughout the building due to its inoperative security system. Forbes also noted other security related anomalies: Video cameras positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning. Also, a Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike. Forbes said that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, "I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts." 105] Soon after Forbes’ appearance on Wing TV, he was marginalized by 9/11 truth debunkers because he seemed to vanish. Between 2005 and 2006 he has been remotely interviewed at least three times from his home in England. In a Killtown interview, Forbes observed that both main stream and progressive media of other countries have been much more interested in his story than in America. He also noted that, being British, he was eventually interviewed by London police, “but none of my American colleagues were contacted by police or FBI or any agency. Kind of weird.” 106]. Most recently, Forbes’ statements, which are reasoned and dispassionate, have been used by 9/11 truth debunkers against Ben Fountain 107]. Forbes also stated in an interview that 4-6 weeks before 9/11, there was lots of noise coming from floor 98, above his office. Aeon was moved out, and the floor was vacant. He heard what sounded like heavy machinery work going on; drilling and hammering; like something very heavy being moved and dumped, the force of which was enough to cause his office to shake. On one occasion Forbes said he opened the door to the 98th floor to see what was going on, but the entire office space was empty. This correlates with the experience of William Rodriguez in the North Tower, who, as he was climbing stairs to unlock doors on 9/11, “heard strange noises on the 34th floor.” Rodriguez noted that there was “nothing on this floor”. No one was supposed to be there, and you can’t even get there without a special key. Rodriguez heard heavy equipment being moved around, it sounded to him like dumpsters with metal wheels. Rodriguez was afraid to open the door to floor 34 with his master key. The week before 9/11, Forbes noticed lots of dust in the building “The dust was incredible; it was filthy; dirty gray dust. 108] Christopher Bollyn states that "The two airplanes that struck the twin towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings." While there may have been a number of secure computer rooms distributed in the towers, Bollyn goes on to describe a construction operation where the 81st floor of the South Tower, in the range of floors impacted by flight 175, was reinforced to hold very heavy Uninterupted Power Supply batteries, which interestingly, were apparently never turned on. Bollyn contacted a number of companies involved in this construction and installation, all of whom refused to comment. 109] A photo ID pass for Sept. 5 found on one of the men charged with fraudulently obtaining a Tennessee driver's license from a Memphis woman gave him access to the six underground levels of WTC1. But which tenant hired Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad, 24, to work on its sprinklers is lost, said Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan Hicks. Hammad told federal authorities that he was working on the sprinklers six days before the twin towers were brought down by terrorists, court testimony revealed. But Hicks said the Port Authority, which owned the building, did its own sprinkler work, and that any other work involving sprinklers would have been arranged by an individual tenant. 110] According to a September 12, 2001 report by NY News Day, a WTC security detail had been working 12-hour shifts prior to 9/11 because of numerous phone threats. But on the Thursday before, "bombsniffing dogs were abruptly removed." 111] 4.4 Security firms Ontrack/Convar, the German company that was trying to recover data from WTC hard drives in order to determine who was responsible for last minute financial transactions on 9/11, was purchased after the fact by none other than Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'Gara Eisenhardt) in June 2002. Kroll is a huge, multi-national security firm which has strong ties to US intelligence. Coincidentally, one of their upper echelon, Jerome Hauer, was responsible for brokering the position of head of security for ex-FBI whistleblower John O'Neill in the WTC. Mr. O'Neill died in the 9/11 attacks. 112] A business entity now known as Stratesec, Inc. began performing security work at the Center in 1993. In 1996, Stratesec, then known as Securacom, was awarded an exclusive contract to provide security for the World Trade Center complex. Stratesec/Securacom also provided security for United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Sitting on Stratesec's board of directors, from the time the company began working at the WTC, was a major shareholder by the name of Marvin Bush. Marvin, like Jeb and Neil, is a brother of George W. Bush. 113] 4.5 A note on “Urban Renewal” of the Twin Towers A number of internet sites portray the economic status of the late Twin Towers as compromised. In particular, a frequently recurring phrase is "the Twin Towers were always money-losers” 114] The highly regarded 911 Mysteries DVD suggests in it’s chapter Urban Renewal that WTC economic problems may have been a motive for their intentional destruction. 115] An online “911mysteriesguide” appears to show that 911 Mysteries DVD definitely got it wrong , producing a number of authentic looking references, including one contradicting the 911 Mysteries claim that quotes for a clean-up of the asbestos in the towers would have cost more than a billion dollars. 116] The guide concludes “we have shown that the World Trade Center did not have tenancy problems; they did not have money problems; and there is no reason to believe that asbestos problems were not manageable. There was no motive for the Port Authority of New York to destroy the World Trade Center as 9/11 Mysteries suggests. “ 117] Further searching on the internet yields an article on asbestos, noting an authentic sounding source stating “, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion...to remove the asbestos..." 118] The author of this article correctly attributes this quotation to a November 30th, 2001 article, published in the “New York Psychogeographical Association. " 911 Mysteries would appear then to be vindicated in its pronouncement of definite WTC asbestos problems. However, the URL for the New York Psychogeographical Association is www.notbored.org/the-nypa.html]. The website consists of a half dozen articles with names such as No more fucking ugly buildings! And Mother Nature to 9-11 Mourners: Eat My Dust,. One article, which contained the quotation of Note 5, entitled A new Garden of Eden, observes: ”Though this may be hard for some to believe, especially in these sentimental times, the so-called Twin Towers at the World Trade Center were hated by many New Yorkers, who before September 11, 2001 would have been happy if the goddamned things had never been built and after September 11th are glad that they're gone. An entire neighborhood was emptied out and destroyed to make way for them. Them -- not just one spectacular tower, but two.” Looking further on the internet, one finds “Team Twin Towers,” a group with a web site ostensibly dedicated to valuing the former towers, and defending them from negative accusations. They have provided arguments to counter statements such as "The Twin Towers failed in their mission to revive Lower Manhattan.", "The Twin Towers were only partially occupied. They were money-losers.", "The Twin Towers were Ugly Banal Boxes", and "The Twin Towers were poorly and negligently constructed. They did not meet NYC fire codes." 119] It seems then, that the question of the economic status of the late Twin Towers is framed in a very polarized and controversial environment, in which the Towers were loved by some and hated by others. What then is the truth? 5.0 History and its Revision 5.1 The History of Fire Induced Collapse of Steel Buildings There is none before or after 9-11 Although the 911 Commission acknowledged that fire chiefs on the scene thought the collapse of the Towers was impossible, MacQueen emphasized the unanimity of the FDNY on this issue. 120] "Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse," writes Eric Hufschhmid, quoting Bill Manning of Fire Engineering magazine. 121] The Towers had experienced fires before. The Feb 14 1975 New York Times carried the headline “Trade Center Hit by 6 Floor Fire.” A three alarm fire broke out in the 11th floor offices of the BF Goodrich Company in the North Tower of the World Trade Center just before midnight last night, and spread through an inner service core to the Fourth through fourteenth floors. “It was like fighting a blowtorch” according to Capt. Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6…”Flames could be seen pouring out of the 11th floor windows on the East side of the building.” According to a second article, the fire burned for three hours. 122] The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia burned for 19 hours but did not cause the building to even crack. 123] The First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles burned for more than 3 hours with bright intense flames. There was no damage to the main structural members 124]. On Sunday Feb. 13, 2005, CNN reported on a fire said to be the worst in Madrid’s history, which burned for 2 days and gutted the Windsor Building. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers, and although several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, the overall structure did not collapse. 125] Madrid fire 125] On September 11, not one, but three structures disintegrate to dust: WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Hufschmid reasonably questions why Buildings 4 and 6, which were closer to the towers than WTC7 did not collapse. Photographs of both buildings show giant flames and glowing red interior, and WTC6 had massive damage due to falling debris. 126] 5.2.0 The First Wave of Politically Correct Revisionist Theories Revisionism seen in the FDNY interviews appears to have been paralleled by a revision of thinking by explosives experts. Within ten days of his first remarks, Van Romero, who previously suggested explosives in the Towers, changed his mind: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail.." 127] Van Romero was seeking Pentagon research funding at the time of the attack. 128] Politically correct revisionist theories soon blanketed the news media. Because WTC 1 and 2 stood for approximately 1 ¾ hours and 1 hour respectively after impact, we know they did not collapse because of airplane impacts alone. So, the first Politically Correct theory presumed that heat from the fires simply melted the structural core, causing the collapse. 5.2.1 Steel Melted By Heat Henry Koffman, director of the Construction Engineering and Management Program at the University of Southern California wrote that intense heat from the fires melted the steel, which caused the collapse of the towers. 129] 5.2.2 Steel Weakened By Heat Articles by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou of Northwestern University appeared in the on-line version of Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE. 130] These articles purported to address why the buildings collapsed. Bazant and Zhou suppose that the steel in over half of the 287 columns of the crash zone was exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 800 Deg. C. 1472 Deg. F.]. At such temperatures, structural steel exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation, which may result in a buckling of columns. 5.2.3 Refutation of Early Fire and Heat Theories. We might ask what supplied the fuel needed for Bazant’s “sustained temperatures exceeding 800 Deg. C.”? Office furniture? Computers? Printer paper? Well, OK, but the central core, which he fails to even consider, had no office furniture, and virtually no fuel, so how did it heat up enough in one hour to collapse? How hot was the fire, and how much heat did it produce? Charles Clifton is a technical expert in determining the effects of severe fire and earthquake on steel framed buildings. He believed that fire did not cause the towers to collapse. 131] He has noted that regions of fire at 700 deg C would be glowing red hot and visible from outside the building, and that significant window breakage would have occurred. He noted that neither of these conditions occurred in the towers 132] Professor Thomas Eager is professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society published his analysis, which concluded that the fire could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel. The analysis, which notes that steel melts at 1500 deg. C. 2732 deg. F.] and that jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of 1000 deg. C. 1832 Deg. F.], even when mixed in perfect proportions, parallels the historically verified fact that fire cannot melt steel. 133] Jim Hoffman notes that Corus Construction performed extensive tests subjecting un-insulated steelframe car parks to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires. The highest recorded steel temperatures were 360 Deg. C. 680 Deg. F.] 134] This is substantiated by Jim McMichael, who wrote that the maximum temperature achieved in fire testing of unprotected steel supports in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was also 360 degrees C (680 F), a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 Deg. C. 1022 Deg. F.]. The reason? Unheated steel forms an effective heat sink: The massive steel structures of the towers would form a vast heat sink: Local heat from the Tower beams was continuously conducted from the heated portions to the massive cooler portions below, suggesting an even lower maximum temperature. 135] Woman in break created by impacting aircraft in WTC1 136] The appearance of several people in the fracture caused by airplane entry in the North Tower suggests temperatures were not excessive in the crash zone. 136] Brian Clark, an executive vice president at Euro Brokers, a brokerage firm that had offices on the 84th floor of the South Tower found little problem with heat while traversing the impact floors. 137] On Aug. 2, 2002, discovery of a "lost" audiotape was reported. This tape is important, because it established that firefighters, including Chief Orio Palmer, actually reached the crash zone on the 78th floor of the South tower and apparently believed they were in control of the situation. This further suggests that the crash zone was not a raging inferno. 138] The same conclusion can be drawn from the Discovery Channel documentary entitled "Collapse: How the Towers Fell." According to the show's experts, although jet fuel might optimally reach temperatures approaching 2000deg F, fully one-half of Flight 11's] fuel burned outside of the tower. This is consistent with sources which state that each aircraft was carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel 139], and with FEMA’s estimate that about 4000 gallons of fuel burned within each tower. 140] The remaining half, which ignited inside the tower, burned up in about eight minutes. And that analysis was based on the first crash (8:46 am), into the North tower. As can be clearly seen in video footage, a much higher percentage of the fuel burned outside the South Tower, in the second crash (9:03 am). As investigative journalist David McGowan notes, this analysis argues against massive structural elements of the towers reaching high temperatures 141] The FEMA BBA and NIST assessments of fuel burned is discussed in section 5.7.0 “How do the Official Investigations Compare?” South Tower Impact Courtesy www.serendipity.li 142] 5.2.4 The Problem of a Completely Symmetrical Collapse It is highly unlikely that structural weakness resulting from the fire or heat would result in a completely symmetrical collapse such as occurred. Irregularity would have produced a collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area, 143] causing additional damage and fatalities. Dr. Steven Jones notes the great difficulty of obtaining a completely symmetrical collapse, even using controlled demolition. “This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.” 144] All these observations would appear to refute the notion that the total symmetrical collapses were the result of structural weakening by heat and fire from jet fuel, especially in the South Tower. Yet the South Tower collapsed first, about 56 minutes after aircraft impact. Thus, evolving theories attempted to account for the completely symmetrical collapse. A special report by Thomas Eager and Christopher Musso titled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” illustrates an early attempt to explain a completely symmetrical collapse without reference to explosives. Eager argues that although fire did not melt the steel, fire is what brought the towers down. The article correctly notes that only a small number of perimeter columns were lost on airplane impact, and that the loads were shifted to the remaining columns. The article also correctly notes that the fire was fuel rich, producing a diffused flame as could be seen by the thick black smoke. It then notes that the steel was not likely to have experienced temperatures above 750-800 deg C. The article points out that although structural steel begins to soften at 425 Deg C, and looses half its strength at 650 deg C, even a loss of half of the steels strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse. “Even with half its strength the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 deg C fire.” The article finds the culprit in the distortion of the steel due to the fact that the steel temperature was not uniform. “A 150 deg C temperature difference from one location to another will produce .. stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel which resulted in bucking failures…Thus, the failure of the steel was due to the loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion” Interestingly, although the article mentions the building core in the very beginning of the article as being designed to support the weight of the tower, the core is never again mentioned; as if the towers were supported only by the peripheral columns. The article describes the construction as “egg-crate”, and emphasizes the notion that the building was light weight, and about 95 % air, explaining why the rubble after collapse was only a few stories high. The authors fail to note the substantial mass of concrete which was pulverized and distributed in a pyroclastic dust cloud over many city blocks. The article then attempts to explain the “lack of tipping” or “implosion” of the towers on collapse. The building is 95% air, and hence can implode on itself; and because of its near free fall speed of collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. “To summarize, a 500,000 ton structure (that is 95% air) has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.” So the authors argue that the towers fell straight down because they were both too light and too heavy. They do not question how the building, especially the central core, could collapse at close to freefall speed. 145] 3.2.5 Pancake Theory Fire Engineering Magazine concluded that a growing number of fire protection engineers had concluded that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." These Fire Engineering specialists adopted the notion of a failure of lightweight trusses connecting building perimeter to load-bearing central columns. 146] The concept of lightweight trusses was very helpful for establishing the concept of “Pancake Theory” which provided the final desired result of “explaining” a completely symmetrical collapse without referring to explosives. According to Bazant and Zhou, the "chain reaction" resulting in complete floor by floor symmetrical collapse of the North Tower was caused by the acceleration of the mass of the building above the buckled columns downward. The term "Pancake Theory" (as well as its variants, Zipper or Domino) helped facilitate the credibility of the chain reaction theory. David McGowan notes the discrepancy between the standard media graphic portraying the tower structure, on the right below, and an accurately scaled rendering of the 'footprint' of one of the towers (image on left.) Needless to say, the thin central core in the image on the right certainly would facilitate acceptance of “Pancake Theory” by the public. 147] Photos of actual tower construction, which confirm the accuracy of the rendering on the left, below, show: 1) Floors are not wide-open Spaces; the structural core occupied a significant portion of each tower's footprint. 2) Lateral floor trusses appear firmly anchored between perimeter and core columns, allowing the buildings to take large lateral loading due to wind. 148] Images Courtesy David McGowan 147] Actual construction (image on left) depicted in graphics distributed by the media (image on the right). The service core in construction 148] The "spire" in the above images is a portion of WTC 1's disintegrating service core. If collapse was due to "pancaking" of weak trusses, the 110 story sturdy service cores would still be standing. 149] As McGowan notes, 'pancake theory,' at best, “only offers an explanation how the floor and exterior wall sections may have possibly collapsed. Even if such an unlikely event had occurred, the end result would not have been a 60-foot-high mound of rubble, but rather two somewhat narrower, 110-story towers." 150] Derrick Grimmer asks, if a "pancaking" effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small. 151] 5.3.0 The FEMA Building Performance Assessment (BPA) The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) began a preliminary study of the collapse of the towers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) soon joined with ASCE to assemble a larger group of volunteer investigators, which was called the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), and supplied $600,000 in funding. The BPA Team consisted of specialists in tall building design, steel and connection technology, fire and blast engineering, and structural analysis. On May 1, 2002 FEMA released its report of the WTC collapses, based on the conclusions reached by the BPA Team. 152] 5.3.1 Executive Summary According to the Executive Summary, the team "conducted field observations at the WTC site and steel salvage yards, removed and tested samples of the collapsed structures, viewed hundreds of hours of video and thousands of still photographs, conducted interviews with witnesses and persons involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of each of the affected buildings, reviewed construction documents, and conducted preliminary analyses of the damage to the WTC towers.” The Executive Summary initially states: "The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building." 153] Yet then immediately it notes: "With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to collapse of each tower could not be definitely determined." 154] This is precisely the conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission/Report, noted by Griffin. Since planes and fire by definition were the cause, no precise mechanism need be determined with certainty. The report insults the integrity of the original design of the towers, by a World Class structural engineering firm, WSH&J, stating "Events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the ability of these structures to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy." 155] In Chapter 8, Observations, Findings, and Recommendations, the floor trusses are made suspect, but we are cautioned not to think of these design features as deficiencies. 156] 5.3.2 Deepest mystery makes Appendix C A tiny fraction of the steel beams from the tower debris were inspected. Recommendations in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC report noted: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed." 157] A New York Times article noted that pieces of steel were found that were "apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations." The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 158] Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. Remains of WTC wide flange beam. FEMA BPA Appendix C 157] A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfurrich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity. WTC 1, 2, and 7 all showed signs of this eutectic reaction. The important questions, says Biederman, are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. “We have no idea,” admits Sisson. 159] "A one-inch column of steel has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll—have been thinned to almost razor sharpness…Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes." 160] 5.3.3 Immediate Reaction to the FEMA BPA Report 5.3.3.1 Structural Engineers On Christmas Day, 2001 The New York Times reported that some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC was inadequate, and were calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry. Experts critical of the investigation included some who actually took part in it. The team of 20 or so investigators, who conducted their review between October 7-12, had no subpoena power, inadequate financial and staff support, and had been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and had even been unable to obtain basic information such as detailed blueprints of the buildings. 161] The Times account of the BPA team activities contrasts sharply with the account provided in the FEMA BPA Executive Summary. 5.3.3.2 Firefighters On January 4, 2002, an editorial in Fire Engineering, a trade magazine with ties to the New York Fire Department, called the investigation into the collapse of the WTC a "half-baked farce." The article pointed out that the probe had not looked at all aspects of the disaster and had limited access to documents and other evidence. Bill Manning, editor of the magazine, noting that destruction of evidence is illegal, demanded that the destruction and removal of the steel columns must stop immediately. 162] The decision of the City of New York to rapidly recycle the 300,000 tons of steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 adversely affected the FEMA BPA inquiry. 163] 5.3.3.3 Congress Congressman Boehlert, Chairman of the Science Committee of the House of representatives, testified "I must say that the current investigation- some would argue that 'review' is the more appropriate wordseems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy" and "…valuable evidence has been lost irretrievably, and blueprints were unavailable for months." 164] Professor Glenn P. Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal Justice testified before the Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6: "The collapse of the World Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget." Corbett further noted "The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse," and recommended an investigative commission on the World Trade Center Disaster. 165] ASME representative Gene Corley testified before the Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6: "Resources allocated to support our BPA team's activities is about 1 million. In our opinion, 40 million would be sufficient." 166] The Science committee itself, in its March 6, 2002 report, called for a broader WTC investigation. Rep. Felix Grucci (R-NY): "We need to continue to work together, to find what answers we can, and attempt to piece together as much information as possible on the cause of the collapse." 167] In a letter to Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director, Office of Management and Budget, the committee wrote: "There was unanimity among the witnesses on the need for a comprehensive assessment and research agenda to address evacuation procedures, emergency response, and structural analysis of the site's buildings." 168] 5.3.3.4 Media Even the New York Times expressed dismay. On the first anniversary of the attacks (subsequent to the FEMA BPA study and final report), the Times wrote: "The public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." 169] 5.4.0 The 9/11 Commission 5.4.1 The 9/11 Commission Report Chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report, “Heroism and Horror”, discusses the attacks on the World Trade Center. A large part of Chapter 9 concerned the response of emergency services at the WTC complex. The Commission’s Report brings up none of the major issues discussed in the 9/11 truth movement, which have been discussed in the previous pages. Rather, the Commission’s Report cherry picks a few of the details, without ever getting to any real issues. 170] As MacQueen notes, the 911 Commission appears to have used the oral histories in composing chapter 9 of their Report. He notes the use of the histories to verify the condition of civilians, the nature of rescue operations, and so on, but no reference is made to the comments on explosions. 171] Chapter 9 takes up the notion that severe damage to the 77th floor, 22nd (security office) floor, the lobby, and B4 level of the North Tower was due to a “fireball” from airplane impact. 172] Chapter 9 notes that by 9:58 a.m., the battalion chief Orio Palmer] had reached the 78th floor on stairwell A of the South Tower; he reported that it looked open to the 79th floor, well into the impact zone. 173] This is a reference to the so called “lost tape” which verified that members of the fire department reached the scene of the crash zone of the South tower, which was NOT a blazing inferno, and thought they had things under control. 174] Chapter 9 notes that at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the South tower, crashing thru the 77th to 85th floors. “The plane Banked as it hit…, leaving portions of the building undamaged on impact floors. As a consequence--and in contrast to—the…North Tower, stairwell A initially remained passable from at least the 91st floor down, and likely from top to bottom.” 175] Recall that the stairwell was within the 47 steel core columns, which suggests that the core area of the South tower was damaged less than the North Tower. Yet the South Tower collapsed first, and Chapter 9 notes: “the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds” and “collapsed into itself” 176] yet does not question how this could have been possible. Griffin notes that the Commission Report even ignored the existence of the 47 steel core columns: “The outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns… These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.” 177] Chapter 9 states “At 10:04, NYPD aviation reported that the top 15 stories of the North tower ‘were glowing red’.” Yet this is contradicted by photos 178] which shows the top floors engulfed in smoke, with only one pocket of fire visible. The floors of Buildings 5 and 6 on the other hand, were documented by photographic evidence as glowing red hot, but did not collapse. Griffin notes the statement made by former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani to the commission: “We were operating out of there the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of WTC-7] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.” 179] Griffin continues: “This is a remarkable statement. There was no publicly available reason to believe that the Twin Towers were going to collapse……The firemen going up the stairs in the South Tower certainly did not think it was about to collapse… Should the Commission not have asked Giuliani some questions about this statement, such as: Who told him the towers were about to collapse. The Commission’s report makes no mention of Giuliani’s statement.” 180] This is all the more interesting considering that EMT Richard Zarrillo, in a World Trade Center Task Force interview given on Oct 25 2001, stated that The Office of Emergency Management had prior knowledge of the tower Collapses: “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out” 181] 5.4.2 9/11 Commission Makeup The 9/11 Commission Executive Director was Phillip Zelikow. Former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean chaired the commission, with Lee Hamilton as Vice Chair. Both Kean and Hamilton assert in their book Without Precedent, that they were "SET UP TO FAIL”, that being the name of the First chapter, and “We were set up to fail” being the first sentence. 182] The authors relate that the commission was starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Authority. 183] Some claim their book is a “limited hangout.” 184] Phillip Zelikow was a member of the Bush transition team from the Clinton to Bush administrations. The transition involved downgrading the importance and visibility of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group. It was revealed on January 15, 2004 that both Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick, a commission member, were both still so closely involved in the events under investigation that they have been interviewed as part of the inquiry. 185] As Executive Director, Zelikow retained the power to hire all Commission staff and coordinate the flow of Kean's investigation. He also had access to all testimony-and managed all upcoming witnesses, document requests and subpoenas. 186] Zelikow co-authored a 1998 Foreign Affairs article on the likely political and cultural effects of a massive Pearl Harbor style terrorist event such as the destruction of the World Trade Center. In that article, Zelikow noted that such a mythic event would split time into a before and an after. The after, of course, was the “whole new world” of post-9/11 terror hysteria. 187] All commission members had potential conflicts of interest. 188] 5.4.3 9/11 Commission member Behavior On March 21, 2004, victim family members complained of Phillip Zelikow’s conflicts of interest in an Oct. 3 2003 letter to the Commission, but were rebuffed. 189] On March 21, 2004, 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded the resignation of Zelikow, but he was defended by the commission. New York Times journalist Philip Shenon led the NYT coverage of the commission's activities. In early 2008, his book The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, revealed that among other things, Zelikow engaged in "surreptitious" communications with presidential adviser Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials during the commission's 20-month investigation. 190] The 9/11 Commission agreed to accept the redacted audiotapes of first responders offered by the City of New York, referenced previously. See Section 2.3.3] The result was the August “revealing” of these sanitized tapes and oral histories used by the 9/11 Commission 191] At the last set of 9/11 Commission Hearings in New York City, members of the NYFD, NYPD, and other emergency services were criticized by Commissioner John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy. Tarpley suggests this was part of a programmatic effort to discredit them; especially NYFD. 192] 5.5 The Silverstein Studies A team of engineers from several firms offered their own high tech analysis, intended as a follow-up to the FEMA BPA. The firms were Weidlinger Associates Inc., LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, ARUPFire, Hughes Associates Inc., SafirRosetti, Hillman Environmental Group, and RWDI. This study, completed in October 2002, was commissioned by Silverstein Properties for its insurance claim on the WTC, and was forwarded to NIST. Although this study concurred that the plane crashes stripped fireproofing from columns in the debris path (and therefore that fire is what caused the collapse), the report also concluded that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. While the FEMA report cast suspicion on the floor trusses, the Silverstein report exonerated the floor trusses, and noted the core columns had to fail completely for the tower collapse. WTC 2, though hit by the second hijacked plane after One WTC, fell first "primarily" because the plane struck it at an off-center angle and caused damage that compromised the corner of the core of the building, concludes the report's authors, the New York City-based leaseholder of the World Trade Center. 193] The study fails to address the fact that the top floors of the building virtually disappeared, or rather disintegrated, in mid-air. Interestingly, Matthys Levy, of Weidlinger Associates Inc. is recorded on video making the following statement: "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened." 194] 5.6.0 The NIST Investigation The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) WTC study began in 2002 as a result of lobbying by the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, which was created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family members on Sept. 11, 2001. 195] Although dealing with a great number of safety related issues, NIST was specifically charged with the task of determining how and why WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed. 196] The 10,000 page final report for buildings 1 and 2 was published three years later, in September 2005, by a staff of hundreds with a budget of 17.5 million dollars. Information on the NIST WTC study is available on the NIST website: www.nist.gov. 197] The website avoids bringing up the primary purpose of the study, and states that the NIST goal was “to recommend improvements in the way people design, construct, maintain, and use buildings.” The final report includes a vast amount of work on numerous topics. For example the section headings of the reports include: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems; Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis; Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel; Active Fire Protection Systems; Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers; Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence; Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication; and The Emergency Response Operations. These reports all contain good engineering work, but little of it had anything directly to do with collapse analysis, and even less had to do with selecting a cause of collapse. Only a small part of Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel and Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence had anything to do with determining “cause”. Beyond that, as any engineer who has worked in industry knows, what engineers do, and what the outside world sees, can be two different things. Ultimate control is in the hands of those who control the documentation and release process; i.e., management. NIST is a government entity, being affiliated with the Department of Commerce 198], so it is not “independent”. In this case, “management “ means "Administration," since NIST's bosses are directly appointed by George W Bush. Regarding the cause of collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the Executive Summary of the final report states: The Two aircraft hit the towers at high speeds and did considerable damage to principle structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse. 199] According to the Executive Summary, the WTC investigation included a review of thousands of documents, 1200 first-person interviews with building occupants and emergency responders, laboratory tests, and computer simulations. 200] Kevin Ryan, former site manager of Underwriter’s Labs, has discussed NIST performance on these aspects of the investigation. 5.6.1 Review of Documents: 5.6.1.1 Many relevant documents not mentioned or missing. Ryan notes that many relevant design claims were not mentioned. He also notes that UL fire resistance data, as well as WSH&J (John Skilling’s) fire resistance analysis came up missing. 201] 5.6.1.2 Original tower design features and claims Frank A. Demartini, the Construction Manager of the World Trade Center, stated in the History Channel's January 2001 film World Trade Center: A Modern Marvel, that the building could withstand “multiple” airplane hits. Demartini apparently died in the September 11 attacks. 202] NIST notes that a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. Although NIST investigators were “unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis,” the analysis concluded that such a collision “would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…” 203] Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, and a Scientific American contributor, notes that the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact load caused by a 767, but believes the designers never considered the fuel load and inferno that would surely ensue. 204] Eduardo Kausel 204] John Skilling 205] However, John Skilling, partner in WSH&J, who died in 1998, stated in a 1993 interview with The Seattle Times: “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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” 205] Since, as Kausel notes, the 707- 320 and 767-200ER both carry about the same amount of fuel, one might reasonable conclude that the buildings were indeed designed to accommodate fires from the 767-200 ER. Only floors 95-96 and 97 of WTC 1 sustained significant damage. In these floors NIST indicates that only about 9 of the 47 core columns were significantly damaged, and about 15% of the 244 peripheral columns failed in the crash zone of each tower. Yet according to the "premier construction industry" publication, Engineering News-Record (ENR), over 25% of the peripheral columns on the ground floor could be removed, and the building could still withstand 100 mph winds from any direction 206]. NIST notes that because of severed columns, loads on adjacent columns, including the effects of the hat trusses, increased by up to 25%. 207] This scenario appears to conflict with the claim found in ENR that loads on perimeter columns could be increased by a factor of 20 (2000 %) without failing. 208] If the ENR claim were correct, even at half strength, the load on the perimeter columns could be increased by a factor of 10 before failing. 5.6.2 Interviews: Ryan notes that NIST began planning for eyewitness interviews in April 2003, 7 months after the start of the investigation. By October, NIST had still not conducted interviews, and had no access to NYC interviews. By December 2003, NYC finally agreed to allow NIST to access original interviews, but only in NYC offices. 209] MacQueen notes that NIST had the FDNY Oral Histories, and praised the quality of judgments of the FDNY on the condition of the buildings on 9/11, but never mentions the FDNY reports of explosions. 210] 5.6.3 Lab Tests: Fire and NIST Although NIST found “no significant steel temperatures over 625 deg. C”. 211], and the half strength critical temperature of steel is 650 deg. C., their report concludes column and floor assemblies softened due to fire because fireproofing was “widely dislodged,” and the floors began to sag in the impact zone, which caused perimeter columns to buckle inwards, leading to “collapse initiation” 212]. Kevin Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, who was heading the NIST Analysis of Structural Steel: Your comments suggest that the exterior panel] steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500 degrees F. (250 C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation…. yet]… this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse… This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone briefly burning fires in those towers. 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. 213] Ryan noted in the letter that testing of steel components of the WTC buildings was performed by UL in the 1960’s, and later pointed out that the tests “verified conformance to code requirements for multiple hours of fire resistance at much higher temperatures.” 214] According to an article in the South Bend Tribune, Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman, sharply rebuked Ryan's statements, stating: "The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong." Ryan was fired for making his statements. Kevin Ryan, former UL Site Manager 215] Frank Gayle, NIST 216] According to the Tribune article, Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org.One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties, and permission was given. 217] As part of the investigation, NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to test floor trusses like those in the WTC towers. All four test specimens were subject to a standard fire test (ASTM E119) and sustained the maximum design load (twice that on the WTC trusses) for two hours “without collapsing….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.” 218] The ASTM E119 time-temperature profile exposed the specimens to almost 1000 deg C. for over an hour. 219] 5.6.4 Analysis and Simulation 5.6.4.1 WTC tower structure Let us roughly characterize the actual WTC tower structure. The 1375 ft. tall towers of 110 12.5 ft. floors consisted of a perimeter of 244 structural steel columns forming a square plan, with horizontal bracing (spandrels) and extremely rigid chamfered corners. The peripheral steel columns from the 9th through the 106th floors spanned three floors vertically, and were built into massive steel wall sections measuring about 10 ft wide by 27.5 ft. (three floors) tall, consisting of three 14 inch square hollow box columns spaced three ft. four inches apart, and welded to thick steel plate spandrels. The building core, of dimensions 79X139 ft., was a veritable forest of 47 columns, horizontal and diagonal cross braced, which housed primarily elevator shafts. The 47 core columns varied in thickness with floor height. Individual core columns in the lower core measured 52 x 22 in. (in plan), and were formed of 5 and 3 inch plate into almost solid steel shafts that weighed up to 56 tons. 220] Other sources, including FEMA, note the average core box column cross section to be 12" wide x 36" deep x 2" thick, having a cross sectional area of 176 square inches. The box cross section construction changed to relatively light I-beam cross section above the 85th floor. 221] Hufschmid indicates the perimeter columns also decreased in thickness with increasing floor height. 222] Each tower weighed 500,000 short tons or 454545 metric tons ( 1 metric ton=1.1 short ton). The intact 16 story section above aircraft impact weighed 58,000 metric tons. Thus, the upper 16 of the 110 floor system, or 14.5 % of the floors, weighed only about 12.7 % of the total building weight, so the majority of the mass per floor was in the lower floors. 223] NIST analysis of building natural periods before and after impact shows overall stiffness of the towers was not appreciably affected by aircraft impact. 224] 5.6.4.2 NIST Simulation of Aircraft Damage to Tower Structure. NIST performed detailed aircraft impact damage estimate simulations. Four “global simulations” were used to generate information about the state of the structural components following aircraft impact. 225] The global models extended from floor 91 for WTC1 and floor 77 for WTC2 to the top of each tower 226]. Two models were done for each tower; one at an estimated minimum, the other at an estimated maximum aircraft speed. The column damage for all impacted floors was combined into a single image for each tower. The cases, and column damage are noted in 227]. The NIST “worst case” (ie max aircraft speed) damage assessment for WTC1 , was Case B, with 6 columns severed and 3 with heavy damage. It is instructive to compare this reasonable damage estimate with one of the more “technical” 911 Truth debunking websites, which suggests 20 core columns were “removed due to impact”: Composite floor plan showing aircraft damage to North Tower, low and high speed cases Figures 6-21 and 6-22 from NIST 228] Figure purporting to show aircraft damage to WTC1 229] 5.6.4.3 Descending Block Scenario leading up to “collapse initiation.” The NIST story has it that the floors of the upper descending “block”, consisting of 15 floors with lighter supports, in the North Tower, were able to “pile up” and out-crush the more massive supports of the floors of the lower block, consisting of 85 floors. Richard Gage in his Blueprint for Truth presentations includes real time videos clearly showing that The upper 15 floors of WTC1 disintegrate prior to the “collapse” of the lower 85 floors. 230]. This can be observed in successive frames from the sequence shown in section 1.2.2, North Tower Antenna. Frames 9,10,11,12. Notice the top of the upper block is descending rapidly, while the top of the lower block, although enveloped in flame, appears to not have moved appreciably. 231] A well know series of photos 1,2,3 of the South Tower shows the top 34 floors tipping and then disintegrating: 232] Steven Jones notes the anomaly of the disintegration of the piece of the South Tower, which was also alluded to by Hufschmid: “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!…Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.” 233] The top 34 floors begin to topple, so there is no huge mass of material bearing down on the untoppled floors. The toppling 34 floors are in free fall; no crushing mass bearing down on them, so why did these floors disintegrate into dust? This means that there was no “massive upper block”, in either North or South Tower, to crush the lower floors. This is consistent with Jim Hoffman’s observation that “the purported ‘tremendous energy of the falling building section’ (upper block) did not even show up on the seismographs.” Brent Blanchard, senior writer for Implosion-World.com, also states that a review of all photographic images clearly shows about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure. 234] There was no huge buildup of mass, either as a single massive block or buildup of debris, onto the lower block. Any suggestion of the descending block scenario, pancake or progressive collapse is further contradicted by images showing large intact portions of the towers, apparently hanging in thin air above the “collapse” wave. A portion of one of the WTC towers (center of image) seems to be hanging in mid-air 235] Yet NIST states repeatedly that energy of the downward movement of the building mass above the damaged columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the lower floors, so global collapse ensued 236] This is the essence of “progressive collapse” theory, and it has been assumed, not demonstrated, not proven. NIST only considers events from the moment of aircraft impact until “collapse initiation.” 237] Incredibly, “progressive collapse” of floors below aircraft impact has been left out of the NIST collapse sequence computer models! 238] Finnish 9/11 activist Sami Yli-Karjanmaa was among the first critics of the NIST report. 239] He noted the truncation of models to reduce model size and improve computation time, failure to simulate the collapse, and the NIST collapse mantra, "repeated 12 times in the project 6 report dealing with the collapse sequence: 'The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.'" 5.6.4.4 Where is the momentum transfer analysis? It has already been established that the “descending block” scenario was fictitious; there were no descending upper blocks impacting lower blocks. But for the sake of argument, suppose there had been. Suppose an upper block had hit a lower block. Stress and strain energy are in the domain of the theory of elasticity, yet NIST provides no elasticity analysis to substantiate its position. Fundamental to application of the theory of elasticity to the WTC North Tower collapse is the fact that impact of the theoretical “upper block” with the “lower block” will not just stress the topmost floor of the lower block; rather, the stress will be propagated rapidly downward and upward to the rest of the floors. This propagation will absorb energy, and the question is, as in the case of an elastic spring, how much energy can the structure absorb without breaking. Manuel Garcia, in an article for Counterpunch, says that he takes up the analysis of the collapse of the towers “where NIST left off” in describing the floor-by -floor collapse, but makes the same assumption as NIST, that the energy of descending floors is more than the structure can absorb. He does not consider the benefit of elasticity is absorbing energy, but only looks at the destructive aspects of the descending “wave train.” 240] Gordon Ross has applied the theory of elasticity in a comprehensive way to the descending block scenario to show that even had it existed, the momentum of the upper impacting block would be absorbed during the three percent elongation phase of the steel columns of the very top floor, and therefore collapse would not proceed. 241] The NIST mantra remains unproven. The NIST investigation also omitted or distorted many other important aspects of the collapses, including movement of the WTC1 antenna before the adjacent façade, the pyroclastic dust clouds, and pools of molten metal in the WTC basements weeks after the attacks. 242] NIST failed to provide follow up study on an unusual sulfur residue which was found during the FEMA BPA study, and which FEMA recommended be investigated in future studies. 243] 5.6.5 Steven Jones on Kevin Ryan and NIST: Jones agrees with Kevin Ryan's objections regarding the NIST study. 244] Jones also challenges NIST's collapse theory: “NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite contrary observations, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse….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. 245] 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. 246] NIST notes explicitly several times in its final report that the computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse.” Jones asks: 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 …Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are "adjusted," perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. 247] Ryan 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 aircraft damage and fires (the "official theory") could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion (Ryan, 2005). “So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan, ‘This "official"] story just does not add up...” 248] 5.6.6 The Engineering Community A lone scientist, Abdolhasan Astaneh Asl, funded by the National Science foundation, got access to the steel before the ASCE/FEMA team. Despite the fact that 40 percent of a steel beam was torn away, the column did not collapse, an example of redundancy built into the 1970s-vintage structure. With admiration, Asl said "The aircraft] impact did nothing to this building." 249] The engineering community has raised questions about the results of the NIST WTC investigation. The popular British construction industry magazine New Civil Engineer International (NCEI) notes: Controversy still surrounds the exact collapse mechanism of the Twin Towers, despite three years of detailed investigation by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) team. Some engineers believe the collapse was influenced by factors other than the fires caused by burning aviation fuel which weakened vital structural steel elements. And they have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism….”In this latest version, the hat trusses on top of the towers play a crucial role in the redistribution of stresses after the impact,” one leading US structural engineer told NCE in New York “In earlier versions they are hardly mentioned.” 250] Regarding the analysis used to bring the towers to the point of being “poised for collapse,” NCEI notes: “NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models…The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” The same article notes NIST is “refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers…Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.” University of Manchester U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualizing the structural response. "NIST should really show the visualizations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost." 251] James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, and former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation. Alan Miller has written an excellent article on Quintiere’s plea. Miller notes that Dr. Quintiere gave his presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, June 4- 5, 2007. Although Quintiere apparently does not consider controlled demolition a possible collapse mechanism, his frustration and objections regarding the NIST WTC study include those of 9/11 Truth researchers, as well as the engineering community. Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. ...” 252] Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated: “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding." Dr. Quintiere noted that a number of questions had been submitted to NIST which were never acknowledged or answered. Those questions include the following: "Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?" Noting destruction of the WTC steel, Quintiere remarked that a careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. "Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error? " NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. ...." But the validation of these modeling results 253] is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a timeline and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. " "Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least one] WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... " 254] 5.6.7 Purdue Study; A NIST Prop? The Purdue University website, in an article dated September 11 2006, announced the so-called “Purdue Study” 255]. An Associated Press article appearing in the June 20 2007 online edition of USA Today noted the two year study “supports a federal agency's findings NIST] that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.” 256] Scholars for 9/11 Truth , Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Prison planet, among others, have criticized this study. Prison Planet observed that the study was funded by the National Science Foundation, whose budget was doubled last year to $6.02 billion by the Bush administration. It’s director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., has worked for the Department of defense, where he was Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and DARPA. 257] Prison Planet also noted that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the many inconsistencies and conflicting testimony. 258] Nick Irving’s paper, Purdue 9/11 Animation: Politics, not Science, appeared on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website dated June 23 2007 259]. Kevin Ryan’s paper; An Open Letter to Purdue President Cordova, has been posted by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. 260] Ryan notes inattention to minor detail: In a paper describing the study, 261] he notes that “Flight 77 “ and “impact of Flight AA71” are referenced to aircraft impact of WTC1. He notes a litany of technical discrepancies between the NIST and Purdue studies; for example: NIST determined that the center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it struck WTC 1, but the Purdue animation shows the center tank to be completely full. Although dubbed by some as a NIST study “prop”, an August 2007 ENR article entitled Purdue Model of WTC Impact Conflicts with Federal Study focuses on the differences. 262] See: How do the Studies compare. 5.6.8 Secrecy According to the Nov. 12 2005 New York Times, NIST announced that its construction advisory committee, a group of experts overseeing the investigation, would meet for 10 hours on Nov. 22 at its headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, but that only the first 2 hours would be public. The remainder will be closed “because of the agency's concerns that discussions about changes in construction codes could prematurely influence the building industry and the people who write the codes,” said Mat Heyman, the institute's chief of staff. Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Richard was killed when the South tower collapsed 57 minutes after it was hit by one of the hijacked jets, vehemently objected to the decision: ''You have one job, and one job only -- to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it,'' she said yesterday in an interview. ''You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public--the truth, no matter where it goes.''… ''There has been considerable pressure on us to come out with our final recommendations,'' Mr. Heyman said. 263] 5.6.9 The real goal of the NIST “investigation As Ed Haas has pointed out, the real goal of the NIST “investigation” appears to have been to protect the government. Throughout the NIST reports Haas notes the following language:“NIST 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.” Haas also notes generous use of the following disclaimer: “No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 1007-321).” 264] 5.6.10 Legal challenges filed against NIST According to a notice on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website, dated April 14, 2007, 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, physicist Steven E. Jones, former UL manager, Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have also filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with NIST. The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws inferences that are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is explosive demolition. 265] On September 27 2007, NIST finally responded to the Jones RFC. 266] The NIST memorandum appears to agree that the NCST Act requires NIST to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.“ On the fact that temperatures reached by steel recovered by NIST directly contradicted the temperatures calculated by the analytical models, NIST states: “While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 deg C., it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire effected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250 deg. C.” 267] On the issue that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. “NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.” 268] On the issue of failure to carry the analysis beyond the point of “initiation of collapse”, NIST states that computer models were unable to converge on a solution, but assumes the NIST collapse mantra: “Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.“ 269] And to make sure we did not miss it, the memorandum repeats: “Finally, NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…” 270] In the midst of all this, NIST admits “ we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” 271] All Requests for Correction were denied, but it is believed Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice will appeal this decision. 5.6.11 More Scientists Architects and Engineers question NIST Results In September 2006, Alan Miller began the website www.PatriotsQuestion911.com. 272] Initially statements from very high profile persons critical of the official story were posted, but the scope of the website quickly expanded. As of February, 2009, over 160 Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials; over 350 professors; over 230 9/11 Survivors and family members; over 190 artists, entertainers and media professionals; over 170 pilots and aviation professionals; and over 660 engineers and architects appear on this site questioning the official story. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Senator and current Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee , as well as Eleanor Hill, Former Staff Director of the Joint Intelligence Committee 911] Inquiry (JICI) added their signatures on November 12, 2008 Richard Gage is a degreed and licensed architect from the San Francisco Bay area and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has over 20 years experience as an architect, including working with numerous steel framed fire-proofed structures. In 2006, he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org), which as of February 2009 has garnered 607 professional signatures demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation into the destruction of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11/01. "My objective is to make all architects and engineers aware of the overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition by explosives at all three WTC high-rise buildings." 273] In his excellent DVD 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, Gage points out that fire creeps slowly from one location to another, as successive areas are burned out, causing large visible slow deformations and would result in asymmetrical collapse. In his presentation, Gage goes clearly and carefully step by step through the scientific method in arguing his case: Each claim is tested. If it fails the test, it is rejected or reformulated. He then summarizes a large number of features which support the hypothesis of controlled demolition in a grided check list. 274] The relatively large number of engineers and architects on the www.PatriotsQuestion911.com website may be due in part to the existence of Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 5.7.0 How do the Official Investigations Compare? 5.7.1 A Continuity of Faces There does appear to be a certain continuity of staffing of the several studies supporting the Official Story: According to Kevin Ryan, 275] the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Team that first looked into the collapse of the Twin Towers was initially led by the same team that looked into the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing. Initial ASCE team leaders as of 9/14/01 included Gene Corley, Sr. VP of CTL Engineering as chief lead, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen. Murrah building bombing report authors were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen. 276] Corley “knew” once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did: “I just didn’t know when it was going to happen,” said Corley. St. Petersburg Times] 277] Interestingly, NYC put the firm of Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of the WTC site. Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.” 278] The first NIST meeting included comments from Gene Corley and Richard Tomasetti. Charles Thornton was on the NIST related National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee. 279] FEMA authors Therese McAllister, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, William Baker, Harold Nelson, and Ramon Gilsanz were co-authors for portions of the NIST report. An internet search of Gene Corley, Charles H. Thornton, Richard L. Tomasetti, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen produces mixed results. Although Corley and Mlakar could be seen as having potential conflicts of interest due to their association with the defense industry, Thornton is considered a hero, having received the 2001 Engineering News-Record Award of Excellence for being “the consummate mentor and role model.” 280] Kevin Ryan notes that Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, and Richard Tomasetti, involved in the ASCE/FEMA studies, were also involved in the studies to establish the Silverstein insurance claim. Although both studies agreed that airplane impact and fire were the cause of collapse, the Weidlinger - Silverstein studies directly contradicted the FEMA report regarding the floor trusses as a mechanism of collapse. 281] Were these engineers unaware of this contradiction? 5.7.2 North Tower Antenna 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 off 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.” The report notes this is consistent with other observations. 282] A NY Times article also notes this behavior: “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.” 283] The NIST investigation also noted that the collapse of the North Tower Antenna suggested that the steel core gave way first, but later stated: "Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and video records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." 284] This NIST statement cannot be precisely accurate, because we know there had to be a component of antenna motion downward as the structure collapsed. As Dr. Jones notes, the proper technical approach would be to resolve the southward and downward components of motion analytically, to see the relative contribution . 285] NIST seems to have arrived at its conclusion in disagreement with the FEMA Report, which noted the observation of the sinking core was based on “videotape recordings taken from various angles.” The NIST conclusion is based on data which is apparently not available to the public. 5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC towers According to the FEMA BPA, aircraft fuel capacity was 23,980 gallons; at time of impact, each jet had an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel on board. 286] "Calculations indicate that between 1000 and 3000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed" in fireballs for each tower. The remainder flowed away from the structures, or burned within them. Assuming half flowed away, then approximately 4000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet Fuel would have been consumed within the first few minutes. 287] The NIST Executive Summary states "About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories" 288] The more detailed account states: "Upon aircraft impact, a significant fraction of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel ignited within the building." 289] Apparently struggling for every gallon to be burned within the towers, NIST finally concedes that somewhat less than 10,000 gallons of fuel actually burned in each tower: "The timing and appearance of the fireballs indicated they were ignited within the building. A calculation based on the oxygen contained within the building on the floors into which the fuel tanks entered indicated that up to 15% of the available jet fuel could have burned inside the building in the immediate event...If roughly another 15-20 % of the jet fuel burned outside the building, as in WTC2, then about two thirds of the jet fuel remained inside the building to burn later or just flow away from the fire zones." 290] With WTC 2; we find classic NIST-ese. Is it a highly detailed description of how much fuel burned in the building, or obfuscation? 291] Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's School of Civil Engineering, and lead investigator for the Purdue study, stated "the ensuing fire fed by an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel". 292] The figures from the first official investigation, by FEMA, are more in line with figures given on the Discovery Channel, noted earlier by Dave McGowan. The tendency is that in later investigations, the estimated amount of fuel burned inside the buildings escalates. 5.7.4 References to explosives, explosive, or anomalous characteristics Chapter 1 of the FEMA Report notes: Sudden collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around the WTC site. 293]…Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusions of a secondary explosion. 294] Although not noted in the main text, the FEMA Report did note in appendix C the presence of sulfur and a eutectic reaction, which had a corrosive effect of the steel, as previously discussed. Although FEMA noted this was an unusual event, and recommended a detailed study, this went no further in the official reports. Chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report contains only one oblique reference to explosions: “When the South Tower collapsed, firefighters on the upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet…those firefighters not standing near windows facing south had no way of knowing that the South Tower had collapsed, many surmised that a bomb had exploded…” 295] Investigations by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST did not address the well documented presence of molten metal in the WTC basements. 296] 5.7.5 Aircraft Impact Damage The towers are traditionally accepted as having been designed by Leslie E. Robertson to withstand 140 mile per hour winds, and the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Intercontinental Boeing 707. This has been acknowledged in both the FEMA BPA, and the NIST investigations. 297] The FEMA BAP contends that the 707 design was for low speed and low fuel, and that the 767 is more “massive” than the 707. Both of these claims have been rebutted. 298] FEMA wrote that for each tower, the aircraft impact resulted in severe structural damage, including some localized partial collapse, but did not result in the initiation of global collapse. 299] The NIST Executive Summary states: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speeds and did considerable damage to principle structural components,” Abdolhasan Astaneh Asl wrote: “The impact did nothing to this building.” 300] 5.7.6 “Pancaking”, “Progressive Collapse”; Mode of failure; New building codes While the FEMA report cast suspicion on the floor trusses, the Silverstein report exonerated the floor trusses, and noted the core columns had to fail completely for the tower collapse. The Silverstein study also concluded that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. 301] The FEMA BPA implicated weakening of floor trusses as leading to “progressive collapse”. It mentions “pancaking” only a few times, but references floor failure and weakness numerous times. 302] The March 2005 Popular Mechanics debunk article notes in support of “pancake theory”: FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. 303] In the first place, as we have seen, there were no massive blocks bearing down with pulverizing force, because both upper blocks were pulverized. Further, no momentum transfer analysis was done; and it is just assumed the lower floors would fail, because they did. Going further, Dr. Steven Jones puts it this way: "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 floor —and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. - 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?” 304] The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have used the following example to illustrate the point. Which tower top will strike the ground first? According to the official story, both will strike the ground at the same time. Tower tops in free fall 305] “Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. ‘When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,’ NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, ‘but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.’” 306] Although “pancake/pancaking” is not referenced in the NIST report, the lead investigator uses the term freely. Steven Jones has an excellent response: the timing between puffs is too short, so air expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. A rough calculation of the time for the north tower to freefall (from 1368 ft) is 9.22 seconds, and the time for one floor to freefall is .88 seconds. 307] Pancaking as described by Mr. Sunder would require each floor to collapse (free fall) independently and sequentially for each of the 110 floors. The total time would be 110 stories * .88 seconds per story, or about 97 seconds. This does not include a delay time for the breaking of successive floors. So the observed time of collapse of the North Tower (under 16 seconds, is much closer to freefall time (9.2 seconds) than the time for “pancaking” as described by Mr. Sunder (Which would take 97 seconds). As Steven Jones notes, the FEMA “Pancaking” 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.” 308] Although NIST has officially given up the idea of “pancaking” 309], which is never mentioned in its final report, it has clearly has not given up on the term “progressive” collapse 310], which is mentioned frequently. 311] Although the FEMA, NIST and Purdue studies emphasize the high temperatures of the fires, the Silverstein study noted that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. Although both NIST and the Purdue study agree that stripped fireproofing from the core columns was a factor leading to collapse, the Purdue study, as the Silverstein study, suggest core columns failed first, while the NIST study concluded the perimeter columns failed first. NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged in the “more severe” category, while Purdue claims 52 core columns were "destroyed or heavily damaged" over a height six floors; Shyam Sunder, lead NIST WTC investigator, suggested the fidelity of modeling was the reason for this discrepancy. 312] Kevin Ryan notes that in one important way the Purdue animation reflects reality: it is clear that the aircraft impacting the WTC towers could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The Purdue animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. This contradicts the NIST notion of the aircraft disintegrating into shotgun type blasts, purportedly scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. 313] NIST says the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA's model), but rather the floor pans "pull with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure.” 314] NIST coordinated on some WTC work with ARUP, an international construction and safety organization. According to NCEI, “British engineers strongly disputed official American claims that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse as a result of removal of fireproofing due to aircraft impact. The disagreement provoked a strong exchange of views at a major conference held at Gaithersburg near Washington DC to discuss the official findings. British engineer Barbara Lane stated that from ARUP’s analysis, the towers would have collapsed even without the removal of fireproofing. 315] ARUP also contests another NIST failure mechanism: “the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening.” 316] Although the FEMA BAP acknowledged the novelty of the collapses, 317] Griffin notes of NIST: “Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST--the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)--even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).” 318] Indeed, NIST, based on the singular collapses of 9/11, appears to have come up with a whole new class of building failures that were not “coded” for in past history, and must be protected against retroactively and in the future. 319] NCEI notes that the engineering community as well as developers are now concerned about another layer of regulations, some of whom doubt the resulting buildings will be any safer. 320] The apparent revisionism we have seen in the politically correct “collapse” mechanism advocated by the US technical and fire fighting community seems paralleled in Great Britain. Although British elements in ARUP are now convinced the towers would have fallen even without “removal of fireproofing”, several high profile British structural designers were originally quite dubious of the idea of fire induced collapses. In an article dated 4 October 2001, Professor Wilem Frischmann, of the Pell Frischmann Group and the City University, London, said that the aircraft puncturing of the outer steel shells of the towers would not in itself have caused the towers to fall. Although the explosion caused by the fuelladen aircraft would have been intense, the lack of available oxygen inside the towers would, according to Professor Frischmann, have limited the fireball's temperature to less than 1,000 Celsius, within the tower design limits. Architect Bob Halvorson, of Halvorson and Kaye in London said: "There is going to be a debate about whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have collapsed in the way that they did....We are operating well beyond realistic experience." 321] One might wonder how there can be so much divergence in details of the mechanism of building collapse proposed by the various studies, even by the same engineers, yet such certainty that the underlying cause is aircraft impact and fire. 6.0 Bush Science The NIST study is a product of the Bush administration. An enumeration of the inconsistencies of the NIST study is consistent with a long standing and well documented pattern of Bush administration abuse of the scientific method The House Committee on Government Reform found "numerous instances where this Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." 322] On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists, including Nobel laureates, signed a statement that "The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease." Since then, over 9000 additional scientists and engineers have signed on. 323] Consider the case of the US Fish and Wild Life Service. According to the L.A. Times, a survey of the 1400 employees working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientific staff was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected. More than 20% of the 420 survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information." More than half of survey responders said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business. One biologist, who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said: "Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases…As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency." 324] left: George Bush on Global Warming; Center: James Connaughton, chairman NewsFollowUp.com of the White House Council on Environmental Quality 325] A clear example of distortion of scientific knowledge was seen in the subsequent declaration by EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman that the "air is safe" in Manhattan a week after the attacks. 326] In fact, according to top scientists, the air at Ground Zero was highly corrosive, and a "significant threat to health." 327] The White House Council on Environmental Quality, headed by James Connaughton, directed the EPA to edit the scientific findings "based on how it should be released publicly." 328] Since then, problems have mounted from 9/11 dust. The number of people with medical problems linked to the 9/11 attacks on New York has risen to at least 15,000, and over 70,000 are enrolled in WTC Health Registry. 329] 7.0 Alternative Theories 7.1 Steven Jones Thermite/Thermate Alternative On 23 Nov 2003, D. P. Grimmer published a paper which considered the possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC inner core columns in such a way as to cause collapse. The paper estimated the mass and volume of thermite necessary to allow melting, and concluded that it would have been physically possible to deliver this quantity of thermite to the WTC towers. 330] In late 2005, and early 2006, two articles were published in the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City mainstream publication, which signaled the emergence of the issue of the collapse of the WTC towers into mainstream U.S. consciousness. The first article, “BYU Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC,” 331] set the stage, justifying the possibility that the WTC towers were subject to explosives. The article included a list of characteristics observed during the collapse of the towers which paralleled classic examples of controlled demolition. The second article, “Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC,” 332] presented some preliminary evidence for a specific demolition mechanism. Jones noted that the government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers, but no tags are required for aluminum, iron oxide, or sulfur, the constituents of a powerful incendiary. The article noted a video showing a yellow molten substance flowing from the South Tower moments before it collapsed. About this same time, Scholars for 9/11 Truth was founded, which attempted to focus on scientific fact in an investigation of the events of 9/11. At this time, Jones began several ongoing reports to document his position, and his alternative theory of the collapse of the towers: “Answers to Questions and Objections,” and “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” See “Abbreviations used in endnotes and text.”        Dr Steven E. Jones] 332] A key question is: how does a small amount of jet fuel at the top of the towers, with a maximum temperature of 1000 deg C, result in large explosions and molten metal at 1500 deg C. in the basement? Jones maintains that “these observations molten metal in the WTC basements] are consistent with use of the high-temperature thermite reaction or some variation thereof such as thermate, 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…Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water...Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite produces thermate, which will accelerate the destructive effect on steel.” Remember Appendix C of the FEMA report discusses the presence of sulfur, creating a eutechtic reaction]. Jones also said the use of explosives such as HDX and RDX should also be considered.] 333] From an analysis of the color of slag recovered from WTC debris, and melting temperatures of various metals , Jones concluded the metal could be either structural steel and/or iron, both of which melt at about 1500 deg C. 334] Metal slag recovered from WTC basement 335] Jones notes that an abundance of Iron (as opposed to aluminum) is suggested by the reddish rust in a sample of slag recovered from the WTC site, now stored in a warehouse in NY. 335] Bright flame in S. Tower 336] Molten metal flows in S. Tower 337] Jones notes that a photograph found in the NIST Report provides evidence for a highly exothermic reaction Regarding this photograph, NIST notes “an unusual flame is visible … a very bright flame… a bright spot appeared …followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” 336] A number of frames showing flowing molten metal from the South Tower, shortly prior to it’s collapse, are available . 337] Ash from South Tower 338] A previous version of “Why Indeed” shows a picture taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post] with white ash rising from the South Tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. 338] Thermite reaction at BYU lab 339] Jones notes the similarity between NIST’s “bright flame” followed by molten metal and white ash with a thermite reaction in his lab at BYU, which shows bright flare, molten yellow-white glowing iron, and a plume of aluminum oxide smoke. 339] He states: “These discoveries strongly motivate an immediate in-depth investigation of the use of thermite-type reactions in the destruction of the” WTC. 340] NIST investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. They suggested the molten material may have been aluminum from the impacting aircraft. 341] Jones argues that although aluminum may glow faintly, the material flowing from the South Tower is most likely not aluminum, but iron. 342] As of July 2006, Jones stated that a peer reviewed qualitative analysis has shown that samples of formerly molten material from the Towers were mostly iron. Electron microprobe data also showed aluminum, sulfur, and potassium, as well as fluorine. Potassium (K), manganese (Mn) and fluorine (F) are used in thermite explosives, and are often present in the residue, and may be part of a "thermite fingerprint." 343] Note that the FEMA investigation found sulfidization of several samples of WTC steel. Jones notes: “While gypsum in the buildings is a possible source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel such as to form a eutectic.” 344] Dr Jones and his students also ran experiments to see if a hypothesis put forward by F. Greening might be credible. This hypothesis holds that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." The results of Dr. Jones’ experiments lent no support whatever to the Greening theory. Aluminum hit with torch does NOT catch fire; Aluminum melts and flows at about 600 deg c. No violent aluminum-rusty steel or aluminum-gypsum/concrete/plastic reactions occurred. 345] Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide can be cast into any shape in a "sol-gel", developed by Livermore Labs. However, Kevin Ryan notes that sol-gels might leave a tell-tale residue: 1,3,diphenylpropane. 346] Analysis of WTC dust showed that one molecule, 1,3,diphenylpropane, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others," according to EPA's Erik Swartz. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done." Swartz speculated that the most likely source was plastic/ polyvinyl chloride materials of tens of thousands of burning computers 347] In his paper 9/11 Revisited Applying the Scientific Method, Dr. Jones reports of his work on dust from the WTC collapses. The iron rich component of the WTC dust samples was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). The result: much of the iron rich dust was composed of roughly spherical particles-microspheres, up to about 1.5 mm in diameter. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that the metals were once molten so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Jones notes that a thermate reaction of a mixture of iron, aluminum powder, and sulfur, produces metallic spheres with high peaks in iron, aluminum, and sulfur, in X-EDS testing. He notes this would constitute a chemical signature of thermate variant microspheres. Although he meticulously avoids drawing any conclusions, he does point out that the WTC iron rich dust samples also contained aluminum and sulfur. He then points out that the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion investigation clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.” He then notes that looking for residues is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. “Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite resedue?” NIST’s answer: No, and in that answer they are remiss. 348] Although Jones notes that the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust shows micrographs of a few metallic spherules , 349] particle form is not considered in most air quality analyses. Environmental Health Perspectives notes “The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. “ Each of three samples was analyzed for inorganic and organic composition, not for particle size or shape. 350] On 4/18/08, Dr. Jones and his researchers successfully published their first paper in a mainstream Civil Engineering journal, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40. The title is Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley. The abstract was given as: “Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.” 351] Jones research on the collapse of the WTC towers made Project Censored story number 18 in 2007. Peter Phillips noted that inclusion of few stories, if any, have generated more controversy, and that two of Project Censored’s esteemed national judges resigned because of it’s inclusion in the 2007 yearbook. 352] 7.3 Gordon Ross Four Phase Attack Alternative According to Gordon Ross, the towers were demolished in four separate steps. The four steps destroyed successively the upper central core, perimeter corners, perimeter sides, horizontal bracing, and lower core. Ross notes that the chamfered corners of the tower perimeter were capable of supporting the total mass above them, without the help of the perimeter sides or tower cores. He points out that the floor trusses from the core connected only to the mid perimeter columns within the projection of the core width (which makes good sense geometrically). The floor trusses from the four corners outside the projection of the core were connected to a transfer truss, and the transfer truss was connected to the core. Ross suggests that this provided two somewhat independent structural systems; the perimeter corners, and the core and perimeter mid-sides. Each would have been capable of sustaining the towers structure. Ross argues that both of these systems were attacked and destroyed to bring about total collapse. Upper core failure would result in transfer of the entire load through the hat truss (“building top”) to the perimeter columns. The downward moving core would pull the perimeter mid-side columns inward (inward bowing). Failure of each of the four corners of each tower would also result in a transfer of the load to the perimeter mid-sides columns, which would then fail. Ross believes, to facilitate collapse, the floor to mid-wall perimeter and core column connections were broken. He notes this would be especially necessary on the mechanical floors, because of their relatively greater design strength. Finally, the lower core was attacked. Ross provides evidence, including still images and video, for each of the stages of destruction. These include: Survival of the lower core structure until an advanced stage of the collapse; Survival of the corners of the perimeter structure after the collapse front has passed; Inward bowing of the perimeter walls; Sagging of floors; Tilting movement of the upper section; Bending of upper section; Early disintegration of upper section; Early downward movement of the antennae; Ejections of dust & debris simultaneously across whole floors; Behavior of the "spire"; Flashes of light; Color and character changes of smoke emissions; Molten metal ejections; Failure of core structure horizontal bracing; and Angle cut core columns. This scenario would appear to account for the infamous behavior of the top 34 floors of the South Tower, which had seemingly violated the principle of angular momentum. 353] 8.0 Wrapping it up with a few questions 8.1 Questions RE the “Official Story” Why have no steel framed structures collapsed either before or since 9/11 due to fire, even though subjected to very intense fire? Could it be that the World Class structural design firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson screwed up in designing the towers to sustain impact with a 707, even when, according to John Skilling, they designed for fires from about the same amount of fuel that the impacting aircraft carried? We have been told by the Official Discovery Channel that the fuel burned up in 8 minutes or less in each tower, so we might ask what supplied the fuel needed for sustained high temperatures for the remaining time until the towers “collapsed”? Why does NIST conclude floor assemblies softened due to high temperatures, when actual NIST test specimens endured temperatures of almost 1000 deg. C for two hours, while “no significant steel temperatures over 625 deg. C.” were found? (Not withstanding the fact that a lot of the steel had been inappropriately “recycled”) Where did all the extra energy come from to: create a pyroclastic flow; cause massive destruction; pulverize concrete to fine dust; melt metal in basements; vaporize steel columns in mid-air; partially or fully burn or melt thousands of cars and trucks near the towers; create afterglow, and “vaporize humans”? Who is correct in calculating the amount of energy needed to produce the observed quantity of dust during tower “collapse”? Jim Hoffman calculated 10 times the available gravitational energy, and the “official story” calculated 30% of available gravitational energy. What caused the non-incendiary destruction of the lobby, basement machine shop, and underground parking garage in the North Tower, prior to its collapse ? A floor-by-floor gravitational collapse of a 110-story tower appears to require over 90 seconds, a time much longer than the actual time of collapse of the towers. Why? How could any mechanical process (causing a floor by floor chain reaction collapse) proceed through 110 floors with enough speed to roughly coincide in time to building free fall? What caused the numerous explosions and tower swaying reported prior to and during the collapses? What caused the smoke coming from the area around buildings 5, 6, and/or 7, videotaped by CNN, moments after flight 175 crashed into the South Tower? Why did major media outlets mis-represented the size of the WTC service cores by use of a misleading diagram? WTC1,2, and 7 all collapsed symmetrically at close to the time of freefall; produced a pyroclastic cloud; showed signs of eutectic reaction; and molten metal remained in the basements for weeks. Photographic evidence shows that steel from the towers actually vaporized in mid-air. Photographic evidence shows metal of all sorts, including thousands of cars and trucks near the towers, being burned and/or melted. Sometimes a vehicle is only partially burned, and the remainder is undamaged, and videos showed an afterglow after each collapse. How can this be the work of gravity? Why would the Supreme Court of New York label reports of emergency responders "opinions" and "recommendations" as untrue, across the board, and refuse to release this information to the public? Why was this information redacted from first responders reports, and this redacted material accepted by the 9/11 Commission? What are these "opinions" and "recommendations" NY City wants to keep hidden? Why has the New York Times removed all articles related to these issues from their archives? Why were the relatives of 16 firefighters identified on the "lost tape” required to sign a statement of non-disclosure before being allowed to hear it? The so-called “lost tape”, which recorded the last words of Chief Orio Palmer on the 78th floor of the South Tower, were ostensible a “secret” because they were going to be used in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. That trial is over now, so why not let the public hear the un-redacted audio tape of Chief Palmer’s last moments? Who told Former Mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuiliani that the towers were going to collapse, and how did they know? Why did the 9/11 Commission not further question Giuiliani on this? Why is it that a number of European explosive experts continue to support the possible scenario of explosives in the towers, while that scenario has been consistently denied by the “official” investigations? Why do the official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission ignore the possible significance of the well-documented evidence of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of the Twin Towers and WTC 7? NIST speculated the metal may have been aluminum from the aircraft, but apparently have done no testing of recovered slag to verify this. Why? Why do the official reports by NIST and the 9/11 Commission laud the information provided by first responders on the state of the buildings, but ignore oral histories from these same first responders mentioning the sounds of explosions? The FEMA BPA found evidence of sulfur, which allowed a “eutectic reaction,” which resulted in “severe corrosion and subsequent erosion” of some WTC steel. Why did the FEMA BPA consign evidence of this reaction to a report appendix? Where did the sulfur come from in the reaction? When did the eutectic reaction occur? Why did NIST not follow through with the FEMA request for further study? Why has NIST assumed the most critical aspect of global tower collapse: “Energy of the downward movement of the building mass above the damaged columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the lower floors”? Why no momentum transfer, or elasticity analysis to prove that assumption? Was this because there was no “upper block” in either the North or South Tower collapse? The upper floors of both disintegrated prior to, or during, the collapse of the lower blocks. That the Towers collapsed due to progressive collapse as described by NIST makes no sense. The top 15 floors of the North Tower are recorded on video to have disintegrated prior to the collapse of the remaining floors. The top 34 floors of the South Tower begin to topple, so there is no huge mass of material bearing down on the untoppled floors, so why did the lower floors collapse? The toppling 34 floors are in virtual free fall; no crushing mass bearing down on them, so why did these floors disintegrate into dust? Why, as members of the engineering community state, has NIST “changed its story” in explaining the collapses? Why has NIST resisted calls from the engineering community to simulate the collapses? www.serendipity.li/WTC.html notes that steel which is subjected to explosion exhibits a characteristic which metallurgists call "twinning". Why has this test not been performed on representative WTC steel and reported upon? Why have many of the same people headed the study of the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing, as well as the FEMA and NIST WTC collapse studies? Why have many of the same people been responsible for writing the ASCE, FEMA, and NIST reports? Why did the engineers who signed off on the NIST report also sign off on the Silverstein report, even though those two studies reached contradictory conclusions regarding collapse mechanism? Remember that in 2006 the Bush administration doubled the budget of the National Science Foundation to $6.02 billion. Was the NSF funded Purdue Study a payback? How can there so much uncertainty about the mechanism of the collapse, but yet such certainty of the underlying “cause” of the collapse, i.e., aircraft impact and fire? NIST was charged with determining how the towers “collapsed”, but themselves have admitted that they do not know how global collapse ensued. Why has this been accepted? 9.0 Fair Use Notice Sections of this paper may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available to promote discussion of important health, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. 911 Visibility Project believes this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this presentation is distributed without fee or payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 354]
13.  The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis Graeme MacQueen Tony Szamboti April 22, 2009* In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. 1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false. In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is: • easy to understand but reasonably precise • capable of being stated briefly • verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics. NIST’s Hypothesis of Total Collapse: Three essential elements of NIST’s hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study: 1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. 2] 2. This “rigid block” of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly fell onto the stories beneath it. 3] 3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that “global collapse began.” 4] The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it. In addition, the rigid block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.” 5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.” 6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse? Journal of 911 Studies 2 January 2009/Volume 24 There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. 7] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. 8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. 9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.” 10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law. In order to keep a sense of reality as we discuss NIST’s theory it may be useful to label the three interacting parts of the North Tower, as they are pictured by NIST, as RB-12+, DS-6 and RB-92. Where RB stands for rigid block, DS stands for damaged structure, and the numbers following the letters refer to the number of stories in each structure. The upper block comprised the 12 stories of 99-110 as well as the roof structure with antenna and hat truss; the intermediate area was damaged by plane impact and fire and was six stories high (93-98 inclusive); and the lower block was rigid and comprised, in addition to subterranean levels, the first 92 stories of the building. These designations actually underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more massive per story. It was also stronger: the Tower’s columns tapered as they ascended. 11] Yet the fall of RB-12+, we are supposed to believe, put a catastrophic end to DS-6 and RB-92. What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground. The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to RB-12+ after its impact with the two structures beneath it. Did it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the rubble heap on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and rigidity the whole time--as Bazant argued in 2001 and has continued to argue? 12] Journal of 911 Studies 3 January 2009/Volume 24 On this the NIST authors are silent. NIST also does not tell us how far RB-12+ fell before its impact with intact structure. Did it fall one story (roughly 12 feet), or several stories? We are left in the dark. Once again Bazant comes to the rescue. It fell “at least one story,” he says. 13] To his credit, Bazant is willing to state the essential elements of the hypothesis. If this hypothesis is to hold any water at all there must be substantial impact: RB-12+ has a lot of work to do, so it had better fall at least one story. As we will show, for the purposes of the present refutation it does not matter whether RB-12+ fell one story, six stories, or somewhere in between. The Necessary Jolt: As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic. Although NIST does not explicitly speak, like Bazant, of a “jolt”, and may therefore be thought to evade this paper’s refutation, it is impossible for NIST to escape the implications of its own assertions. The NIST report speaks of a strong, rigid structure (the upper structure or rigid block) falling freely onto another strong, rigid structure (the intact part of the building below the damaged area): the jolt cannot be avoided. 14] This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required work could not have been done. Testing for Deceleration: If a jolt occurred there would have been high short-term deceleration of the upper block. Why not simply check for this deceleration? It is not difficult. We will: • examine a video clip of the North Tower’s collapse • find a point on the upper block of the North Tower, the progress of which can be observed and measured in the early stages of the collapse • plot the progress of this point on a graph • check for evidence of deceleration We have chosen a well known video clip of the collapse associated with French film maker, Etienne Sauret. 15] The Sauret clip has advantages over many others. It is a single, continuous sequence with no changes in camera angle and no zooming in and out. There is a very slight shift in the camera position relative to distant objects caused by a trembling of the camera several seconds prior to the collapse, but this is irrelevant to us since all our measurements are taken after the shift. The camera is very steady throughout the time we are making our measurements, as we can confirm by measuring the position of the picture frame relative to stationary objects. In addition, the image of the north face of the North Tower is exceptionally clear in these images. Journal of 911 Studies 4 January 2009/Volume 24 Here is how we proceed: 16] 1. We save the Sauret footage to our hard drive. 2. We break the 1 minute, 56.53 second clip into 3497 equal segments or “frames.” Each frame is approximately 0.033 seconds in length (33 thousandths of a second). 3. We find two points associated with the roof of the upper block of the North Tower whose progress we can measure. Two points are necessary since neither one is consistently visible but one of the two is always visible. The point whose fall we shall use in our computations is at the tip of a white device on the roof. (The distance between this point and the upper frame is called Distance A in Figure 1 below.) The other point is located at the interface of the upper white section of the roof and the lower dark section. (The distance between this point and the upper frame is called Distance B in Figure 1.) The difference between Distance B and Distance A is approximately 28 pixels. Where the white device on the upper right-hand corner of the roof is obscured by smoke, measurements of the roof interface have been taken and the position of the device has been obtained by subtracting 28. 4. We choose a set of frames that stretches from Frame 929, before the discernible beginning of the roof’s fall, to the last frame in which our point can be recognized before it disappears into the dust cloud, Frame 1024. 5. We measure the number of pixels separating the white device from the fixed upper edge of the video frame, computing the position of the device when necessary by measuring the position of the roof interface. We take one measurement at each five frames in the progress of the Tower’s collapse, ending up with 20 points. 6. Our measurement stretches from 30.93 seconds into the clip to 34.1 seconds into the clip, giving us a total interval of 3.17 seconds. 7. We find that during this interval the white device on the roof has fallen a distance represented by 130 pixels. 8. In order to get an approximation of the real distances at issue; we find a known vertical distance on the north face of the North Tower. (The Tower’s proportions have been distorted as it has been rendered into frame-by-frame format. See Appendix A for a description of our method of determining the known vertical distance and the ratio of pixels to feet.) We discover that in our frame-by-frame version of the Sauret video 1 pixel = 0.88 feet. We now know that the point on the roof has fallen approximately 114.4 feet. The figure is not precise--there are the effects of foreshortening to consider (the roof and device are higher than the camera and the upper block, as it moves downward, tilts away from us)--but the figures are close enough for our purpose because we are looking for changes in acceleration over time, not exact velocity values. Figure 1: Sauret Video: Representative Frame with Key Points for Measuring the Roof’s Fall DistanceADistance B 9. We know that d = ½ × g × t2 where d stands for distance, g stands for acceleration due to gravity, which is 32.174 ft./s2 at sea level, and t stands for time. Using this formula, we discover that a freely falling object would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop 114.4 feet. 10. We create two graphs. In the first the roof’s descent is given in pixels. In the second the roof’s fall is given in feet. Journal of 911 Studies 5 January 2009/Volume 24 Figure 2: The Roof Fall: Pixels Roof Fall in Pixels02040608010012014000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Pixels Data: Frame from clip start Distance of device (pixels) Distance of inter-face (pixels) Distance of device (pixels) adjusted to 0 Distance of device (feet) adjusted to 0 (1 pixel = 0.88 ft.) Time (seconds) from clip start Time (seconds) adjusted to 0 929 109 0 0.00 30.93 0.0000 934 110 1 0.88 31.10 0.167 939 111 2 1.76 31.27 0.334 944 113 4 3.52 31.43 0.500 949 115 6 5.28 31.60 0.667 954 118 9 7.92 31.76 0.834 959 122 13 11.44 31.93 1.000 964 126 17 14.96 32.10 1.167 969 132 23 20.24 32.27 1.334 974 138 29 25.52 32.43 1.500 979 146 37 32.56 32.60 1.667 984 (153) 181 44 38.72 32.76 1.834 989 (161) 189 52 45.76 32.93 2.000 994 (170) 198 61 53.68 33.10 2.167 999 (180) 208 71 62.48 33.27 2.334 1004 (190) 218 81 71.28 33.43 2.500 1009 (201) 229 92 80.96 33.60 2.667 1014 (213) 241 104 91.52 33.76 2.834 1019 (226) 254 117 102.96 33.93 3.000 1024 (239) 267 130 114.40 34.10 3.167 Journal of 911 Studies 6 January 2009/Volume 24 Figure 3: The Roof Fall: Distance Roof Fall Distance02040608010012014000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Distance (feet) Data: Time (sec.) Roof Fall Distance (ft.) 0.000 0.00 0.167 0.88 0.334 1.76 0.500 3.52 0.667 5.28 0.834 7.92 1.000 11.44 1.167 14.96 1.334 20.24 1.500 25.52 1.667 32.56 1.834 38.72 2.000 45.76 2.167 53.68 2.334 62.48 2.500 71.28 2.667 80.96 2.834 91.52 3.000 102.96 3.167 114.40 Journal of 911 Studies 7 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 8 January 2009/Volume 24 Knowing the distance the roof fell, in equal time intervals, from our measurements, we can now determine its actual velocity, at each measured point through its fall, using symmetric differencing. The equation is Vn = (Dn+1 - Dn-1) / (Tn+1 – Tn-1) where V = velocity D = distance T = time n = point in question Data: Time (sec) Roof Fall Distance (ft.) Velocity (ft./sec) 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.1667 0.88 5.28 0.3334 1.76 7.92 0.5000 3.52 10.56 0.6667 5.28 13.20 0.8334 7.92 18.48 1.0000 11.44 21.12 1.1667 14.96 26.39 1.3334 20.24 31.68 1.5000 25.52 36.96 1.6667 32.56 39.59 1.8334 38.72 39.60 2.0000 45.76 44.88 2.1667 53.68 50.15 2.3334 62.48 52.81 2.5000 71.28 55.45 2.6667 80.96 60.71 2.8334 91.52 66.01 3.0000 102.96 68.65 It may be noticed that the last point measured at 3.167 seconds is left off of the data table above and the velocity graph below. The reason for this is that each point the velocity is found for needs to have a point ahead of it as well as behind it, so this method cannot calculate the velocity for the last point measured. As it is known that the measurements were taken every five frames with a 30 frame per second video, the actual time can be resolved fairly precisely. The use of four places for time increments, of 0.1667 seconds between measurements, in the velocity calculation above, is done for accuracy. Below is a graph of the actual velocity of the roof at each measurement point over the same time frame in which the distance was measured. Figure 4: The Roof Velocity y = 22.81xR2 = 0.99610102030405060708000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Velocity (ft./sec) Regression analysis (least squares curve fit) The velocity of the roof increases in a relatively linear way and is 68.65 ft./s after 3.00 seconds, which is about 71% of the free fall velocity of 96.52 ft./s for this fall time. At the actual measured distances and calculated velocities, the initial fall through one story would have taken place in approximately 1.0 second. If the upper block, RB-12+, were rigid, as Bazant and NIST claim, the powerful jolt, required by Bazant to generate an impulsive load and explain the collapses of the Twin Towers, would show itself as an abrupt negative deviation in the otherwise positively sloped and virtually linear velocity graph. For readers unfamiliar with the concept of an impulsive load, the impulse-momentum change equation is shown below and essentially shows that the change in momentum with respect to time provides the force involved in a collision. matvmtvmvmForceffii=ΔΔ=Δ−= As stated earlier, it is only the velocity that changes with respect to the duration of the impulse, as the mass of an object is constant at all times everywhere in the universe. A change in velocity with respect to time is defined as either an acceleration or deceleration, depending on whether it is positive or negative. This acceleration or deceleration is then multiplied by the mass of the impacting object and provides the force involved in the collision, so the impulse equation ultimately reduces to the well known relation F = ma. Journal of 911 Studies 9 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 10 January 2009/Volume 24 It is useful to refer to accelerations and decelerations in terms of the acceleration due to gravity, which is defined as 1g. The static weight of any item on earth is measured as the force due to the mass of the item multiplied by the acceleration of earth’s gravitational pull or 1g. An acceleration or deceleration of 1g is equal to 32.174 ft./s2, so if the deceleration of an impacting object during a collision is greater than this then the weight or force applied by the impacting object is amplified. To find the number of g’s involved one merely needs to divide the actual deceleration by 32.174 ft./s2. Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the upper stories, could have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. 17] With the 98th story columns completely collapsing, a distance between floor slabs of approximately 11.44 feet, and the actual measured velocity of 22.81 ft./s of the upper block at this point, the first collision would have occurred approximately one second into the fall. Regardless of the actual amplification, any impulse at the impact zone between the 98th and 99th story floor slabs capable of causing collapse continuation would have had to cause the columns on at least the first stories on either side of the impact to deform elastically, and plastically, and then to buckle. The deformations and buckling of the columns of the impacting stories, on both the lower and upper blocks, would cause a kinetic energy drain, which would reduce the velocity of the rigidly attached falling mass above them. Using energy methods we have calculated what effect these energy drains would have on the velocity of the upper block. Since the upper block would pick up the mass of the 98th floor in the impact there would also be a conservation of momentum component to the velocity reduction. From Appendices D and E we find the reduced velocity (Vreduced) of the upper block, after impact, considering the three energy drains and conservation of momentum, and it is Vreduced = 22.81 ft./s – (15.63 ft./s + 1.75 ft./s) = 22.81 ft./s – 17.38 ft./s = 5.43 ft./s Since the roof was part of the rigid upper block it would have displayed this momentary abrupt change in its velocity, from 22.81 ft./s to 5.43 ft./s, if the collapse were a natural occurrence. It should also be noted that the energy losses and conservation of momentum we have calculated and used here, to determine the velocity loss, are a minimum. We do not consider energy losses due to vibration of the building, heat, and sound, during the initiating impulse, all of which would have required energy from the impulse to produce and thus have an additional effect on velocity loss. The intent here is only to show that, even with a quantifiable minimum energy loss and conservation of momentum, the velocity loss would be quite dramatic, and should have been readily observed if an impulse capable of causing collapse had indeed occurred. The graph below shows what the upper block velocity change would look like if a 31g impulse had occurred one story into the fall, with its velocity at least momentarily reduced in a significant way after impact. Figure 5: Roof Velocity Curve with a hypothetical 31g deceleration Journal of 911 Studies 11 January 2009/Volume 24 The fact that a 31g impulse requires a deceleration of 997.4 ft./s2 is unassailable, and it does not matter whether the collision is elastic or inelastic. With a velocity reduction of 17.38 ft./s and a 997.4 ft./s2 deceleration, the duration of this impulse would have been 17 milliseconds. This rapid deceleration associated with the 31g impulse would necessarily show itself as an abrupt negative slope change in the velocity curve. We have shown the curve starting upward again after the impact, on the generous assumption that the impacting object (the upper block) is now free to accelerate. We have also only charted what the effect on the velocity would have been for an initiating impulse between the first two floors to collide. The measurements of the roof’s actual fall do not show any abrupt negative change in velocity, so it appears that there was no impulse and thus no amplified load. It seems that Dr. Bazant was simply theorizing that there had to be one to make sense of the collapse in a natural way. It is also important to note here that Dr. Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. 8] The actual stiffness, calculated here using the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C) 19] 20] This error caused Dr. Bazant to significantly overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the impulse or jolt, which he claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block. In an effort to refute the argument put forth in this paper, some may claim that plastic deformation of the lower stories of the upper block could have created a crush wave below the upper block and kept the roof from experiencing a discernable impulse. If that were true then the impulse durations would have increased dramatically, absorbing the energy over a longer period of time and eliminating any significant amplification of the upper block’s weight. But without the amplification of the upper block’s weight why would the lower block have collapsed? There are those who might argue that the tilt of the upper block to the south could have kept an Actual measured velocity 31g impulse with abrupt negative slope and velocity loss Pre-impact velocity recovery 700 msec impulse from being discernable—that there may have been impulses on the south face or further inside the Tower, in the central core, that were not visible on the north face. Impulses at these locations could not have caused the collapse of the north face of the Tower and its corner columns in the observed vertical manner. The corner columns of the east and west faces, in conjunction with the columns of the north face, formed a structural channel (a stiff structural element with support in two orthogonal directions) and, barring planned demolition, would have collapsed as observed only if they were struck impulsively, in a vertical manner by the upper block. In reality, the upper block could not have tolerated the potential 31g impulse theorized by Dr. Bazant. To get this overload he claims was possible, all of the mass of the upper block would have had to participate, and if it did so it would have come apart completely. Perhaps the impulse was of a lower value but still high enough to cause an overload of the lower structure and bring about global collapse? Consider a velocity graph with a 6g deceleration, very likely the minimum load amplification necessary to overcome the reserve capacity of the perimeter columns, which had a minimum factor of safety of 5.00 to 1. Figure 6: Roof Velocity Curve with a hypothetical 6g deceleration 0102030405060708000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Velocity (ft./sec) 6g impulse with abrupt negative slope and velocity loss Pre-impact velocity recovery 800 msec Actual measured velocity A 6g impulse requires a deceleration of 193 ft./s2. With a velocity reduction of 17.38 ft./s and a 193 ft./s2 deceleration, the duration of this impulse would have been 90 milliseconds. As the graph shows, there would still be a quite obvious abrupt negative slope change, which is not seen in the velocity curve determined from the measured data. The measurements were taken every five frames, or 167 milliseconds apart. The recovery to the pre-impact velocity is shown to occur in the dashed graphs in the approximate times of 700 milliseconds for the 31g case and 800 milliseconds for the 6g case. In both cases there are four data points taken well within this recovery window, so it is apparent that a negative change in the velocity of the roof would have been captured if an impulse had indeed occurred. Journal of 911 Studies 12 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 13 January 2009/Volume 24 Findings: As the figures and graphs above clearly show, any impulsive load would have required a high deceleration, which would have shown itself very prominently in the velocity curve derived from the measured data. The fact that no such negative change exists in the roof’s actual velocity curve reveals that no major interruption or significant abrupt deceleration, and therefore no amplified load, could have occurred during the fall of the upper block. How can this be? If RB-12+ fell with a jolt on the rest of the building after a 12 foot drop (one story), the deceleration, as shown above, would have revealed itself clearly, and if RB-12+ fell more than one story, the deceleration would have been even more dramatic. If RB-12+ fell 72 feet—all the way through the six damaged stories—we would see powerful evidence of a jolt during the measured 114.4 foot fall of the roof. It would be dramatic precisely because the velocity and therefore the momentum would be high, and any change more discernable. But there is no evidence of major impact and deceleration either early or late. In the main, these findings confirm the earlier research of Dr. Frank Legge. 18] In 2006 Legge, using a different video clip and measurement technique, carried out detailed measurements of the fall of the roof of the North Tower and calculated its acceleration rate. Although his purposes were different from ours, he discovered similarly smooth curves. There is no more trace of deceleration in his graphs than in ours. What happened to RB-12+ during its fall? It would appear, based on the Sauret video and other video recordings of the event, that a substantial portion of the bottom of RB-12+, along with DS-6, was violently destroyed amidst clouds of ejected matter at the same time the top portion of RB-12+, containing the rooftop, was falling. Since the clouds of matter in the videos obscure many details of the event, it is easy to see why someone might try to make the case that the fall of the upper portion of the rigid block was accompanied by a fall of its lower portion. But we do not see a fall of its lower portion: we simply see violent destruction in the vicinity of the lower portion and fall of the upper portion. To repeat: if RB-12+ had fallen as a rigid block, there would be impact, and the impact would have caused abrupt interference with the fall of its upper part, including the roof. No such interruption has occurred, and therefore no such impact has taken place. Evidently, the violent destruction that occurred--presumably through planted explosives or other means of demolition--effectively destroyed the structural integrity of the lower part of the upper block as well as DS-6, permitting the upper block to fall at speed while meeting minimal resistance and experiencing neither major impact nor abrupt deceleration. Conclusions: We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny. Journal of 911 Studies 14 January 2009/Volume 24 NOTES Thanks are offered to members of the discussion forum of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, especially to Alfons, who initiated the discussion and provided a number of interesting ideas. Thanks are also due to Zoran Bilanovic for a critical reading of the paper and to Paul Bouvet for early software advice. Crucial software assistance was obtained from Joe Terrien, who gave freely of his time and expertise. We are enormously grateful to Civil Engineering Professor Robert Korol for help with the calculations in the appendices. All measurements, calculations, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. 1. NIST NCSTAR 1. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf 2. There is some ambiguity in the NIST study on which stories are included in the upper rigid block, but the analysis given in this paper appears to represent NIST’s best estimate. See, e.g., NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 150-151. 3. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 151. 4. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 151. 5. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. xxxviii. 6. NIST NCSTAR 1, p.151. 7. NIST NCSTAR 1, 145 (“the falling building section”); 146 (“the falling building mass,” “the falling mass”). See also the companion volume: NIST NCSTAR 1-6. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2005, p. liv (“the building section began to fall downward”) and p. 156 (“the building section began to fall vertically”). http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm 8. Bazant, Zdenek and Yong Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 128, no. 1 (Jan. 2002), p. 2-6 See also the Addendum to this article in the same journal, vol. 128, no. 3 (March 2002), p. 369-370. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf Note: when we refer in the article to Bazant, we include his co-authors. For NIST’s reference to the Bazant paper, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6, p. 323. Journal of 911 Studies 15 January 2009/Volume 24 9. Bazant, Zdenek and Jie-Liang Le, Frank Greening, David Benson, “Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?” Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University. May 27, 2007. Revised December 15, 2007. p. 11. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf Jim Hoffman challenged Bazant’s claim some time ago in his article “Seismic Records of the Twin Towers’ Destruction: Clarifying the Relationship Between Seismic Evidence and Controlled Demolition Theories.” Version 0.9, Oct. 31, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html#evidence_of 10. Addendum, Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 369. 11. See Gregory Urich, “Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1.” Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18 (Dec. 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also NIST NCSTAR 1-1. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm 12. Bazant and Zhou, 2002; Bazant et al, 2007. 13. Bazant et al, 2007, p. 1. 14. The following four points commit NIST to impact and jolt: (a) NIST speaks of the core of the building as consisting of three sections, which correspond closely to the sections we have spoken of when discussing the building as a whole: “At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires.” (NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 79) (b) The section of the building above the damage zone NIST calls a “rigid block.” This rigid block first manifests its independent movement when it tilts to the south. (“The section of the building above the impact zone (near the 98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted…” NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 201.) NIST also refers to this rigid block with terms such as “upper section,” “building section above the impact zone,” “building mass,” “upper building section” and “structural block.” See NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 83, 195, 196, 201 Journal of 911 Studies 16 January 2009/Volume 24 (c) NIST acknowledges that this rigid block then falls. NIST says that “the building section began to fall downward,” “the building section began to fall vertically.” Indeed, we are told that this falling rigid block goes through all or part of the damaged area “essentially in free fall.” (“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238; NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. (d) After falling through all or part of the damaged area of the tower, the rigid block or falling building mass encounters “intact structure.” (“The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. This “intact structure,” has, of course, already been referred to as including the core of the building, described as “a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures.” 15. A version of the Sauret video clip can be found at: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo For our purposes we have used the footage from Etienne Sauret’s film, “WTC: the first 24 hours.” 16. Readers wanting to get a rough approximation of the measurements in this paper without expense may acquire from the internet the software, Vdownloader: http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/VDownloader-Download-51327.html Once the on-line version of the Sauret video clip (see note 15) is downloaded it can be broken into 0.033 second frames using VirtualDub: http://www.virtualdub.org/ A pixel measurement device (several are available free or for a minimal charge on the Internet) can be used for measurements. For our paper we found we were able to get more accurate measurements by ripping the Sauret video (from the DVD) using DVD Decrypter. Then the raw video files were converted to mpeg2 using Xilisoft Video Converter 3.The converted files were then imported into Adobe Premiere Pro CS3. The timestamp was added and the entire segment was exported as a still frame sequence in .gif format. For pixel measurements, we used Screen Calipers: http://iconico.com/caliper/ 17. Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 3. 18. Frank Legge, “9/11-Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations.” Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.1 (June 2006). http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf Journal of 911 Studies 17 January 2009/Volume 24 19. The cross sectional areas of the central core columns on each story were released by NIST in 2007 and are publicly available. This information can be found at http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data 20. The exterior column cross sectional area for each story was determined using the WTC1 mass analysis cited in reference 11], which gives the total mass of the columns on each story. Knowing the length of the columns and the density of steel, the area could be determined. 21. See Section 2.6 on pages 5 through 7 of the below link for an explanation of column cross section classifications for resistance to local buckling. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/civeng/H23S07/Design%20of%20SHS.pdf * This paper has been revised to use symmetric differencing to calculate instantaneous velocity. The initial method used the equations of motion to calculate velocity, which are only valid with constant acceleration, causing smoothing of the data and inflation of the pre-impact velocity. Since the energy requirements do not change, the actual lower pre-impact velocity results in a larger percentage of kinetic energy drained at impact with a correspondingly more dramatic change in velocity. An arithmetic error in the velocity reduction calculation on page 26 was also corrected. AUTHORS Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Asian religion and literature from Harvard University. Now retired, he taught at McMaster University in Canada for almost thirty years. He was founding Director of McMaster’s Centre for Peace Studies and directed peace-building projects in several war zones, including Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. He is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. Tony Szamboti received his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Villanova University. Prior to that he worked as a machinist and tool engineer in industry, and as an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy. Since 1990 he has worked as a design engineer in industry, performing structural and thermal design, analysis, and testing to ensure survivability of antennas and equipment for use on ships, aircraft, spacecraft, and communication towers. He is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Journal of 911 Studies 18 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX A DETERMINING THE PIXEL-FOOT RATIO FOR THE SAURET VIDEO 1. In order to correct any possible vertical distortion of the image of the North Tower that might affect our measurements (such distortions are common), we decided to find a vertical distance on the north face of the Tower that can be measured accurately in pixels. We took a measurement from a horizontal line of damage caused by the plane to a line on the roof of the NT, where the upper white part of the roof meets a darker, lower part of the building. 2. We then chose five excellent still photos of the North Tower. The perspective from which they were taken seemed unlikely to create severe foreshortening effects. These photographs are from the NIST report (NIST NCSTAR 1.5A, Chapter 8), and are grouped conveniently on the forensic website “WTC Demolition Analysis” found at: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=20&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=909 The photographs were taken at different times and by several different photographers, and they are reproduced below with added red arrows showing the two distances measured. Our aim was to measure, in pixels, the horizontal distance x and then the vertical distance y so that we could work out the ratio of x to y. If consistency could be found, we could be confident that we had the correct ratio. Then, knowing the value of x (the width of the tower) in feet, we could determine the value, in feet, of y. 3. Here are the measurements made for the original five photos, marked A, B, C, D, and E. (Note that the measurements will be different on the photos as reproduced below, but the proportions will remain constant.) Photo x y x:y ratio A 231 pixels 211 pixels 1: .91 B 373 pixels 340 pixels 1: .91 C 379 pixels 354 pixels 1: .93 D 373 pixels 343 pixels 1: .92 E 327 pixels 302 pixels 1: .92 4. There is little variation in the figures found for the ratio of x: y. The average is 1:92, which corresponds to the ratio in what is arguably the photograph with the least apparent distortion from foreshortening, photo D, 5. Various figures, from 207 to 210 feet, have been suggested for the external width of the Towers. We chose 210 feet as our best estimate. The figure is from NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 5. See also Gregory Urich, “Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1” (Journal of 9/11 Studies), p. 8. Bear in mind that the perimeter columns were covered in insulation and aluminum cladding, which added to their external dimensions. 6. This means that the value of the vertical distance measured (y) is 210 x .92 = 193.2 feet. 7. Measuring y in our frame-by-frame version of the Sauret video we found it to be 220 pixels. The ratio of pixels to feet for vertical measurements in this version of the Sauret video is: 1 pixel = 0.88 feet. A Journal of 911 Studies 19 January 2009/Volume 24 B C Journal of 911 Studies 20 January 2009/Volume 24 DE Journal of 911 Studies 21 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 22 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX B CORE AND PERIMETER COLUMN CROSS SECTIONS ON THE 97TH STORY CORE COLUMNS 97TH story Yield Flange Flange Web Web Cross sectional strength width thickness height thickness area Column No. Designation (ksi) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.2) 501 14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 502 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 503 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 504 14WF246F36 36 16.945 1.813 12.624 1.125 75.645 505 14WF219F36 36 15.825 1.623 12.624 1.005 64.055 506 14WF287F42 42 16.13 2.093 12.624 1.31 84.058 507 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 508 14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 601 12WF106F42 42 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62 30.881 602 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695 43.776 603 14WF158F36 36 15.55 1.188 12.624 0.73 46.162 604 12WF106F36 36 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62 30.881 605 12WF120F36 36 12.32 1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 606 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695 43.776 607 14WF142F36 36 15.5 1.063 12.624 0.68 41.537 608 12WF106F36 36 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62 30.881 701 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486 10.908 0.905 47.066 702 14WF176F36 36 15.64 1.313 12.624 0.82 51.422 703 14WF103F36 36 14.575 0.813 12.624 0.495 29.948 704 14WF53F50 50 8.062 0.658 12.624 0.37 15.280 705 14WF43F45 45 8 0.528 12.624 0.308 12.336 706 14WF111F36 36 14.62 0.873 12.624 0.54 32.343 707 14WF167F36 36 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78 48.784 708 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486 10.908 0.905 47.066 801 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486 10.908 0.905 47.066 802 14WF176F36 36 15.64 1.313 12.624 0.82 51.422 803 12WF133F42 42 12.365 1.238 10.908 0.756 38.862 804 12WF79F36 36 12.08 0.736 10.908 0.47 22.909 805 14WF111F42 42 14.62 0.873 12.624 0.54 32.343 806 14WF167F36 36 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78 48.784 807 14WF167F42 42 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78 48.784 Journal of 911 Studies 23 January 2009/Volume 24 901 12WF120F36 36 12.32 1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 902 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695 43.776 903 14WF193F36 36 15.71 1.438 12.624 0.89 56.417 904 12WF92F36 36 12.155 0.856 10.908 0.645 27.845 905 12WF99F36 36 12.19 0.921 10.908 0.56 28.562 906 14WF142F36 36 15.5 1.063 12.624 0.68 41.537 907 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695 43.776 908 12WF120F36 36 12.32 1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 1001 14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 1002 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 1003 14WF342F36 36 16.365 2.468 12.624 1.545 100.282 1004 14WF219F36 36 15.825 1.623 12.624 1.005 64.055 1005 14WF202F36 36 15.75 1.503 12.624 0.93 59.085 1006 14WF314F42 42 16.235 2.283 12.624 1.415 91.992 1007 14WF287F36 36 16.13 2.093 12.624 1.31 84.058 1008 14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 Total area (in.2) = 2,621.657 PERIMETER COLUMNS The perimeter columns were uniform in cross section on a given floor. While their exact cross sections have not been made publicly available they are discernable due to their height, number, material density, and total weight per floor being known. The NIST NCSTAR 1-3D report states that “As the elevation in the building increased, the thickness of the plates in the columns decreased, but the plates were always at least 0.25 thick”. The height of a floor of perimeter columns in WTC 1 can be calculated by dividing the building height of 1,368 feet by 110 stories to get a height of 12.44 feet or 149.24 inches per story. The weight of the 236 perimeter columns at the 97th story was approximately 78.71 tons or 157,420 lbs.. Dividing the weight by the 0.283 lbs./in.3 density of steel and the number of columns gives a volume for each column of 2,357 in.3. Dividing this volume by the 149.24 inch height of each floor gives a cross sectional area for each column of 15.79 in.2. With 236 columns this gives a total cross sectional area for the perimeter columns at the 97th story of 3,726 in.3. As the perimeter columns can be approximated as 14 inch square columns, the wall thickness can be estimated. For the 97th story it would be approximately 0.289 inches. This comports well with the NIST statement that the plate thickness was never less than 0.25 inches thick, and since the 97th story was 13 floors down from the top of the building it appears reasonable. Journal of 911 Studies 24 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX C CALCULATION OF THE AXIAL STIFFNESS OF THE COLUMNS FROM THE 97TH STORY DOWN TO GROUND LEVEL IN THE TOWERS The axial stiffness of a structural column can be determined knowing the modulus of elasticity of its material, the cross sectional area, and the length of the column, with the equation K = AE/L. The problem for determining this for the tower columns below the 97th story is that the cross sectional areas change with elevation. One way to estimate the cross section is to use a median, which we will do here using the cross sectional area of the columns at the 55th story since it is the midpoint in the tower above ground level. The core column cross sectional area at the 55th story was 8,777 in.2 and the perimeter column cross sectional area 10,784 in.2 giving a total column cross sectional area of 19,561 in.2 at the 55th floor. Steel was used for all of the columns and the modulus of elasticity of steel is 30 x 106 psi. The length of the columns from the 97th story down to ground level was 149.24 inches per story multiplied by 97 stories, giving a length of 14,476 inches. Using K = AE/L = (19,561 in.2)(30 x 106 psi)/14,476 inches, the stiffness is found to be 40,538,132 lb./in. or 7.1 GN/m. While one could make the case that the stiffness used should have been that from the 97th story down to the foundation, and considering the six sub-levels, the stiffness in that case would be nearly the same. The median floor in that case would be the 52nd story and the columns on that floor were only slightly larger in cross section than those on the 55th, which would be offset in the calculation by the additional length of the six sub-level floors. Journal of 911 Studies 25 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX D CALCULATION OF VELOCITY CHANGES DUE TO ENERGY DRAINS DURING THE COLLISION OF THE UPPER AND LOWER BLOCKS It is assumed that there are 3 parts to the energy dissipation from the collision for a given story. These are: 1) Uniform elastic spring action compression in the core and perimeter columns. 2) Compressive plastic yielding of core and perimeter columns in columns of the 97th and 99th stories. 3) Plastic hinging action (buckling) of all columns, in the two stories. 1) Calculations show that an average spring constant for the tower columns is 40,500 kips/in or 7.1 GN/m, i.e. if the columns were of uniform cross section over the 110 stories of the building, and using values found at mid-height for the 55th story. If the cross sections were uniform the tops of the columns of the 97th story would axially compress elastically 19.84 in. However, the column sections are not uniform, since the cross sections get smaller with increasing height, as one would expect with decreasing load. Thus the 97 stories of columns can only be shown to compress elastically the amount consistent with the least cross sectional area, i.e. those of the 97th story. To calculate the maximum resistance offered by the core and perimeter columns in the 97th story we need to take into account the fact that some columns are very stocky while some have thin elements that will buckle locally before they yield. All 47 core columns plus 236 perimeter columns are categorized into classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 (with 4 being the thinnest-walled and 1 being the sturdiest), where class 4 columns do not reach yield before local buckling occurs. 21] Approximately half of the core columns were 36 ksi yield strength with the remaining half at 42 ksi or above, resulting in an average yield strength of approximately 40 ksi. 14 of the core columns are class 4 and we conservatively use 50% yield resistance before buckling for these columns. With the remaining 33 columns being given 40 ksi credit, we get a total core column load resistance of 94,900 kips. The 236 perimeter columns at the 97th story are considered class 4, but all have a yield strength of 65 ksi. Using the 1/2 factor and multiplying by the total area of perimeter columns we get 121,600 kips. The total sustainable load, before plastic deformation occurs, for the 97th story columns = 216,500 kips. As expected, the columns of the 55th story have a significantly larger overall cross section and their sustainable load, before plastic deformation occurs, is 821,600 kips. The elastic displacement of the tops of the 97th story columns can then be found using the ratio of (216.5/821.6) times 19.84 inches = 5.22 inches. Using the equation E = ½Kx2, the elastic energy absorbed by axial deformation of the columns can be calculated using the figures above as ½ (40,500 kips/in.)(5.22 in.) 2 = 552,000 in-k. (Note: in-k is an accepted abbreviation for in-kip). 2) The 216,500 kip elastic strain limit value, that was used to calculate the elastic axial strain energy above, is also used to calculate the plastic axial strain energy. When the columns as a group reach their elastic limit, many will be able to sustain the value of A x Fy, i.e. cross sectional area times the yield stress. The thinner walled columns will not. A 3% axial strain limit is commonly assumed for class 1 sections, and lesser proportional amounts for classes 2, 3 and 4. Taking an average between 3 and zero (zero for class 4 since they will buckle locally before reaching yield), we get 1.5% strain. The shortening of a column in a given Journal of 911 Studies 26 January 2009/Volume 24 story will thus be the height of the column of 149 inches times 0.015 = 2.24 inches. It follows that the axial plastic energy is 216,500 kips x 2.24 inches = 485,000 in-k. 3) After the 2.24 inch plastic strain occurs, rather than continuing to squash like a pancake, the columns will deform by forming plastic hinges at the top, bottom and at mid-height within the story and then buckle. The energy dissipation here is calculated in the same manner used in the Bazant model, in which the total rotations summed at the three locations = 2 pi. There will be fully plastic moments for the stockier sections that can maintain Mp for several degrees of rotation before the bending capacity diminishes. For the less stocky columns (classes 2 and 3) Mp is initially reached and then degradation sets in. For the class 4 thin-walled columns, Mp is never reached, but a value of 0.5 Mp is likely. Finally, a scissors shape will occur in all columns of the 97th story with the 98th floor squashing the space between it and the 97th floor slab with a corresponding energy drain of 2,103,000 in-k. Adding these up, a total energy drain of 552,000 + 485,000 + 2,103,000 = 3,140,000 in-k is realized. However, this is only a part of the energy drain that needs to be considered. Since the lower columns of the upper block would be subject to equal but opposite forces, these columns would also be expected to suffer axial elastic and plastic deformation and buckling. The forces applied to the upper block will, in fact, be exerted on the columns of the 99th story, at the bottom of the upper block. With the forces being equal and opposite, the total damage to the structure of the upper block, if calculated, would show an equivalent total energy drain to that occurring in the structure of the lower block. However, here we are only quantifying the energy required to deform and buckle the columns on the 99th story, as we did for only the columns on the 97th story of the lower block. Since the 99th story columns had 93% of the size of the columns on the 97th story, they result in 93% of the energy drain found for the columns on the 97th story, with the difference being accounted for by stress wave propagation to points further up in the upper block structure. The total amount of energy dissipation for the columns on both the 97th and 99th stories is thus 1.93 times that for the 97th story and it calculates as 1.93 x 3,140,000 in-k = 6,060,000 in-k. As shown earlier, the weight of the upper 12 stories plus the roof had a value of 69,303 kips and the velocity determined by the regression analysis, at 1 second into the collapse and just prior to impact, is V1 = 22.81 ft./s. The kinetic energy of the upper 12 stories plus the roof, dropping a height of 11.44 feet to the 98th floor slab below, can be found using the equation ½MV12, while also dividing the weight by the acceleration due to gravity to get mass. A value of 6,725,860 in-k is found for the kinetic energy of the upper block, at the time of impact of the 99th and 98th story floor slabs. The after impact velocity V2 can be found by subtracting the dissipated energy from the kinetic energy just prior to impact and solving the equation below for velocity. 6,725,860 in-k - 6,060,000 in-k = ½MV22 The value of V2 is 7.18 ft./s, reflecting a velocity reduction of 15.63 ft./s due to the three calculated energy drains of axial elastic deformation, axial plastic deformation, and plastic hinge buckling of the columns on the 97th and 99th stories. Journal of 911 Studies 27 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX E CALCULATION OF VELOCITY REDUCTION DUE TO CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM The upper block consists of the 99th through 110th stories plus the roof with an approximate weight of 69,303 kips, the mass of which we will designate as M ( = 2,152 k-slugs). The measured velocity of the upper block, when it contacts the floor slab of the 98th story, was 22.81 ft./s (based on a height between floor slabs of h = 11.44 feet), which we will designate here as V1. If the masses of the 98th story columns and floor slab are added to the original mass of the falling upper block, the new mass becomes 13/12M. A velocity drop will occur due to conservation of momentum and can be found using the equation M x V1 = 13/12M x V1′ As mass drops out of the equation we are left with 12/13V1 = V1′ Knowing V1 from the actual measurements and solving we find the new velocity V1′ = 21.06 ft./s reflecting a reduction in velocity due to conservation of momentum of 1.75 ft./s.
14.  Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST submitted by Reprehensor on mon, 09/15/2008 - 10:02pm via Electronic Mail: wtc@nist.gov WTC Technical Information Repository Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman National Institute of Standards and Technology Stop 8610 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

September 15, 2008

Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman,

I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).

At the outset, we would like to call attention to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report. Why, then, were members of the public only given three weeks in which to comment? Moreover, NIST lists ten authors and dozens of contracted and employed staff, which over the three year investigation would yield somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 man-hours of labor. How did NIST expect members of the public to match or even come close to NIST's labor expenditure in three weeks? This first reason alone was enough to warrant a significant extension in the deadline for public comment.

Second, in NIST’s "Questions and Answers" page (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html), NIST has attempted to refute many of the points that members of our group and others have made regarding the WTC 7 destruction. However, NIST did not provide any references to sections of the Report that support its alleged refutations. How is a member of the public, then, able to verify NIST’s refutation without reading through the entire 1000+ page Report? Our comments are directed to many of the areas addressed in the "Questions and Answers" page, and without citations directly to the Report itself, it was extremely difficult and time consuming for us see whether our main criticisms of the NIST theory of collapse have been adequately addressed in the Report. This is especially true in light of the fact that this latest draft Report is the third different story NIST has come up with.

Your response to our request was dismissive, based primarily on your belief that a six-week comment period on the 10,000 page report NIST issued for the Twin Towers was reasonable. You also saw no problem with NIST’s failure to provide any references in its Questions and Answers page to the 1000 page Report itself, apparently satisfied with NIST committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. As things stand right now, your position in this matter can be seen as nothing less than a deliberate attempt to hamstring the public’s ability to review and comment on NIST’s work in this extremely important area of research.

Nevertheless, we have been able to spend some time reading and analyzing the report, and have already found numerous problems that severely undermine its veracity and usefulness. Our comments on the Report are detailed below. Note that we declined NIST’s invitation to comment only on the summary report, NCSTAR 1A. These comments are all regarding the more detailed NCSTAR 1-9 document. Of course, once NCSTAR 1-9 is revised according to these comments, the summary report NCSTAR 1A will need to be revised as well.

Based on our comments below, it is readily apparent that the NIST collapse explanation relies solely on extremely suspect computer models. Furthermore, at each juncture where NIST was given the opportunity to input data into each subsequent model, NIST has chosen to use those inputs which would cause the highest temperatures and the most amount of structural damage. Therefore, the submitters of these comments hereby call on NIST to publicly release its models and modeling data so that members of the scientific community can test whether other, more reasonable, assumptions will also result in global collapse of the structure. After all, a scientific hypothesis cannot be widely accepted unless it is repeatable by others.

Chapter 9: Fire Simulations

Contradictions between Floor 12 Fire Simulations and Other Evidence

Figure 9-11 from NCSTAR 1-9 (page 383) depicts the upper layer air temperatures on the 12th floor fire simulation. As can be seen therein, significant fires are present across at least half of the north face of the building at 5:00pm.

This part of the fire simulation presents two problems. First, it contradicts an earlier report issued by NIST regarding the fires on floor 12. Second, it contradicts NIST’s own photographic evidence of the fire activity on floor 12.

COMMENT: Appendix L to NIST’s June 2004 “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center” contains NIST’s “Interim Report on WTC 7”. (See http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) On page L-26 of this interim report, NIST states that “Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”

REASON FOR COMMENT: The contrast between NIST’s prior assertion that floor 12 was “burned out” by 4:45pm, and NIST’s current computer model, that shows a raging inferno at 5:00pm, could not be more apparent. This discrepancy calls into question the veracity of the Report.

SUGGESTED REVISION: This discrepancy must be acknowledged and explained in the Report. Furthermore, the photographic or other visual evidence NIST relied upon for its statement in Appendix L that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm must be included in the final version of its report.

COMMENT: To support NIST’s assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an “unknown source” (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of “at least 10 minutes,” using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

COMMENT: The following graphic is excerpted from Figure 9-11, and purports to describe the state of the fires on the 12th floor of WTC 7 at 5:00pm:

As can be seen, this graphic depicts raging fires across at least half of the north face of the building. However, when compared with Figure 5-152, which only shows a small fire in the extreme northwest corner, clearly the computer model is not representative of reality.

REASON FOR COMMENT: It appears that NIST’s computer fire simulations are not representative at all of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST needs to describe why (assuming Figure 5-152 accurately describes the floor 12 fires at about 5:00pm) the computer models show significant fires across at least half of the north side of the building at 5:00pm. NIST should clearly explain why its fire simulation models of the 12th floor should be accepted by the public as an accurate representation of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

Separately submitted by Chris Sarns and Richard Gage is a graphic that compares NIST’s computer model fire data for floor 12 with actual pictures of the fires in WTC 7. It is attached hereto as Exhibit A. They present a more realistic depiction of what a computer model for the floor 12 fires should look like if it were to agree with the available visual evidence. NIST should take this into consideration when they are re-running their computer models based on these public comments, and revise their Report to use computer models that are more representative of reality, which would look more like the depictions contained therein.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floors 11 and 12

COMMENT: This comment relates to NIST’s assumptions regarding combustible fuel loading for the 11th and 12th floors. In NCSTAR 1-9, at p. 375 (para. 1, sent. 7-9) NIST states:

NIST assumed that the combustible mass of furniture was about the same in an office as in a cubicle. Since the loading of other combustibles was reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors (Chapter 3), NIST assumed that the total combustible mass in an office was double that of a cubicle. Thus, the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32kg/m2.

However, Chapter 3 tells us that, contrary to NIST’s assertions in Chapter 9, the loading of other combustibles was not reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors. On page 55 (para. 6, sent. 1) of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission occupied the 11th and 12th floors and the north side of the 13th floor. On page 56 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST further reports that American Express occupied the southwest sector of the 13th floor. On the same page, NIST reports that the “combustible load in the offices was described as high by interviewed American Express managers.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 56, para. 4, sent. 3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: Recall that American Express occupied only the southwest sector of the 13th floor. How, then can NIST credibly claim that the combustible load on the entirety of the 11th and 12 floors, both occupied solely by the SEC, was reported to have been high? Were American Express managers given regular access to the SEC offices, such that they would be qualified to comment on the combustible fuel load there? Moreover, are American Express managers qualified to give an opinion on the quantity of combustible fuel load as compared to offices in the Twin Towers?

SUGGESTED REVISION: Clearly American Express personnel are competent to provide information only on the state of the American Express offices, which were confined to the southwest sector of the 13th floor. NIST must provide real support for its assertion that the combustible load on the 11th and 12th floors was high in order to merit any increase in estimated average combustible fuel load on these floors. If it cannot provide such support, it should re-run its computer models with the lower combustible fuel load on these floors and report those results to the scientific community and the American public.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floor 13

COMMENT: This comment is regarding NIST’s treatment of the combustible fuel load of the 13th floor. On page 375 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 8, 9) NIST states as follows: “The density of combustibles on the 13th floor was varied and not well known. The average value for the 13th floor] was assumed to be the same as the 12th floor.” Here again, the only reported description of the combustible load on the 13th floor was from American Express managers, who were competent to comment only on the southwest sector of the 13th floor. In Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-9, page 57 (para. 2, sent. 2, 3) NIST reports that in the SEC occupied sections of northern perimeter of the 13th floor were “a hearing room and multiple testimony rooms facing it. There were additional testimony rooms on the northern portion of the east and west sides of the floor, and a storage room at the northwest corner.”

Importantly, NIST reports that the “testimony rooms were sparsely furnished, with just a table and a few chairs.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 57, para. 2, sent. 4) Furthermore, an examination of the schematic diagram of floor 13 (Figure 3-8, p. 57) reveals that the hearing room appears similar to a court room. Court rooms are also sparsely furnished, with a few tables and chairs. Finally, it is doubtful that there was any appreciable level of additional combustibles present in these testimony and hearing rooms.

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST has apparently greatly overestimated the fuel loading on the 13th floor.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must justify its use of the higher combustible fuel load on the 13th floor in Chapter 9 of the Report with more than just bare assertions. NIST clearly had more information available to it regarding the layout and make up of floor 13, as reported in Chapter 3, than it lets on in Chapter 9. This discrepancy must be reconciled.

Combustible Load Sensitivity Tests

COMMENT: NIST claims that it did sensitivity tests to determine whether these exorbitant combustible fuel loads adversely affected the outcome of its simulations. However, the fact that NIST even performed the sensitivity tests brings up the question of why NIST went to the trouble of increasing the fuel load in the first place if it would have a negligible effect on the simulation. That point aside, Chapter 9 contains statements that directly contradict the results of these alleged sensitivity tests.

On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “ t]he fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)

In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST should explain here exactly what the differences in the fire progression rate were in each case and let the public judge whether the effect was “little”. More important, however, is the direct contradiction between NIST’s statement that the “spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on lower floors due to the higher fuel load” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 3) with its statement that decreasing the fuel load to a value equal to that of the lower floors “showed little effect on the fire rate of progression.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 6, sent. 1-3) Surely NIST can see this direct contradiction. On page 381, it is claimed that higher fuel load slows down the fire spread rate. On page 382, it is claimed that a lower fuel load will not speed up the rate of fire progression. This contradiction must be reconciled.

Fire Simulations for Floors 11 and 13

NIST used the data generated by its 12th floor fire simulation for floors 11 and 13. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, 3) The 13th floor simulation used the 12th floor data delayed by one-half hour because visual evidence indicated that the 13th floor fire followed the 12th floor fire. (Id., para. 3, sent. 5) The 11th floor simulation used the 12th floor fire data delayed by 1 hour, although the visual evidence indicated that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, sent. 5)

COMMENT: Our first comment in this regard simply notes the discrepancy between the visual evidence that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours, yet in its fire simulations for the 11th floor, it was only delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.0 hour.

REASON FOR COMMENT: This represents yet another discrepancy in the Report that needs to be rectified.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain why the visual evidence was not relied upon for inputs on the 11th floor, when it was relied upon for inputs on the 13th floor. The computer models should be re-run with the 11th floor fire delayed by 1.5 hours, not 1.0 hour, and the results reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our second comment concerns both the 11th and 13th floor fires. As we demonstrated above, the 12th floor fire simulation is not representative of reality, and likely grossly overestimates the fires that were present there. By using its grossly overestimated 12th floor fire data on both the 11th and 13th floors, it has magnified this error three-fold.

REASON FOR COMMENT: By magnifying an obvious error by three times, the results of all of NIST’s subsequent computer models are again called into question.

SUGGESTED REVISION: The computer models should be re-run for the 12th floor using more realistic fire scenarios, and if NIST can still justify using the 12th floor data on the 11th and 13th floors, it should use that more realistic data on both floors. The results should then be reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our third comment concerns the propagation of error through NIST’s approach to using a purely computer model driven approach. On page 382 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1-3, sent. last) NIST acknowledges that its computer models for the fires on floors 11 and 13 “could have led to a mild overestimate of the heating on the north side of the floor.”

REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: In order to assure public confidence in the document, NIST must explain how such an error in overestimating the heating would propagate itself throughout all of NIST’s subsequent computer models, and how such propagation of error will affect the reliability of the ultimate results. The Report should be revised to include such a propagation of error analysis.

Chapter 11: Structural Analysis of Initial Failure Event

Section 11.4 – Structural Response to Case B and Case C Fires

COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were 10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural response is shown or discussed for Case A.

On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST makes the unsupported assertion that “comparison of Case B and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h.” However, when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead, we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.

Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.

REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact that NIST’s use of the structural response to only Case B temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on which the most damage was caused in NIST’s black box model. Why did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the results of these models?

SUGGESTED REVISION: The final report must be revised to correct this error. If Case A and Case C structural responses were never used with the LS-DYNA model, the models should be re-run and the results reported to the scientific community and the American people. This is especially true in light of the fact that the 3.5 h Case B structural response did not result in global building collapse in the LS-DYNA model.

Chapter 12: WTC Global Collapse Analysis

Section 12.5.3 – Collapse Time

COMMENT: This comment concerns NIST’s estimation of the time it took for the WTC 7 structure to fall. Specifically, this concerns NIST’s comparison to the actual descent time with a hypothetical free-fall time. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 595; NCSTAR 1A, p. 40-41) Basically, NIST took two data points, and assumed a constant acceleration throughout the collapse. (Id.) The first data point was allegedly taken at the time the top of the parapet wall on the roofline of the north face began descending. The second data point was allegedly taken at the time the roofline was no longer visible in Camera 3. NIST claims that the time it takes for the building to fall this distance, 242 feet, is 5.4 seconds, plus or minus 0.1 seconds. No graphical or visual support is given for this time estimate.

REASON FOR COMMENT: Members of this group have conducted an independent analysis of the Camera 3 footage and come to an entirely different conclusion regarding the collapse time. Our analysis was done on a frame-by-frame basis using a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second. As shown in the figure below, our analysis concludes that it takes 3.87 seconds for the top of the roofline to descend out of view of Camera 3. This time matches almost exactly the free-fall time.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must revise its Report to show the exact frames it used from Camera 3 in determining the time it took for the roofline to fall out of view. 5.4 seconds appears to be a gross overestimate. The frames we used in our collapse analysis are shown below (times “t + X seconds” reference the times given in NIST’s Appendix L, Table L-1) along with a graphical analysis of how we determined which frame represented the onset of global collapse:

Members of this group have used the Physics Toolkit computer software to plot Velocity vs. Collapse Time using discrete data points gathered during the entire collapse from the view NIST calls Camera 2. This plot is reproduced below and provides a much more detailed look at the dynamics of the WTC 7 collapse than is provided by NIST’s two-data-point analysis. Also included in the graph is a linear regression for approximately 2.6 seconds of the collapse that appears to have a constant acceleration. As can be seen, the slope (acceleration) during this portion of the collapse was approximately constant at about 9.8 m/s/s, or acceleration due to gravity with little to no resistance below. The r-squared value for this linear regression analysis was 0.9931 – a very good fit. This clearly demonstrates that NIST is being extremely misleading in reporting to the public that the structure did not descend at free-fall speed, especially given the implications of this documented feature of WTC 7’s destruction.

Chapter 8: Initiating Event Hypothesis

Inconsistencies Between Report and NIST Technical Presentation Slides

COMMENT: On page 353 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 9) NIST states that “Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b).” Slide 33 of Dr. Sunder’s August 26, 2008 technical presentation states that “Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat.” (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf)

REASON FOR COMMENT: There seems to be an inconsistency in what NIST is telling the public. In the Report it seems as if the floor system collapses, which drags the girder off its seat to the east. In Dr. Sunder’s presentation, the floor beams appear to remain rigid and push the girder off its seat to the west. These conflicting statements make it difficult for the public to determine which story NIST actually believes.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must reconcile the difference between its public presentation and the substance of the Report.

“Perfectly Fixed” Exterior Columns and Rigid Floor Beams

COMMENT: On page 350 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 2) the exterior columns and column 44 were modeled as “perfectly fixed” at a number of locations during the finite element analysis of the northeast corner of the building. This computer model was purporting to demonstrate that thermal expansion could cause the girder to disconnect from Column 79. Obviously, if the floor beams were to elongate due to thermal expansion, it would expand in both axial directions. This, in turn, would put pressure on whatever was connected to each end of the expanded beam.

REASON FOR COMMENT: To the extent “perfectly fixing” the exterior columns and column 44 caused the computer model NewsFollowUp.com to neglect the pressure put on the exterior columns due to thermal expansion, the computer model does not represent reality. The exterior columns should have been allowed to bow outward in response to this pressure. It is also unclear whether the floor beams were allowed to sag as they heated in the computer model. In NIST’s report on the Twin Towers, the main reason given for global collapse initiation was sagging floor beams. If NIST did not allow the floor beams to sag in its WTC 7 model, then it did not allow any of the thermal expansion to express itself as sagging rather than pressure on the connections. Even the Cardington tests cited by NIST showed that floor beams to sag when they are heated.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must more clearly explain how the thermal expansion of the floor beams in both axial directions was accounted for in the computer models. If “perfectly fixing” the exterior columns caused all of the thermal expansion to occur in one direction, the computer models needs to be modified to comport with reality, and allow outward bowing of the external columns. Also, if the floor beams and girders were not allowed to sag as they heated, there is a fundamental disconnect between the WTC 7 computer models and the WTC 1 and 2 computer models. The computer models should be re-run with appropriate revisions made to the floor beam properties, which allow them to sag as they heat.

Temperatures Applied to Beams and Girders

COMMENT: In Figure 8-25 on p.352 of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST applies temperatures of 600°C and 500°C to the floor beams and girders, respectively, over a period of about 2.6 seconds. Putting aside for a moment the fact that applying that much heat over a 2.6 second time interval could not possibly approximate the reality of the fires at WTC 7, other problems still remain. For example, these extreme temperatures were applied uniformly for all nodes of the beams and girders. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 351)

REASON FOR COMMENT: On page 452 of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST only reports that some “sections” of the floor beams exceeded 600°C. Nowhere does NIST indicate that the computer models show uniform temperatures of 600°C for floor beams and virtually no information is given for temperatures of girders. Again, these temperatures are applied uniformly over an extremely small amount of time, which is not representative of an actual fire.

SUGGESTED REVISION: Run the computer models for the northeast section of floors again using realistic temperatures and realistic application times. Report the results accordingly.

Only High Explosives Considered in Hypothetical Blast Event

COMMENT: In its analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” that might have lead to the collapse of WTC 7, NIST only considers blast events using RDX, an extremely high explosive. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 355, last sentence) NIST goes on to argue that because no loud sounds were heard, and because no window breakage was observed, that RDX was not used to bring down WTC 7.

REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: However, as documented by Kevin Ryan at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf) many scientists working for and associated with NIST have experience with nanoenergetic compounds, or nanothermites, that have the potential to be used for building demolitions. And because nanothermites are primarily high-temperature incendiaries rather than explosives, they could cause damage to steel structures without producing the sound and destruction levels associated with RDX. Because NIST personnel have intimate experience with these materials, NIST should revise its report to specifically analyze whether such nanoenergetic materials could have been used as a component in a “hypothetical blast scenario” at WTC 7.

Furthermore, the National Fire Protection Association Manual for fire and explosion investigations, in Section 921, very clearly indicates that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated by NIST. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 “High Order Damage” – “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.” WTC 7 clearly met this definition. Therefore NIST should have investigated more thoroughly the possibility that explosive were used. Specifically, the use of “exotic accelerants” should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 – “Exotic Accelerants,” three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation into the possible use of “exotic accelerants,” specifically as stated in the guideline, “Thermite mixtures.” NIST should comply with NFPA Section 921 and test the debris from WTC 7 for thermite residues and report the results to the scientific community.

Omissions from the NIST Report

Foreknowledge of Collapse

NIST omitted from the Report information relating to foreknowledge by several groups of people that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

What we mean by foreknowledge is a quality of detail and a strength of conviction that allow us to say, in light of the building’s collapse at approximately 5:21 p.m., that they knew in advance that it was coming down.

Such knowledge is highly significant in light of the facts that (a) no steel framed skyscraper in history (indeed, NIST says, “no tall building” in history) had ever before collapsed from fire alone; and (b) the collapse, according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and unpredictable factors, which did not come together in such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.

In any situation where someone demonstrates foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event, the possibility must be considered that the knowledge derived from those who had control over the event. In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.

NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC’s collapse by implying:

(a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse.

From NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.16:

“The emergency responders quickly recognized that WTC 7 had been damaged by the collapse of WTC 1...

As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that there was no water coming out of the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse...”

(b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse, passing on this assessment to others (Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, Aug. 25, 2008)

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and led a few of them (about seven) to worry that the building might collapse, but the great majority (approximately 50) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on what they perceived but on what they were told. (See Graeme MacQueen, “Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, June 11, 2008) Moreover, while it is apparently also true that an engineer communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain the evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.

Below are seven reasons why the above NIST explanations of foreknowledge are inadequate. One example is given to illustrate each of the seven reasons. More details can be found in the paper by Graeme MacQueen titled “Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories” published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven...).

1. Certainty To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing; but to be certain that it will collapse is another. Detailed study of the accounts of the FDNY shows that over half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that it was coming down. (The figures are: 31 out of 58. See “Waiting for Seven”.)

2. Early announcement If someone was observing the fires in WTC 7 and was able to determine, in the last few moments of the building’s existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing; but to receive warnings of the building’s collapse well before this set of circumstances was in place raises far more suspicions. Yet a detailed study of the FDNY reports show that of the 33 cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance and in six cases warnings were apparently received four of more hours in advance. (See “Waiting for Seven.”) In other words, long, long before the unique set of circumstances had come together to cause the building’s collapse, the collapse was being spoken of widely.

3. Precision If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they would not have been precise. No building had come down from these causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be." (See “Waiting for Seven.”) Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?" A. "Yes." Q. "You were still there?" A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand." Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?" A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there." (See “Waiting for Seven.”)

4. New information If the collapse warnings derived from worries and concerns expressed early in the day by engineers and firefighters, why would the collapse of WTC 7 have been reported by CNN (one hour and 10 minutes in advance) and BBC (23 minutes in advance) as breaking news based on just received information? CNN anchor Aaron Brown said “We are getting information now.” CNN anchor Judy Woodruff: “We’re hearing for the first time” (See Appendix.) BBC anchor: “We’ve got some news just coming in”.

5. Premature announcement CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely announced its actual collapse.

CNN’s Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing...” BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: “the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.” No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to these announcers.

6. Continuity The BBC continued to announce that WTC 7 had collapsed, even when the building could be seen standing directly behind reporter Jane Standley, for about 17 minutes until the story was pulled abruptly.

When CNN personnel realized they had made an error in their early announcement, they could simply have corrected it. They could, at the very least, have withdrawn their attention from WTC 7 and stopped covering it since it was obviously still standing. Instead, CNN continued to keep WTC 7 in the forefront of its coverage over the hour and ten minutes preceding its collapse, repeatedly warning that it was going to come down and keeping the image of the building in front of the viewer until it had actually collapsed. (See Appendix.)

7. Progression According to NIST’s study, WTC 7’s fires had been reduced from ten floors, soon after the collapse of WTC 1, to essentially two floors as the collapse time approached. This was a building in which the fires were actually dying down. Why, then, did CNN show awareness of the building’s approaching doom, and why did it revise its captions accordingly, from “may collapse” to “poised to collapse” (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then to “on verge of collapse” (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse). (Appendix)

Any one of these seven factors would be enough to make us consider the possibility of foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse. Taken together, they make an unanswerable case.

As further support, below we have provided a timeline of events based on CNN’s coverage of Building 7. The times in the left-hand column are within 30 seconds of actual time.

The NIST Report should be revised to include a detailed analysis of all of the reports of specific foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7. NIST’s Lead Investigator, Dr. Sunder, when challenged with reports like this during radio interviews recently has stated that NIST’s investigation was not a criminal investigation, but instead is a technical one. However, this position belies the fact that NIST did opine in the Report that the controlled demolition hypothesis was unlikely because NIST didn’t believe that the explosives could be placed without being detected. Such an opinion is not a technical opinion, but an operational one that goes more to logistically how a criminal could have committed the crime than technically how it was done. Clearly NIST could consider the many reports of foreknowledge and note the impossibility of such specific and detailed foreknowledge. The Report should be revised accordingly.

FEMA Building Performance Study – Appendix C

The NIST WTC 7 Report does not attempt to explain the “severe high-temperature corrosion attack” on apparently the only piece of WTC 7 steel which was tested, as documented in Appendix C, “Limited Metallurgical Examination” of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Performance Study, which can be found at the link below on the NIST website.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

The detailed further study deemed necessary by FEMA was – as far as we know - never done, and the observed “intergranular melting” of the steel can not be explained within the framework of the present NIST hypothesis. Why would NIST ignore the recommendations made by FEMA investigators for additional research of the unexplained material behavior?

In a taped interview Worcester Polytechnic Institute Fire Engineering professor Dr. Jonathan Barnett, one of the authors of the 13 page report in Appendix C, made the comment that normal investigative protocol was not followed in the case of the WTC 7 collapse. He says that the steel from WTC 7 was not photographed, examined, and cataloged before being removed. The comments he makes are at the 3:00 minute mark in the below linked video.

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=180&...

It is reported that WTC 7 was fully evacuated long before its collapse and that there were no fatalities or missing persons involved with its demise. The photos in the figures below show the collapsed WTC 7 to have its debris field confined to within a short distance of its footprint.

In addition to showing the relatively tight confinement of the debris field of WTC 7, the photo in Figure 2 also shows that debris from WTC 6 and WTC 5 was contained within their footprints or very nearby.

The FEMA report debris field map for the Twin Towers, below in Figure 3, shows that only a small percentage of the debris from WTC 1 made it the 350 feet to WTC 7’s location. The lighter areas on the map represent low debris density and the darker areas high debris density.

The seeming separation of the WTC 7 debris field from those of the other buildings, and the fact there were no missing persons or fatalities involved with its collapse, make it hard to accept the History Channel program narrator’s comment, in the video above, that the mingling of the steel from the different buildings, and the need for search and rescue, were the reasons for the removal of the WTC 7 steel, before it could be properly photographed, examined, and cataloged, at the collapse site.

Even if the WTC 7 steel was moved, without being examined and cataloged at the site of the collapse, an additional question arises as to why it wasn’t recovered and stored for later testing, evaluation, and a systematic forensic analysis. This is especially pertinent in light of the FEMA recommendation that additional research was needed due to the strange findings in their very limited metallurgical examination.

In the August 2008 NIST draft Report on WTC 7 there is no mention of testing of any recovered steel from the collapsed remains of the building. In sections where the properties of the steel need to be discussed reference is curiously made to WTC steel samples, not specifically those of WTC 7. This can be understood if one is aware that in an earlier draft of the WTC 7 report NIST made the stark admission that “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels”.

Since the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 suffers from a lack of physical evidence to support its findings, it should go into some level of detail on: why normal investigatory protocol was not followed, why none of the steel was recovered, and whether any laws were violated in not doing so. If there are questions as to the legality of the removal and lack of recovery for investigatory purposes, NIST should recommend that an investigation be commenced to determine who was involved with the decision to remove the steel and why NIST did not receive any of it for its investigation.

There are also several seemingly contradictory issues between the FEMA Building Performance Study Appendix C and the NIST WTC 7 Report, for which no explanations have been provided, and they are:

NIST states "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" while FEMA section C.2 shows that at least one piece of WTC 7 steel was tested, with the results being alarming, considering the highly unusual formation of a liquid eutectic, intergranular melting, and erosion. Features not seen before, by the experienced investigators, in steel subject to common office fires. FEMA section C.3 Summary for Sample 1 states that the steel was heated to around 1,000° C. (1,800° F.), which is much hotter than the steel temperatures NIST is claiming to have caused the collapse, and seemingly far outside the ability of office fires to heat the steel. Additionally, this section states that steel liquefied at these temperatures, due to the formation of the eutectic, which would dramatically lower the usual 2750° F melting point temperature of the steel. FEMA Section C.6 Suggestions for Future Research states "It is also possible that the intergranular melting, eutectic formation, and erosion phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Why hasn't the "future research" been done, and the results from it published, especially when FEMA itself suggested that this melting and erosion may have started “prior to collapse”? NIST was charged with investigating the conditions that led to the collapse of WTC 7, and clearly something that possibly occurred prior to collapse and “accelerated the weakening of the steel structure” is something NIST should have investigated. NIST should revise the Report accordingly after it has performed the needed metallurgical analysis. These public comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report are being submitted by the following individuals:

James R. Gourley, Esq. Chemical Engineer International Center for 9/11 Studies jrpatent@gmail.com

Tony Szamboti Mechanical Engineer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage AIA Architect Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D. Physicist S&J Scientific Co.

Kevin Ryan Chemist Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Niels Harrit Ph.D. Chemistry University of Copenhagen

Ron Brookman Structural Engineer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Chris Sarns Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Kamal Obeid, SE PE Structural Engineer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scott Grainger, PE Forensic Engineer Civil Engineer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge Logistical Systems Consulting

Bob Fischer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Justin Keogh Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

David Chandler Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Gregg Roberts gregg@wtc7.net

 

15.  Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E.
 
16.  Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Se en February, 2008, Vol. 134, No. 2, pp. 125-132 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:2(125) Crockett Grabbe1 1 Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 and SeaLane Consulting, Iowa City, IA 52245-3314. E-mail: sealane@mchsi.com Se en's paper presents what it calls a simple analysis for the dynamics of the World Trade Center (WTC, implicitly just the South and North Towers) collapses. He claims the "factors responsible for the onset of collapse are now well established", that: (1) intense res created by the aircraft compromised the remaining intact columns near the impact those undamaged by the plane collision] to sustain the weight of the building above them. (2) The subsequent "near free fall" of these upper parts over just 1 story resulted in dynamical overloading of the undamaged columns below by a "factor of over 30". Se en then goes on to develop a propagating instability model for how the re brought the Towers down. But these claimed factors are factually inaccurate. Furthermore, in analyzing the model built on these factors, ideal assumptions are made that are in disagreement with physical principles inherent in the collapses of the Towers, and yield solutions that cannot provide answers or much insight into how the Towers fell. 1 While the theory of these factors responsible for the onset of collapse have been "well-proposed" as the cause of the collapse, they have not been well-established as factors that explain well the observations of the collapse. The theory that Se en is improving on is the "crush-down, crush-up" theory proposed initially by Bazant and Zhou (2002). Yet this theory does not agree very well with observations on how the Towers fell. For example, as lm documentation of the South Tower collapse shows, the top part of the South Tower does not even come close to "crushing up" after the bottom part of the Tower "crushes down" to the ground.(NBC lms, 2001) In fact, the top part started toppling and fully disintegrated into gray clouds (produced from pulverizing concrete from areas on re) in mid-air, above the lower part of the Tower (producing only white clouds from pulverizing concrete below where the res were), and it did so well before the lower part came down. In addition, both of the Towers show major horizontal forces in their collapses, forces which are fully ignored in the "crush-down, crush-up" theory, which treats the downward gravitational force as the only force acting in 1D analyses of the collapses and neglects all horizontal motion. The factors responsible for the onset of collapse assumed in this "crush-down, crush-up" theory are clearly not well-established. Furthermore, it has been "well-established" that the factors that caused the onset of collapse in the South Tower appear de nitely to not have been the res. The res created from the plane impacts were not that intense just before the collapse initiation for either Tower, and for the South Tower the res seemed close to being contained and put out by the remen when suddenly rapidly horizontally-moving masses of material violently broke through walls of the oors below where the res had been burning from the plane hit. As the lm documentation shows, the collapse of the South Tower 2 initiated 1-2 stories below the lowest oor where the res had been burning, with very dynamic (roughly 40 mph) hurtling of white material (broken and pulverized concrete) in the horizontal direction away from the building | material with absolutely no re associated with it.(NBC lms, 2001) This ejection and a subsequent horizontal ejec- tion of rapidly-moving white material at oors just near this formed the white clouds around the lower segment. As presented by Grabbe (2008a), the force that ripped the South Tower apart at one edge in the collapse was a force an order of magnitude larger in strength than that of the force of gravity (the only force acting in Se en's model for the collapse). There is similar evidence that the res were not the cause of the North Tower collapse, such as the energy analysis in Ho man (2003) that calculates the amount of energy expended in the collapse of the North Tower to be about an order of magnitude larger than the energy that is available for gravitation collapse, the sole force in the model of Se en. These analyses e ectively disprove what Se en refers to as a "well-established" assumption { that gravitation was the only force involved in the collapses of the Tow- ers. Se en builds on Bazant and Zhou's 2002 paper (hereinafter called BZ), referring to their work as establishing the virtually "free-falling" upper parts that initiated the collapse, even though BZ provided no physical mechanism that can possibly allow such free-fall. Se en states that then the subsequent gravitational "near free-fall" of the upper parts over the height of just one story resulted in dynamical overloading of the undamaged lower columns by 30 times their static load. But there is no evidence to support this incredible inference that as a result of the claimed gravitational initiation the upper parts were suddenly virtually free-falling, nor are there means by which grav- 3 itational collapse can produce such a "near free-falling" state. For "near free-falling" to happen, the contiguous solid material making up the building below these sections where the collapse initiates would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action the re above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary momentum of that lower contiguous material counters the momentum of falling parts from above, and conservation of momentum keeps the free-fall state from being approached. The only thing this author knows of that could create a virtual free-falling state is massive explosions well below the res, which could e ectively "liquefy" the lower structure. Direct evidence for explosions, which were created by forces other than grav- ity (such as the horizontal forces in the South Tower collapse initiation), was presented in Grabbe (2007). Those forces are, of course, not present in Se en's model. Se en completely ignores conservation of momentum in all his uses of the word "free-fall". He has mathematically converted the problem from one of analyzing New- ton's equations of motion to an instability analysis of the column as a whole, in order to improve on the the story-coupling limitations of the BZ analysis. However, one cannot ignore conservation of energy and momentum, and the implications of these conserva- tion laws is that the free-fall cavalierly referred to cannot happen in the gravitational collapse of the Towers analyzed in Se en's model.(Grabbe, 2008b) He e ectively avoids the problems of the conservation laws in his analysis, but they not gone away, and pre- vent achievement of the virtual free fall he asserts. Se en correctly identi es one of the several inadequacies of the BZ analysis, saying "However, the link to progressive collapse is improperly asserted by claiming that, be- cause each story locally collapses in an unstable manner, successive stories are bound to fail sequentially." In fact, there is no reason a gravitational collapse could not stop, at 4 least temporarily, upon hitting adequately-sturdy structure in the story below. Se en tries to correct that inadequacy in BZ analysis by analyzing whether this is a prop- agating instability. However, like BZ, he uses a grossly inadequate 1D model of the Towers. The Towers cannot be analyzed as 1D sticks (i.e. 1500 ft "telephone poles"). This grossly ignores the horizontal extensions of the Towers, and completely misses the internal structure that would be a major resistance to such instabilities { indeed, also a major resistance to anything anything approaching free-fall. The Towers were well-constructed over 44,000 ft2 horizontally for this stability, and all of that is ignored in the simple 1D model that Se en analyzes. Se en states that "Each story is assumed to compress homogeneously such that the overall 'wake' above the crush-front and below the initiation site has a larger, uniform density." On the contrary, the early stages of the fall of the South Tower were very non-uniform over these other 2 dimensions, making this 1D model fully inaccurate. Using this oversimplied 1D model of the Towers, Se en calculates the conditions for the instability in Eq (21) as the maximum value the variable he de nes as p (non- dimensionalized variable proportional to what he calls the "steady-state propagation pressure" P) can be to still "assure collapse" of the building. Furthermore, if p is suciently smaller than unity in his model it can apparently achieve the speedy col- lapse observed for the Towers. Clearly his determination of what p is for the Towers is no good because of invalid assumptions used, including in particular the major over- simpli cations from his 1D model. His statement on that "More realistically, if there is a column fracture, p is much less than unity" shows this 1D assumption is clearly wrong because it ignores impor- tant aspects of the 3D behavior of the Towers. There are actually about 286 columns, 5 and they are designed to deal with fractures in individual columns by redistributing the load to unfractured columns. Yet a 1D model must assume it is only 1 column. One could try to translate his 1D analysis into the assumed uniform behavior of all 286 columns, but in fact these 286 columns are engineered not to act uniformly? Fur- thermore, Se en models the columns as being damaged by re, but re damage itself de nitely cannot be uniform over these other 2 dimensions. There is no sensible way to make this translation, and the model is grossly unrealistic for the real WTC Towers. Se en ends the calculation correctly pointing out some of the limits of his model. Stating "Many simpli cations have been made in this analysis for the sake of trans- parency," he mention some of these simpli cations. However, he fails to describe one of the most crucial oversimpli cations of his model: the analysis of the Towers as 1D objects. Such a treatment grossly oversimpli ed the very inhomogeneous nature of re throughout the 286 columns spread over 44,000 ft2 in those 3D Towers, leading to erroneous conclusions. One cannot correctly analyze the stability of a complex 3D structure in a simpli ed 1D analysis. Horizontal forces, complex building structure over the other 2 dimensions, and inhomogeneities of the forces of destruction over these 2 dimensions are essential considerations in any correct analysis. On the positive side, Se en's analysis of the 1D model might be viewed as a useful initial analysis for building collapses from re that to lowest order t the model he uses, possibly helping to identify important questions that need to be addressed in a more complex 3D followup (e.g. why has no other high-rise in any industrial nation ever collapsed from re?). However, when this model and its analysis are applied as an e ort to explain the WTC collapses, claiming this is what caused the collapses, it is decidely wrong, o ering little in answers or insight how the WTC buildings fell. 6 His 1D model and analysis is inadequate because it ignores fundamental 3D aspects of the stability of the Towers, it disagrees with known physical principles such as the conservation of energy, momentum, and mass { conservation laws that show that the collapsing WTC Towers could not reach the virtual free-fall states observed by the gravitational force as claimed, and it substantially disagrees with several observations of how the Towers collapsed. References Bazant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y. (2002), "Why did the World Trade Center collapse?{Simple analyis," J. Eng. Mech., 128(1), 2-6. Grabbe, C.L. (2007), "Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage," J. 911 Stud., 14(8), 1-7, online at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf Grabbe, C.L. (2008a) "Analysis of the Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center" American Physical Society's April Meeting, online at: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR08/Event/84051 http://www.sealane.org/writings/PhysSTFall.html Grabbe, C.L. (2008b), "Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum," J. 911 Stud. Jan. 29 Letter, online at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf Ho man, J., "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center," 7 October 16, 2003, online at: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html NBC lm of South Tower collapse on 9/11/01, online at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html
18.  Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 Author: The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at gordonjross@yahoo.com. Summary: This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the constraints of this paper. Introduction: Previous analysis of the momentum transfer in the collapse of the towers has viewed them as being floors suspended in space and have examined the momentum transfer as a series of elastic or inelastic collisions, which are independent of each other. This type of analysis takes the momentum transfer out of the context given by the other effects of the collisions. This is because this type of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only the topmost storey of the impacted section. The reality of the situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon several storeys in the lower section and for a valid analysis all of these momentum transfers must be included. If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by Bazant & Zhou. 1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this analysis. Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance. This force would also be felt by the columns below the storey which was first impacted. Analysis: The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase. We shall firstly examine this incremental time period. Bazant/Zhou 1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be Journal of 9/11 Studies 33 June 2006/Volume 1 shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase. 1/ The elastic phase shows a linear relationship between load and deflection up to the elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and the deflection at the elastic limit for steel is generally 0.2% of the initial length. 2/ The shortening phase allows for the same failure load to be applied until the vertical deformation reaches 3% at which point the column begins to form buckle points. 3/ The third phase shows a rapid decrease in the load requirement to continue deformation, this load necessarily being less than the failure load. This phase lasts until the total vertical deformation equals the original length. In other words the column is bent in two. To shorten the columns of the first impacted storey by 3%, sufficient to complete the plastic shortening phase, a distance of about 0.111 metres, and allowing a constant speed of 8.5 metres per second, would take a minimum of 0.013 seconds. The speed of the propagation wave through a medium is given by the general formula for wave propagation Velocity = Square root ( Bulk modulus / Density ), and for structural steel is of the order of 4500 metres per second. The propagation wave of the impact force would therefore travel a distance of 58.7 metres in a time of 0.013 seconds. This means that during the time taken in the plastic shortening of the impacted columns, the same force would be felt at a minimum distance of 58.7 metres, or approximately 16 storeys, from the impact. These storeys would thus suffer an elastic deflection in response to, and proportional to, the failure load applied at the impacted floor. These deflections would themselves take time and allow the propagation wave to move further downwards again affecting more storeys. We can estimate the elastic deflection of these 16 storey columns as being in the range 0 to 7mm. The full elastic deflection of a 3.7m column, using the generally accepted figure of 0.2% of its original length is 7.4mm. The columns in the uppermost of these storeys would suffer almost their full elastic deflection since their failure load is similar though slightly greater than that of the first impacted storey. Those storey columns more distant from the impact would be of a larger cross section, requiring higher loads to cause full elastic deflection. Using only half of the maximum elastic deflection, 56mm (16 * 7 / 2), is, again, an assumption in favour of collapse continuation. The elastic deflection of lower storeys would increase the distance through which the falling section would have to move in order to load the impacted column and complete its 3% plastic shortening. The time taken, again using a constant velocity of 8.5 m/sec would increase to about 0.02 seconds, and thus allow the propagation wave to move through and affect a further 8 storeys. Journal of 9/11 Studies 34 June 2006/Volume 1 Because these columns suffer a vertical deflection, the attached floors move downwards and they will therefore have a velocity and momentum. Energy Losses: A simple conservation of momentum calculation, ignoring these movements, would have, 16 falling storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec before impact, changing to 17 storeys moving at (8.5 * (16/17)) = 8 m/sec after impact. This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds. To estimate and illustrate the further momentum changes we can assume that the storey which is 25 storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the 24 affected storeys will vary linearly from the velocity of the falling section to zero. Momentum before impact = 16 storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec Momentum after impact = 17 storeys moving at V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 22/24*V2m/sec +……+ 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5) V2 = 16 * 8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8 metres per second. The speed of the upper section would be reduced by the collision from 8.5 m/sec to a speed of less than 4.8 m/sec rather than the 8 m/sec derived from a momentum calculation which does not include this factor. Note also that this reduction in speed would again give more time for the propagation wave to travel downwards through the tower columns and allow that more and more storeys are so affected. The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced. K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec) K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec) Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66% This is an underestimation of the energy loss, since the deceleration would allow more time for travel of the propagation wave and so allow more floors to be affected but even this shows an energy absorption of some 66% of the total kinetic energy of the falling section. Energy Balance: Since there was only some 2.1 GJ available at the point of impact of the first collision, a loss of 66% would reduce this figure to 714 MJ. The kinetic energy would be augmented by potential energy released in the further downward movement of the falling mass and if we assume that this falls through the full distance of the 3% Journal of 9/11 Studies 35 June 2006/Volume 1 shortening phase of the impacted floor and the elastic deflection of the lower storeys, then the additional potential energy is 58*10* g * (0.111 + .056) = + 95MJ. The strain energy consumed by the impacted storey columns in the elastic phase and plastic shortening phase can be calculated using the failure load. The failure load used throughout this analysis is derived using the mass above the impact, 58 000 tonnes, and a safety factor of 4. Examination of the column geometry with reference to the Euler equations show that this is an underestimation both of the failure load and the distance over which it would have to act before failure, and this gives a gross assumption in favour of collapse continuation. A factor of 0.029 is included to reflect the load profile over the 3% plastic shortening phase. The load profile exhibits a linear rise from zero to failure load at 0.2% of the length, followed by a constant failure load over the next 2.8% of the length. Plastic strain energy: 58*10kg*4*g*3.7m*0.029= -244MJ. A similar though slightly smaller figure would be required for the first impacting storey in the upper falling section. Because this storey carried a lower load, 15 storeys, than the impacted storey, 17 storeys, its designed capabilities would be proportionately smaller. Using this knowledge an estimation can be made that the energy consumed by this storey would be, (244 MJ * 15 / 17) = -215MJ . The elastic response of the lower storey columns within their elastic range would make further demands on the energy available by absorption of energy in the form of strain energy. This can be estimated, using a safety factor of 4, a mass of 58000 tonnes, a distance of 0.056metres, and a factor of 0.5 to reflect the load profile 58*10kg*4*g*0.056metres*0.5= -64MJ. The downward movement of these floors in response to the impact will release additional potential energy due to their compression and using the same deflections as above and a value for mass proportionate to the number of storeys, this will release 58*10kg * 24/16 * g * 0.056metres / 2 = + 24 MJ. Further energy losses are evident in an analysis of the compression of storeys within the upper falling section. These storeys manufactured from columns with a smaller cross section than those at the impact, would be unable to withstand the failure load present at the impact front and would suffer plastic deformation beyond their elastic limit, but for simplicity, it is assumed that they suffer only their full elastic deflection. This is another large assumption in favour of collapse continuation. The total deflection would be 15 storeys multiplied by the elastic deflection of 7.4mm, and strain energy consumed can be estimated as, 15*7.4*10*4*58*10*g/2= -126MJ. Movement of the storeys within the upper section will release additional potential energy due to their compression and consequent movement. It is likely that this energy would manifest itself as failures within the upper section, but has nevertheless been added as an energy available for collapse continuation. The uppermost storey will move downwards by 15 times the elastic deflection whereas the lowest will remain static, both in relation to the impact point, giving additional potential energy as, Journal of 9/11 Studies 36 June 2006/Volume 1 15*0.0074*58*10*g/2= +32MJ A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical value. In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening 2]. It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and consequent fires. The tower, using Dr. Greening's figures, contained approximately 50000 tonnes of concrete, and the assumption is made that only 10% of this was pulverised to a size of 60 micrometres. One kilogram of concrete at this particle size will have a surface area of 67 m^2. We can now use Dr. Greening's figure for concrete fracture energy of 100J/m^2 to show that the energy requirement for one floor would be 50*10^6kg / 110floors * 67m^2 * 100J/m^2 * 10% = - 304 MJ. It may be considered unlikely that a low velocity impact would expend large energies on pulverisation of materials, and this is more likely in later stages of the collapse. However, the large expulsions of dust were visually evident at early stages of the collapse. Energy Summary: The energy balance can be summarised as Energy available; Kinetic energy 2105MJ Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ Compression of impacting section 32MJ Compression of impacted section 24MJ Total Energy available 2256MJ Energy required; Momentum losses 1389MJ Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ Total Energy required 2646MJ Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ Conclusion: The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from Journal of 9/11 Studies 37 June 2006/Volume 1 the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 secondsafter impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected. The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied. Assumptions and disregards : A buckling failure is notable because of the characteristic reduction in load required to continue failure after yield is reached, being distinct from a compressive failure where the load to continue failure after yield is substantially greater than the yield load, and will reach a maximum at the Ultimate Load. In the immediate time period after impact the force applied by the falling section will manifest as such a compressive load. Euler calculations show that columns of the dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to buckling over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a compressive failure mode. The load would increase to yield levels, and due to the work hardening which would be present here but not in a buckle failure, thereafter increase towards the Ultimate Load level and this would manifest as plastic compression or shortening, until such time as enough length of column to satisfy the minimum length requirements of buckling, had been Journal of 9/11 Studies 38 June 2006/Volume 1 exposed to the load. The tower columns when viewed individually had dimensions which would dictate a minimum length for buckling of three or more storey heights. When the bracing of the spandrel plates and corners of the perimeter columns, and the horizontal and diagonal bracing is taken into regard the minimum buckling length would extend over many storey heights. At this point the load would continue to manifest as plastic compression or shortening, but also as a tendency to buckle the column, rather than continue in compression failure. The energy profile would thereafter become that of a buckle failure.The analysis would be justified in using the greater energy demand characteristics of a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the collapse, but I have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode has the lowest energy demand. The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration which would be felt by the falling mass. As an example, if we asumed that the velocity was halved over the distance covered in this analysis the time would be extended by one third, giving more time for the energy to dissipate to more remote points. The analysis assumes a linear distribution in the elastic deflections and velocities of the affected floors during calculation of the momentum transfer and elastic strain energy. Since most of the column sections involved would have undergone almost their full elastic deflection, this treatment underestimates the energy demands within those calculations. Only a second iteration has been used to show the number of floors taking part in the momentum and velocity changes of the collision. A full iteration would give about 30 storeys, and allowing that the falling mass was decelerated to half of its original velocity would allow time for the propagation to extend loading to more than 40 storeys below the impact. My assumptions have the affect of reducing the number of storeys which take part. This together with the assumption that only a portion of the elastic deflection will apply underestimates the energy requirements of this task. The characteristic of steel to show an increase in Young's modulus in response to an impact load is acknowledged as a further energy demand but is not quantified. It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials. The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best Journal of 9/11 Studies 39 June 2006/Volume 1 characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers. Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front. An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation. This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter. This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input. References: 1] Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01) Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou
20.  Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
Propping Up the War on Terror

Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

KEVIN RYAN

March 28, 2006

"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center."--Shankar Nair, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001

Turn on C-Span, or "Meet The Press," or any other media program presenting federal officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever hope to see an end.

The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC

Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos, we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American. If we are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how three tall buildings collapsed due to fire, all on the same day, when no such thing has ever happened before.

The Twin Towers and Why They Fell

It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4

One would expect that any explanation for the destruction of such buildings would need to be very solid as well. Four years after 9/11, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally did give us their version of "why and how" two of the buildings collapsed, but its explanation may be even less effective than the 9/11 Commission report.5 Now that the official story has been given, however, we can see just how weak and ill-defined our basis for this War on Terror has been all along. Additionally, we can track the evolution of official comments about collapse and see who was involved.

Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players

Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses." Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.6

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8

There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of September 11th," which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into "licorice." Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories.9 They will probably come to regret it.

This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed---were sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel.

Another expert who served on NIST's advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12 This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted version of what happened.

The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why the Towers Fell," in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed. NIST's report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.13

NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The 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 11th."15

At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.

Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18

By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21

For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed.

After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.

Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety.

For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives.

My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.

Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them.

Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism. So much has been sacrificed, and so much has been invested in this story, that we all have a need for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers, all our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where scientific results are reversed to support politically correct, pre-determined conclusions. That critical point of divergence, where our lives were turned upside down and all logic followed, has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be imagined at all.

Some of us remain hopeful that we can still achieve a critical mass awareness of the need for truth, and in doing so pull the support out from under what John McMurtry calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we should remember how we got this story and how it was propped up despite all the evidence against it. Because whatever happens next, after the smoke clears, our children may have a need to know.

NOTES

1] Richard Heinberg, "Götterdämmerung," Museletter, No.144, March 2004 (http://www.museletter.com/archive/144.html).

2] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie," 911 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php).

3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.

4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

5] Jim Hoffman, "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century," 911Research.wtc7.net, December 8, 2005 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

6] Website for Teng & Associates (http://www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp).

7] Website for National Directory of Expert Witnesses (http://national-experts.com/members2/witness.asp?d_memnum=07572&d_lnum=2).

8] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:15:10.

9] Sheila Barter, "How the World Trade Center Fell," BBC News, September 13, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).

10] Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Chapter 2.

11] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.

12] Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men of Steel: The Story of the Family that Built the World Trade Center (New York: Crown Publishers, 2002), 365.

13] Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002), 27.

14] Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25.

15] NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195.

16] Silverstein's statement is contained in "America Rebuilds," PBS documentary, 2002 (www.pbs.org/americarebuilds). It can be viewed (www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3).

17] "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John Skilling," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 124.

18] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, 138.

19] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.

20] Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20.

21] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.

22] Kevin Ryan, "The Collapse of the WTC," 911 Visibility Project, November 11, 2004 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).

23] John Dobberstein, "Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse," South Bend Tribune, November 22, 2004 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856).

24] NIST, Final Report, 196.

25] Comments from Underwriters Laboratories on NIST WTC report, NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/comments/ULI_Ganesh_Rao_8-5-05.pdf).

26] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:18:50.

27] NIST, Final Report, 197.

28] NIST presentation on WTC7 collapse investigation, NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf).

29] John McMurtry, "9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes." In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006). My present essay will also appear in this volum

 

21.  Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron- Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 By Jerry Lobdill June 15, 2007 Acknowledgments I am indebted to Dr. Dale Huckaby of Texas Christian University and Dr. Richard Sisson of Worcester Polytechnic Institute for reference information pertaining to phase diagrams and to Dr. Frank Legge for critical review. However, the responsibility for this paper rests solely on me. Introduction It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds. According to the NIST FAQ1 these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is inconsistent with any theory of collapse except controlled demolition. Yet the official story remains that the buildings were brought down by fires and damage to the structural members of the buildings resulting from the impact of the planes. The WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed that it was brought down by fires. All three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were subjects of many video documents that remain today as some of the very best evidence for controlled demolition that we have. It is clear from the videos that explosives were used. The evidence for incendiary cutting of steel consists of the video evidence, the forensic evidence in the dust and rubble, and the testimony of eyewitness early responders and survivors who saw glowing molten metal flowing out of window openings. This paper deals with the incendiary events and the forensic evidence that remains to prove that the official story is wrong. Specifically, this paper discusses the chemistry of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the chemical content of these microspheres and the physical chemistry of the iron-sulfur-oxygen system since sulfur is one of the omnipresent elements in the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and was also found in a metallurgical study of structural iron from the WTC 72. 1 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm, 2 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm, by Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2 Dr. Steven Jones discovered the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and has analyzed their elemental composition using XEDS analysis.3 This discovery, of recent date, is a very important addition to the body of evidence that disproves the official story. At the present time the interpretation of these microspheres is still under discussion as is the composition of the incendiary they imply. This paper brings the subject of physical chemistry into the investigation and suggests some new possibilities that should be considered to enhance the scientific basis of the claim that incendiary devices were employed in the demolition of the WTC buildings. Physical chemistry is a subject that bridges physics and chemistry. It involves the study of the interactions between matter and energy. Whereas chemistry is concerned primarily with the material changes that occur in reactions, and physics may be regarded as a study of energy and its transformations, physical chemistry is concerned with both of these subjects. The influence of physical factors such as temperature, pressure, concentration, electricity, and light, both on the reacting substances and the reactions is studied in physical chemistry to better understand the fundamental nature of chemical change. The thermodynamics of changes in matter is an area we will discuss in this paper in connection with 9/11. We will also be interested in surface tension. It is important that an alternate theory of the demise of the WTC towers be consistent with physical chemistry principles, and it is to that end that this paper is dedicated. About Thermite The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell. What was the purpose of this? Thermite has been used to weld railroad rail sections together and also to cut structural steel. It has also been used for military purposes such as destroying guns and other weapons, disabling engines, and to rapidly destroy cryptographic machines. It appears that in the WTC it was used to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled demolition. This use implies that whatever the task, it had to be completed in the last minute or so before the building began to fall. Any chemical process that continued after the primary task was completed is simply an unavoidable sequela of the primary purpose. An excellent article on thermite is posted in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Types. There are a number of possible reactions that could produce large amounts of heat that could be used to melt (cut) steel. For example, Fe2O3 + 2Al  Al2O3 + 2Fe 3FeO + 2Al  Al2O3 + 3Fe 3 “Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method”, by Dr. Steven Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, V 11, May 2007 3 3Fe3O4 + 8Al  4Al2O3 + 9Fe 3CuO + 2Al  Al2O3 + 3Cu These reactions all produce a free metal and release a large quantity of heat that leaves a residue of very hot molten metal. It is not the purpose of this paper to analyze each of these reactions (and others) that could be used to cut structural steel. We are not interested here in comparing the relative merits of these reactions. We will restrict our attention to the first reaction and show how to determine how much thermite is needed to cut a given amount of structural steel. One thing to notice about these equations is that they produce no gas that could be used to force the molten metal against the solid structural steel to be cut. That is a problem if vertical surfaces are to be cut (as in the WTC). Engineering Considerations and the Use of Thermate Spectre Enterprises’s patent for a linear pyrotechnic cutting device shows a stack of charge containers that are cylindrical with a slit nozzle in the wall parallel to the axis of the cylinder. The cylinder height is much smaller than the diameter. The molten liquid is forced out of the nozzle into contact with the steel object to be cut. This would seem to imply that there are additives in the charge that produce hot gas to provide the pressure to force out the liquid.4 The gas is provided by an air filled empty space in the reaction chamber in the patent for Thermate- TH35. Other methods of providing the required gas have also been used. About Thermate When sulfur is added to thermite the result is called thermate. Other reaction enhancing chemicals may also be added. Thermate is said to have superior steel cutting capabilities compared with thermite for reasons that have not yet been fully explained. In this section we will discuss what is known about the properties of thermate that may have some bearing on its cutting properties. What does the addition of sulfur do? Ignition of thermite causes the reaction mix to be heated to white-hot temperatures (~ 2500 C). Monoclinic sulfur melts at 119.25 C and boils at 444.6 C. However, sulfur and iron are miscible, and research has shown that the Fe-S binary system at one atmosphere of pressure forms a liquid at temperatures as high as 1800 C, far above the boiling point of sulfur alone. The phase behavior of this system has been studied extensively. Figure 1 is the phase diagram of the Fe-S system at 1 atmosphere of pressure. 4 "Thermite mixtures of metals and fuels such as aluminum, zirconium, magnesium, boron or titanium; oxides such as iron oxide, common chemical oxidizers such as nitrates and perchlorates, halogen containing polymers and other gas producing materials, such as fluorocarbon (e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene) are typical." From Patent detail, Spectre Enterprises. See post by Ferric Oxide, March 23, 2007 at http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/viewtopic.php?mforum=stj911&t=50&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40& mforum=stj911 5 http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744 4 Figure 1—Phase Diagram, Fe-S Binary System For our purposes we consider Fe-S mixtures that contain 31.4% by weight sulfur (the point x in Figure 1) or less. At 31.4% sulfur and 994 C6 the system is at the eutectic point; i.e., the lowest temperature at which liquid can exist in a mixture of S and Fe. In the liquid state the mixture (at any concentration) is homogeneous. However, the solid state is heterogeneous and the character of its heterogeneity at any given concentration may be dependent on the history of its solidification process. Certain domains of the solid mixture in the phase diagram are characterized by different crystal structures. Figure 1 assumes that no other elements are in contact with the Fe-S system. If there is any space above the surface of the mix in the closed system that space will contain gaseous sulfur. A complication occurs if the system is open to the air. In that case we have a ternary system, Fe-S-O. This was the case in the WTC situation. Of course, oxygen is a diatomic gas, O2, at all temperatures of interest here. Solid sulfur will ignite rather easily in air. Its flash point is 207.2 C, and its self ignition point is 237.2 C. So our system contains solid, liquid, and gaseous phases. We have not only a ternary system, but one which forms compounds, FeO and FeS under various conditions of temperature and concentrations of Fe, S, and O. And we know that FeO and FeS form a binary eutectic system7, so that it is possible to have heterogeneous mixtures 6 Other measurement data shows a eutectic temperature of 988 C. The exact value is not critical for our discussion. 7 Thanks to Dr. Richard D. Sisson, Jr. for this information. 5 of solid FeS, FeO, Fe, and S. The phase diagram for FeO and FeS is given in Figure 2. The temperature scale is Celsius. Figure 2-- FeO-FeS Phase Diagram A further complication is the fact that FeO and FeS are non-stoichiometric compounds. That is, they do not contain exactly as many atoms of one element as they do of the other. This means that the crystal structure is not regular, but has unpredictable irregularities that cause granularity. There can be interfacial areas that are cationic and others that are anionic, contributing to corrosion of Fe over time. The corrosion rates are unknown.8 One must also consider time scales for phase transformations in an environment where temperature gradients are severe and heat is conducted rapidly. The phase diagrams depict equilibrium states, and we have already noted that the heterogeneous structure of the solid that results upon cooling when ambient temperature is reached may depend on the rapidity of cooling. The efficiency of cutting steel depends on effective heat transfer as well. We know empirically that when a white-hot liquid thermate reaction mixture is sprayed from a nozzle against steel at 8 See Footnote 2, Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson 6 room temperature it cuts through the steel more easily than does reacting thermite that is simply in contact with the steel. In addition to sulfur, other chemicals such as Ba(NO3)2 may be added. It is said that the reaction is speeded up as a result of adding KMnO4. These chemicals may decompose due to the heat and form compounds that may act as catalysts, not as a source of extra oxygen for, say, the purpose of providing gas for propelling the thermate mixture. A catalyst does not react in its role. It remains unchanged after the reaction has gone to completion. The observations of Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson (BB&S) (See Footnote 2) describe sulfidation of some structural steel from WTC 7. They say: “Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”9 And they conclude: “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” We should take note of the fact that they are saying they have no idea of the rapidity of the sulfidation and oxidation processes or when they began. They also seem to be aware of the fact that there were large volumes of red hot metal below the rubble piles. (This is rather interesting since NIST, their sponsor, claims they are unaware of any such thing. )11 Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Let’s discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at S < 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a 9 See Footnote 2. 10 From WTC 7 and WTC 1 or 2, respectively. 11 John Gross, Video presentation at UT Austin, http://www.pnacitizen.org/john_gross_nist_pnac.php 7 microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C). However, if the thermate contained only 2% S by weight (as specified for Thermate-TH3)12, that would not be enough to even produce a eutectic mixture using all the Fe produced in the thermate reaction, let alone all the added Fe from the cut column. It is not likely that the amount of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture; however any substantial amount of sulfur will usefully lower the melting point of the attacked steel by sulfidation. About the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres Dr. Jones13 found these microspheres in WTC dust that deposited in an apartment about 100 yards away from one of the towers. They contain Fe, Al, S, K, Mn and other elements in small percentages. Iron is a major component of these objects. The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story. Some of these microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur. The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces. Thermite Heat Balance Analysis It is all well and good to compare heats of reaction for various thermite analog reactions. But for purposes of cutting steel one needs to know how much thermite is needed to cut a particular size of steel column successfully. The cutting charge must melt the steel and heat the molten mass, including the reaction products, sufficiently to allow it to flow away from the cut before it solidifies. We cannot precisely determine how hot the molten mass must be through analysis, but we can determine the amount of thermite needed to heat the molten mass to its highest temperature. This analysis is useful for charge size estimation purposes. I have computed the amount of steel that can be cut away per gram of Fe3O4-Al thermite given a desired final temperature of the molten mix. This is done using chemical engineering thermodynamics methods. In doing the heat balance I assume that all quantities are in stoichiometric proportions. I also assume that the heat of reaction is consumed in heating all the products of the reaction at 100% efficiency. 12 See Footnote 5. 13 See Footnote 3 8 The calculations and data for this heat balance are a bit complicated and have been relegated to the Appendix. Figure 3 gives the results of the heat balance calculations. The higher the maximum temperature reached by the molten mix, the longer it will remain molten as it flows away from the cut. But we pay a price to increase that maximum temperature. Addition of sulfur decreases the temperature at which the molten mix solidifies and increases the time available for the molten mix to flow away from the cut. Adding sulfur would decrease the required maximum temperature, and thus, decrease the amount of thermite needed to do a particular job. Only experimentation can determine what the optimum proportion of sulfur would be to minimize the amount of thermite needed to accomplish the desired cut. Amount of Steel Cut Away Per g Thermite vs Final Temperature y = 7E-07x2 - 0.004x + 6.5597 R2 = 1 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Temperature, deg C g Fe Cut From Column/g Thermite Figure 3—Amount of Steel Cut Away Per g of Thermite vs Final Temperature of the Molten Mix 9 Conclusions This paper has discussed some physical chemistry aspects of thermite and thermate and shown how science explains the existence of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres, why some microspheres are hollow, and why the metallurgical forensic study produced the results it did. The thermodynamic analysis has provided an understanding of how much thermite is needed to cut away a given amount of steel at 100% efficiency. The complexity of the chemistry involved has been illuminated. These analyses enhance our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC buildings. 10 APPENDIX A Table A-1—Chemical Data Used in Heat Balance Calculations Heat of Reaction, cal/g mole 203513.384 cal/gram-mole cal/Joule 0.239005736 (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm) Cp of Fe Equation 1 cal/K/gram-mole Cp of S/g Equation 2 cal/K/gram-mole Cp of Al2O3/g Equation 3 cal/K/gram-mole Heat of Fusion, Fe 59.09882213 cal/g Heat of Fusion, S 9.2 cal/g 115.21, wiki temp, CRC 78th Ed. http://www.speclab.com/elements/sulfur.htm Heat of vaporization, Fe 340 kJ/mole, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron Heat of vaporization, Fe cal/g 1455.003586 cal/g Heat of vaporization, S cal/g 335.4100333 cal/g, 444.6 C Heat of Transition (rhombic--> monoclinic) 2.900268197 cal/g (at 94.9 C) To 25 degC At Wt Fe 55.85 At Wt Al 26.98 At Wt S 32.066 M P S (rhomb) 112.8 deg C M P S (monoclinic) 119.25 deg C M P S (wiki) (not used) 115.21 deg C B P S 444.6 deg C M P Fe 1538 deg C B P Fe 3000 deg C Mol Wt Fe2O3 159.7 g Mol Wt Al2O3 101.96 g Equation 1: (Fe) (Source 2 p. 221) 4.13 + 0.00638T T = 273 to 1041 K Crystalline, a 6.12 + 0.00336T T = 1041 to 1179 Crystalline, b 8.4 T = 1179 to 1674 Crystalline, g 10.0 T = 1674 to 1811A-1 Crystalline, d 8.15 T = 1811 to 1873 Liquid 8.15 T = 1873 to 2773 Liquid (assumed) Equation 2: (S) (Source 2 p. 224) 3.63 + 0.00640T T = 273 to 368 K Crystalline, rhombic 4.38 + 0.00440T T = 368 to 392.35 Crystalline, monoclinic (Unknown) T = 392.35 to 717.7 Liquid (Unknown) T = 717.7 to 2773 gas A-1 Chemical Engineers’ Handbook shows 1803 K. Accepted value of Fe melting point is 1811 K (2007) 11 Equation 3: (Al2O3) (Source 2 p. 219) 22.08 +0.008971T – 522500/T2 T = 273 to 1973 Crystalline (Unknown) T = 1973 to 2773 Crystalline Sources: 1. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 39th Ed., 1957, 78th Ed., 1996 2. Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 3rd Ed., 1950 and 6th Ed., 1984 3. Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, by J. M. Smith, McGraw-Hill 1949 Thermite Heat Balance Fe2O3 + 2Al  Al2O3 + 2Fe + 851.5 kJ/mol The yield for stoichiometric quantities is summarized in Table A-2. Table A-2—Mass of Reaction Products per Gram of Thermite For 1 g thermite Chemical N moles g/mole g (molar portions) g % of molar Fe2O3 1 159.7 159.7 0.7474 0.47% Al 2 26.98 53.96 0.2526 0.47% Al2O3 1 101.96 101.96 0.4772 0.47% Fe 2 55.85 111.7 0.5228 0.47% Heat of Reaction Thermite is formulated as 159.7/53.96 = 2.960 parts Fe2O3 to 1 part Al (by weight). If 159.7 g of Fe2O3 is used, 851.5 kJ is liberated. If 0.7474 g of Fe2O3 is used, then 0.0047*851.5 kJ is liberated. Converting kJ to cal, multiply by 239.0057. So, 0.7474 g of Fe2O3 (1 g thermite) produces 956.51 cal of reaction heat. Problem A-1 When thermite reacts, if there is no excess Fe in contact with the molten reaction product, the reaction heat will be used up to heat only the reaction products. However, we want to produce molten Fe from not only the thermite, but also from the cutting of the structural steel column. How much structural steel liquid could be produced at, say, 1800 C per gram of thermite? Solution The reaction must heat the reaction products from a reference temperature of 25 C to 1800 C and melt X grams of structural steel whose original temperature is 25 C into molten Fe at 1800 C. Since the Fe is being transformed from the solid state at 25 C into the liquid state at 1800 C the heat of fusion of Fe at 59.1 cal/g, must be added to convert the Fe from solid to liquid. The Al2O3 12 remains in the same crystalline state throughout the process, so it has no heat of transition component as the reaction products and the molten Fe from the cutting operation come to equilibrium at 1800 C. The enthalpy of the nth component due to temperature change, DHT(n), depends on the mass, m, of the component, the heat capacity per gram, cp, of the component, and the temperature difference, (T2 – T1). The equation is DHT(n) = m(n) cp(n)(T2 – T1) A-1 Table A-3 – Heat absorbed by Reaction Product Fe Fe T (deg C) T (deg K) Cp, cal/deg/g-mol cp, cal/deg/g DH, cal/g H cal/g 25 298.1 6.032 0.1080 0.0000 50 323.1 6.191 0.1109 2.7357 2.7357 100 373.1 6.510 0.1166 5.6857 8.4214 200 473.1 7.148 0.1280 12.2281 20.6495 300 573.1 7.786 0.1394 13.3704 34.0199 400 673.1 8.424 0.1508 14.5128 48.5326 500 773.1 9.062 0.1623 15.6551 64.1877 600 873.1 9.700 0.1737 16.7975 80.9852 700 973.1 10.338 0.1851 17.9398 98.9250 767.9 1041 10.772 0.1929 12.8323 111.7573 767.90001 1041 9.618 0.1722 0.0000 111.7573 905.9 1179 10.081 0.1805 24.3374 136.0947 905.90001 1179 8.400 0.1504 0.0000 136.0947 1400.9 1674 8.400 0.1504 74.4494 210.5441 1400.9 1674 10.000 0.1791 0.0000 210.5441 1537.9 1811 10.000 0.1791 24.5300 235.0741 1537.9 1811 8.150 0.1459 NewsFollowUp.com 0.0000 235.0741 1800 2073.1 8.150 0.1459 38.2474 273.3215 cal/g Fe 273.3215cal/g Fe Heat of Fusion Fe 59.0988cal/g Fe g Fe/g Thermite 0.5228 cal/g thermite 173.7893 NOTE: The heats of transition from a--> b-->g-->d crystalline forms are assumed to be zero in the absence of data. This assumption probably introduces only a very small error. 13 Fe, Enthalpy vs Temperature y = 0.1576x - 9.5837 R2 = 0.9987 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Temperature, deg. C Enthalpy, cal/g Fe Figure A-1 –Curve fit of Enthalpy vs Temperature, Fe 14 Table A-4 -- Heat absorbed by Reaction Product Al2O3 Al2O3 T (deg C) T (deg K) Cp, cal/deg/g-mol cp, cal/deg/g DH, cal/g H 25 298.1 18.8745 0.1851 0.0000 107 380.1 21.8734 0.2145 16.3855 16.3855 214 487.1 24.2476 0.2378 24.2004 40.5858 321 594.1 25.9293 0.2543 26.3286 66.9145 428 701.1 27.3066 0.2678 27.9337 94.8482 535 808.1 28.5293 0.2798 29.2980 124.1461 642 915.1 29.6654 0.2910 30.5357 154.6818 749 1022.1 30.7491 0.3016 31.7004 186.3823 856 1129.1 31.7993 0.3119 32.8201 219.2024 963 1236.1 32.8271 0.3220 33.9105 253.1129 1070 1343.1 33.8393 0.3319 34.9809 288.0938 1177 1450.1 34.8404 0.3417 36.0373 324.1311 1284 1557.1 35.8332 0.3514 37.0835 361.2146 1391 1664.1 36.8200 0.3611 38.1223 399.3369 1498 1771.1 37.8020 0.3708 39.1553 438.4922 1605 1878.1 38.7803 0.3803 40.1839 478.6761 1712 1985.1 39.7557 0.3899 41.2091 519.8852 1800 2073.1 40.5562 0.3978 34.6580 554.5431 554.5431cal/g Al2O3 g Al2O3/g Thermite 0.4772 cal/g thermite 264.6280 Al2O3, Enthalpy vs Temperature y = 5.069E-05x2 + 2.220E-01x - 8.180E+00 R2 = 1.000E+00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Temperature, deg C H, cal/g Al2O3 Figure A-2 –Curve fit of Enthalpy vs Temperature, Al2O3 15 From Tables A-3, A-4 the total heat absorbed by reaction products in mix that ends up at 1800 C is 173.789+ 264.628 = 438.417 cal. This leaves 952.51 – 438.417 = 514.093 cal to heat X g of Fe from the cutting of structural steel. From Table A-3, 273.321 + 59.1 = 332.421 cal/g Fe is required to heat it from 25 C to 1800 C. Since we have 514.093 calories available, X = 514.093/332.421 = 1.547 g structural steel/g thermite roughly. Again, this is a little optimistic since we do not have heats of transition for the different crystalline forms of Fe. Now we do Problem A-1 for final temperatures between 1540 C and 2000 C using the curve fit equations given in Figures A-1 and A-2. These data are plotted in Figure 3. Table A-5— Grams of Steel Cut Away per Gram of Thermite vs Final Temperature (For Figure 3) Heat of Reaction/g thermite = 952.51 cal g Fe/g thermite = 0.5228 g Al2O3/g thermite= 0.4772 . T, deg C H/g, Fe H/g, Al2O3 H,/g Thermite H for column steel g Fe from column 1540 230.35 453.92 367.93 584.58 2.02 1600 239.63 476.79 383.70 568.81 1.90 1700 255.11 515.71 410.37 542.14 1.73 1800 270.59 555.66 437.52 514.99 1.56 2000 301.55 638.58 493.28 459.23 1.27
22.  The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila
The Destruction of WTC 7 Important news (see the article for more details): - NIST published its final report in November 2008 - NIST acknowledged: fires burned out in 20 minutes in any given location - several demolition experts and structural design professors: WTC 7 was a controlled demolition - Frank Legge (Ph.D.): the rate of descent of WTC 7 almost equals gravitational free fall - Several witnesses to explosions have come forward - Over 1,600 architects and engineers challenge the official explanations for WTC destruction

World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper destroyed on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by a plane. The picture on the left shows WTC 7 after the collapse of the Twin Towers, smoldering in the background.

The final report on its collapse, postponed several times, was published over 7 years after the event on November 20, 2008.

This steel-framed skyscraper, completed in 1987, was located 110 meters (350 feet) away from the closest of the Twin Towers ("WTC 1" on the map below). The building's tenants included the CIA, the Internal Revenue Service, several banks, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, and the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. A large number of records of ongoing investigations of Enron and other companies were destroyed with WTC 7.

No airplane hit WTC 7, but its south facade was damaged by debris ejected from the North Tower, which collapsed at 10.30 am. There is conflicting information about the amount of damage. For example, in the pictures shown in a preliminary official report the southwest corner is badly damaged, whereas in the photograph taken by Aman Zafar in the afternoon the same corner is intact – see my photo comparison. The building was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem to have started in the morning after the destruction of the North Tower. The fires, whose origin has not been determined, appeared on a number of floors, and the evacuated building collapsed at 5.20 pm. A high-resolution video of the collapse is available here. The video below shows the totality and symmetry of the building's destruction.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, gave in the America Rebuilds TV program the famous "pull it" statement that many have interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally demolished.

Did WTC 7 collapse as a result of office fires, or was it demolished with explosives? The answer can be sought by examining the way in which the building collapsed.

Collapse Speed

As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's collapse, after the roofline began its smooth descent, the building fell to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds. This is a phenomenally short time: a stone dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground (covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds – if there were no air resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should be that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.

According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding to a free fall.

To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the animation below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3 m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the building's falling upper section.

I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2 for the middle part of the wide facade in the picture, which means that the force of resistance of the structural supports was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the falling upper section (see the calculation in more detail here).

My measurements therefore support the conclusion presented in 9-11 Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of the structural supports through the use of explosives. WTC 7 dropped rather than collapsed. It came down as if only air had separated the roof of the building from the street below.

WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.

Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of WTC 7. He concludes that the short collapse time and low structural resistance "strongly suggest controlled demolition". Kurttila notes that an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's roof would have taken about 0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it took the skyscraper to be completely destroyed.

Structural Features of the Collapse

A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up almost completely within the foundations of the building (see the picture below).

The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance. Local office fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition.

Outside September 11th, highrises have toppled in earthquakes, but no completed highrise has been totally destroyed except in controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards. In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 was interviewed on 9/11. He described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the rest of] the building followed after that". The videos showing the collapse support his description.

At least one high-resolution video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly shows one more characteristic of controlled demolition: streamers of dust emerging out of the building.

A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko (right), who owns a demolition company and has been in the business for almost 30 years, concluded in September 2006 that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. ...] A team of experts did this. This is professional work, without any doubt." A number of other demolition experts agree.

Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger: "In my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos as indicating that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".

Fire Endurance of Steel

Steel is very fire-resistant material. In tests conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, the fire endurance of steel-framed parking garages was examined by feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel. Steel beams and pillars heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and the breaking of steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance tests, modelled on conditions in real buildings, unprotected steel was subjected to temperatures of up to 1100 degrees Celsius (2012 F), but there was no collapse. Similarly, in the fire experiments contracted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), testing the pancake collapse theory by modelling the fire exposure of WTC's floor assemblies, there was no collapse. Although NIST ignored the results in its final report, it acknowledged that the 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 11th."

In the Windsor Building in Madrid, an almost 24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building. Moreover, the fires in WTC 7 were small compared to the fires in Windsor Building and most known skyscraper fires. The latest case is the all-engulfing fire in Al Nasr Tower in 2006. Fires have never collapsed a single steel-framed highrise to the ground.

In the picture of WTC 7 to the right, the fires are limited to small areas, almost all windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of temperatures capable of softening steel is visible. The situation is largely the same in other photographs taken of the building in late afternoon. In some videos, such as this, a fair amount of smoke can be seen emanating from the southern facade (some of the smoke appears to be rising from WTC 5 and WTC 6 as well as from the remains of the twin towers), and several windows were broken on a few floors in the southern wall. In any case, WTC 5, which was badly damaged by the collapse of the North Tower next to it, burned much more powerfully. However, although this building had weaker support structures than WTC 7, it did not collapse into a debris pile, but remained standing – as did all the other highrises equally close to the Twin Towers, including the Verizon, Deutsche Bank, and U.S. Post Office buildings.

In December 2007, it was acknowledged in the advisory committee meeting of the NIST that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary office fires and burned out in any given location in 20 minutes. In such a short time, the temperature of fire-protected steel members would have maxed out below 200 degrees Celsius (or ~400 degrees Fahrenheit). Such temperatures have no effect on construction steel.

Characteristics of the Debris

The debris of WTC 7 was extremely hot for weeks after the collapse of the building. Thermal imaging by NASA showed that the top of the debris pile had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse. Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were probably considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse. When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a few degrees' average increase in temperature.

According to several reports, molten metal (also suggested by this video footage) was found under the debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in the debris of WTC 7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a New York Times interview, the fires in the building could not have produced temperatures capable of evaporating steel. However, the use of explosives like thermite can produce temperatures (even 3000 degrees Celsius) that can melt and even evaporate steel.

FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work in the collapse zone itself. They were allowed to examine the debris of WTC skyscrapers only in landfill areas used as temporary storage for the steel debris before its recycling. By May 2002, when FEMA finished its preliminary report calling for further investigation, almost all the steel debris had been sold and shipped into the Far East. Only 236 pieces of steel had been retained for examination, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were from WTC 7. Even these may no longer exist.

As WTC 7 was evacuated over six hours before its destruction, there were no grounds for the rapid removal and recycling of the steel debris. Quite the contrary: as WTC 7 was one of the three greatest building disasters in recorded history (the other two being the North and South Towers), the debris of the building should have been meticulously examined. Many individuals and publications, such as the Fire Engineering Magazine, protested strongly, but in vain, against the rapid destruction of the evidence.

Witness statements

Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer, states that he saw WTC 7 come down and heard a number of explosions in rapid succession. He is convinced that the skyscraper was brought down with explosives.

Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, has given a detailed statement of explosions in the evacuated WTC 7. As a result of a major explosion on the sixth floor, he and his colleague were trapped inside the building for about an hour and a half before the firemen were able to help them out. The colleague was Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel, who confirmed to UPN 9 News that morning that an explosion in WTC 7 had trapped him and Jennings inside. Jennings emphasized that after the explosion, both of the twin towers were still standing, a statement that is supported by the time of Hess' interview in the morning. The men's statements, combined with the time of Hess' interview, place the explosion around 9:15–9:30, when the two were descending the stairs from the Mayor's Emergency Management Centre on the 23d floor, to which they had gone before the second plane struck the South Tower, only to find the center deserted.

Several rescue personnel have also come forward saying they were told that the building would be brought down by means of explosives. One such statement can be heard in this excerpt of Italian TV's documentary, in which one can also hear explosions from WTC 7: in one scene, a loud explosion is shown startling first responders, while a police officer says "the building is about to blow up".

Final Words

Was WTC 7 destroyed as a result of controlled demolition? Everyone can draw their own conclusions from the way in which the building was destroyed and the temperatures produced in the destruction.

If and when the building was demolished, it must have been wired with explosives before September 11th. An operation of that magnitude could not have been accomplished during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why the official hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation for the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11 Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention in a single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper resulting from the terrorist attack in New York.

FEMA's work was continued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which finally published its report on WTC 7 for public comment on November 20, 2008. NIST claims that thermal expansion resulting from ordinary office fires (not diesel fires) initiated a catastrophic chain of events leading to the total collapse of the skyscraper. The draft report was greeted with widespread disbelief and criticism on the part of both the general public and many experts. A group of architects, engineers and scientists refute NIST's conclusions point by point. The creator of this blog also approached NIST with his own comments.

Buried in the final report is NIST's acknowledgement of a period of 2.25 seconds of total freefall, covering a distance of approximately 8 stories. The implications of the sudden total lack of structural support provided by 80 support columns over numerous stories are not discussed.

Perhaps NIST's report needs to be analyzed in the light of how Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC investigator, interviewed in New York Magazine, summed up the state of the investigation back in 2006:

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

Courtesy Piano Video

Send email

Lähettänyt Truthseeker

23.  The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect
The NIST WTC Investigation-- How Real Was The Simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1 By Eric Douglas, R.A. nistreview.org December 2006 Abstract 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Physical Tests 2.1 Single Workstation Burn 2.2 Multiple Workstation Burn 2.3 Floor Assembly Fire Resistance 3.0 Computer Simulations 3.1 Aircraft Impact 3.2 Fire Dynamics Simulator 3.3 Structural/Thermal Response 4.0 Summary and Practical Applications Appendix: Related Observable Data Journal of 9/11 Studies 2 December 2006/Volume 6 Abstract The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings. NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11. There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation. This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers. Keywords: Buildings, collapse, fire, large deflections, stability, structural analysis, structural damage, structural response to fire, World Trade Center. Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 December 2006/Volume 6 1.0 Introduction The destruction, on September 11, 2001, of the seven buildings that comprised the World Trade Center (WTC) complex in New York City was arguably the most significant series of structural failures in the history of modern construction. As members of the building community, we are keenly interested in understanding the cause of these failures and the lessons to be learned from them. The first official response to the WTC collapses, a report from FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), did little to explain the failures of WTC buildings. It was followed by several interim reports, and then a final series of reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that expanded the discussion of WTC 1 & 2, dealt with WTC 7 briefly, and ignored the other buildings. (NIST has promised a full report on WTC7 by early 2007.) NIST did not entirely accept FEMA’s conclusions, but, as this report will argue, did an unsatisfactory job of validating its own. An important question in reviewing any scientific study is Do the findings follow from objective testing, or are the data and tests manipulated to fit a desired outcome? This paper will show that NIST followed a pattern of favoring data that supported its theories and rejecting valid data that did not. It will also discuss how realistic and conclusive the tests were that NIST performed. As we shall see, NIST did very little physical testing, and, of that, much was irrelevant or inconclusive. In fact, almost the entirety of NIST’s testing was actually computer simulation. In itself, this is not necessarily problematic. What is disconcerting is that NIST seems to attribute a level of certainty to its computer-generated findings that may be grossly out of scale. Since building codes, safety standards, and building design will be influenced by the conclusions and recommendations of the NIST WTC reports, it is important that a realistic assessment be made of the foundation upon which they rest. This paper will attempt to comment on all testing that NIST performed in its WTC investigation and follow the “order” of the tests as one informed the next. It takes no interest in the non-building discussions. Only WTC 1 and WTC 2 will be addressed as these are the only buildings discussed in NCSTAR 1 (the series of reports considered herein). It should be noted that the intent of this paper is to evaluate the validity of NIST’s conclusions, not the merit of the suggestions that derive there from. This report takes no position at all regarding whether NIST’s recommendation for improving building safety should be implemented, and is not intended as an effort to resist the improvement of building safety standards. NIST should be recognized and applauded both for the massive effort put forth to investigate these extraordinary building failures and for its efforts to advocate improved building safety. Unfortunately, despite its intensive research, some internal conflicts remain unresolved. These conflicts will be the focus of this paper and its intent is to encourage their resolution. Furthermore, the author, lacking resources, makes no attempt to provide parallel testing data or simulations, but only attempts to suggest ways in which the stated procedures could have been more rigorous. (Note: Referenced materials are available online at www.wtc.nist.gov and www.nistreview.org) Journal of 9/11 Studies 4 December 2006/Volume 6 2.0 Physical Tests The NIST WTC investigation suffered from a paucity of physical testing. Effectively, all of NIST’s conclusions are derived from computer simulation. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. NIST should have performed destructive tests on mockups of key components of the WTC structural systems. This was especially important since many of the WTC building’s structural features were very innovative for their time.
CBS Sunday Morning features Ed Asner  questioning 9/11 and showing WTC 7’s free fall on national television

More mass media breakthroughs:

CBS Sunday Morning features Ed Asner
questioning 9/11 and showing WTC 7’s free fall 
on national television
~ 
Fox News’ Allan Colmes also covers Asner’s
views on 9/11

Help us push this media wave even higher!

Dear AE911Truth Supporter,

Over the past several days you have helped us regain the slipped ground at on PBS’s website since we achieved #1 Most Watched and Most Shared rankings with Colorado Public Television (CPT12)’s showing of “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. Thank you so much! As of this writing, your efforts have pushed us back up to the #2 Most Watched spot, after dropping for a time to #8. 


 
 

We have always retained the "1 “Most Shared” spot, suggesting that people who see the explosive evidence are much more motivated to share it with others than are those who watch other PBS online previews and programs. That certainly does not surprise us … and it’s another point we can all make to help encourage the media to give us more and better coverage. 

We are asking you now to both celebrate and accelerate two additional mainstream media breakthroughs, both involving Ed Asner, legendary actor and former Screen Actors Guild president. Asner is a longtime supporter of AE911Truth who narrated our hit YouTube mini-documentary,Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7. On September 30, CBS Sunday Morning ran Rita Braver’s interview of Asner: 

 
CBS Sunday Morning’s eight-minute interview with Ed Asner covered his lifetime achievements, his current stage show, and his political activism – including Asner’s critical remarks about the official account of 9/11

Architects & Engineers is now nearing 1 million views on YouTube. Click the image below to watch it and help carry us over the 1 million mark! 

 
 

Not only did CBS allow Asner to “hold the microphone” as he questioned the official account of 9/11. It also broadcast perhaps the most crucial part of Solving the Mystery: a clear video clip of WTC 7 coming down smoothly and symmetrically. We believe this is the first time since the week of 9/11/2001 that CBS has shown the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. At the time, CBS’ Dan Rather commented on its similarity to a controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o.

Fox News also interviewed Asner on Alan Colmes' show on October 2:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1872110204001/ed-asners-controversial-views-/

The interview starts to cover 9/11 around the 6:25 mark. 

Coming on the heels of the PBS/CPT12 breakthrough, these mass media victories provide welcome if unexpected opportunities for ratcheting public awareness of the WTC evidence and the need for a real investigation to a new level. 


 

Help Us Carry These Victories Even Further


FIRST: Watch All Three Program Links and Send Them to All Your Contacts

Watch the CBS Sunday Morning video at least once yourself by clicking here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1ut3BDaZA

The 9/11 portion begins around the 5:45 mark.

Watch the Fox video here:


http://video.foxnews.com/v/1872110204001/ed-asners-controversial-views-/


Watch the CPT12/PBS video here: 

http://www.cpt12.org/tv_schedule/program_details.cfm?series_id=66785954


Then share all three videos with your contacts, using the buttons near each video or by e-mailing these links with your own introduction. See our last action alert for detailed instructions on doing this with the CPT12 Experts Speak Out video. 

SECOND: Thank CBS and Fox and Ask Them to Do More

Contact the producers of CBS Sunday Morning and Fox News Radio:

CBS Sunday Morning

Rita Braver, Senior Correspondent

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500499_162-31570.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody


In response to Braver’s comment to Asner about incompetence explaining the failures to protect Americans on 9/11, you might politely point out to her that incompetence cannot explain how a modern steel skyscraper not hit by a jetliner can come straight down symmetrically, in freefall for more than 100 feet, merely because of office fires on a few floors, as NIST claimed. Braver can find more information about this in the Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 mini-documentary, a clip of which was shown in her interview of Asner. 

Other CBS Sunday Morning contact information can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-13558/about-us/.

To reach CBS News generally, visit http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml?tag=ftr.

Fox News

http://help.foxnews.com/entries/500736-where-can-i-send-story-questions-corrections-or-news-tips


Thank Fox for letting Asner inform network audiences about little-known facts about 9/11 this week, and ask them to provide more information about World Trade Center Building 7 – to do a story on it. Point out that Fox has done nothing to follow up on this issue since November 2010, when Geraldo Rivera gave a sympathetic interview to engineer and AE911Truth petition signer Tony Szamboti and 9/11 victim family member Bob McIlvaine. Geraldo said, “What caught my eye is their claim by theBuildingWhat? ad campaign] that more than 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about Building 7 and disagree with the official report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.”

 
 

THIRD: Ask Your Local PBS Station to Show Experts Speak Out

See our last action alert for instructions.


Thank you!

Richard Gage, AIA

and the Grateful AE911Truth Volunteers
 

 

Interactive 9/11, JFK & Holocaust Spreadsheet

Google Custom Search Engine ... Link 9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust hoax & ISIS ...... home

No main stream media sites including Wikipedia are searched on this custom search page .... only websites dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11, JFK assassination and the Holocaust hoax. This may include 'gatekeeper' sites such as 911Truth.org, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.org, Chomsky etc....by 'gatekeeper' we mean websites who never mention Israel, UK or Saudi Arabia as complicit in the 'inside job' attack. The roots of 9/11 go back to the Jewish Bolshevik revolution, Zionist/Nazi Germany (chronology below), the Holocaust hoax (treachery to spur emigration to Palestine) ... Google restricts results to 10 pages (100 items)

MS Excel Sort & Filter 2000 rows, 12 columns

Yes to 'no planes', Israel nuked the WTC, the Holocaust(timeline below) is a hoax, the Mossad / LBJ assassinated John Kennedy & ISIS=Hitler.

Interactive Spreadsheet - 9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS