thermite

WTC Building 7

By M.K. Styllinski

“This is a controlled demolition which was carried out by a team of experts.”

– the late Danny Jowenko, demolition expert, making the comment before he was told he was watching a video of the destruction of WTC building 7.


One of the most outrageous events of September 11th and even harder to explain using the official story is the destruction of one of New York City’s larger sky-scrapers, the 47 story Building 7, part of the WTC complex and which occupied an entire city block, it’s height reaching 600ft above street level. Whereas the Twin Towers exhibited an array of strange anomalies, Building 7 imploded in a manner wholly indistinguishable from a conventional building demolition.

According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43 percent of Americans didn’t even know Building 7 existed, let alone that it was destroyed. What the public also may not know is that no plane hit the building, suffering only minimal damage after the destruction of the Twin Towers. By 2011, Siena Research Institute Poll commissioned by “Remember Building 7” Campaign showed that there was substantial skeptism about the official story. Almost half of the 643 New Yorkers polled were in favour of a new investigation into WTC 7’s collapse. Amidst the constant stream of propaganda-saturated media pumped into American living-rooms every day this is a significant rise in awareness.

The World Trade Centre complex buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were damaged more severely than Building 7; firstly, by falling rubble from the tower collapses, and then from fires which burned for hours on various floors. None of these buildings decided to implode. WTC 7 fell into its own footprint at 5.20pm on September 11th with a precision even more characteristic of a controlled demolition than the Twin Towers. No other explanation can account for this scenario unless it was simply the most mysterious, catastrophic structural failure in history. In which case, the laws of physics will have to be quickly re-written. Persistent attempts by the MSM to paint this destruction due to intense fires the evidence simply doesn’t add up.

wtc71-8

Sequential stills from the collapse of WTC 7 from video footage: ttps://www.youtube.com/

wtc7_collapse2_s

Watch a 9.6 sec. quick-time video from CBS News: (click on the image)

The official line is that these fires continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors due to the building’s  suppression system lacking water pressure to fight the fires, causing a collapse at 5:21 pm. This is said to have combined with the failure of a major internal column which buckled triggering a structural failure throughout, the visible signs of which can be seen in video footage of a rooftop penthouse structure crumbling at 5:20 pm. [1]

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the late Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker and Michael Hess, New York̵ corporation counsel, became trapped inside Building 7. After trying to find their way down from the 23rd floor during a power outage they both heard what sounded like loud explosions below them when they reached the eight and then the sixth floors of the building. These were heard before 9:59am when the Twin Towers were still standing. Hess and Jennings were rescued by fire-fighters later that day. [2]

Confirming the story of Jennings and Hess, another eyewitness Craig Bartmer, Former NYPD, and 9/11 First Responder gave a vivid account of the WTC 7 as it fell into its own footprint:

“All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I looked up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there… And I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing started peeling in on itself and, I mean there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know? So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…I am shocked at the[official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.” [3]

Eyewitness Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder had a similar story to tell:

“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.” [4]

Just as it was in the case of the Twin Towers, the matter of a 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires which have occurred in the past not one building has ever collapsed. The conundrum also applies to Building 7. How the sky-scraper instantly went from full support to zero support was a matter that the NIST didn’t want to explore, despite its remit to do so. While initially claiming that WTC 7 collapsed slower than free-fall acceleration, it later confirmed the obvious due to pressure from certain members of the public. In the final report in November 2008, the “… free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft.), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]” with the final duration at 6.5 seconds. Tellingly however, the NIST did not include why Building 7’s 2.25 second collapse could have occurred. To do so, would have meant deviating from the official conspiracy theory. [5]

wtc_diagram

Plan of the World Trade Centre | Source: University of Maryland at www.terpconnect.umd.edu/

The interested member of the public who took NIST to task was a Mr. Chandler who explained what the free-fall really meant: “The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.” [6]  A steel-cored, 47- story sky-scraper untouched by aeroplane impact and with minimal damage and limited fires decided to collapse in a uniform, symmetrical fashion through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint in just 6.5 seconds and still people have a hard time considering that only explosives could achieve such a result.

Release 41 DSCF0058

Photo taken 9/12 – Image source: FOIA documents release 41

Head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage is in no doubt that the fires and the temperatures achieved in Building 7 fell far short of the required heat to melt steel: “Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F”. [7] Gage also draws our attention to the evidence of: “… mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said ‘This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.’ ” [8] (More from Jowenko later).

Parallel to this conclusion and similar to the Twin Towers, evidence recorded on video at the base of WTC 7 confirm reports from fire department personnel who saw: “molten steel running down the channel rails … like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” [9] Gage continues: “Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report … documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ‘ the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.’ ” [10]

None of this was addressed in any of the NIST reports. International experts weren’t consulted either, despite their reservations about NIST conclusions. Even their very own former head of the Fire Science Division of NIST and one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, Dr. James Quintiere Ph.D., called for an independent review of the World Trade Centre Twin Tower collapse investigation and referring to the NIST investigation: “I wish that there would be a peer review of this, I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”

WTC 7

Image source: FOIA documents release 16

Kamal S. Obeid, a structural engineer, with a master’s degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, stated: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition.” [11]

One of Europe’s top demolition experts was Dutch-born Danny Jowenko. His reaction to seeing WTC7 collapse was shown in a widely seen video. Before being told that it was the WTC 7 building that he was seeing, Jowenko was in no doubt whatsoever that what he was watching “…was a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts.” [12] When he is informed that the collapse happened on September 11th later that very same day, his shock is palpable. The demolition expert asked repeatedly “De zelfde dag??” (The same day?) As the video of the collapse plays out Jowenko searched for an explanation and told his interviewer that someone must have wired the whole WTC towers for demolition in a few hours though it is clear his facial expression and body language shows that he doesn’t really believe it himself. When the interviewer informed him that FEMA excluded the possibility of a controlled demolition as an explanation for WTC7’s collapse it is then that Jowenko begins to process what this means. [13]

WTC 7 aftermath

Image source: FOIA documents release 13

In a later 2006, telephone interview with journalist Jeff Hill, Jowenko was convinced that there was a cover up and that a highly sophisticated controlled demolition did in fact, take place. The fear and self-censorship related to the issue is the deciding factor. Here is a small snippet of the entire interview:

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you’ve looked at the building, you’ve looked at the video and you’ve determined with your expertise that —

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn’t be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, ’cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder — I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, “There’s no way that’s true.”

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: ‘Cause if anybody was — Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , “Oh, it’s possible it came down from fire” and this and that and stuff like that –.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, “No, it was a controlled demolition”, you’re gone. You know?

Danny_Jowenko

“Jowenko gained further notoriety when former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, said in a radio interview in 2010, that his skepticism of the official 911 story was prompted by Jowenko’s testimony. Jowenko’s death comes three days after Sabrosky gave an exclusive interview to PressTV (Danny Jowenko 1955-2011)

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you’ll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That’s the end of your — the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, ’cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, “Pull it” in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn’t — didn’t want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously ’cause they knew what happened and they didn’t want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly. [14]

Danny Jowenko died in a car accident in July 2011.

When the Twin Towers remains were rapidly sold off to scrap merchants the exact same thing happened to the rubble of Building 7 with safety protocol and crime scene forensics ignored. Building 7 was destined for the blast furnaces by high level directives. All the clues as to why such as powerful building would just decide to collapse vanished with the scrap merchants, to be melted down so that nothing would ever be traceable. Unlike the Twin Towers, everyone had been evacuated so there was no reason not to document and catalogue each piece for further study. And since the collapse neatly conformed to a text book demolition other streets were relatively untouched providing easy access and a reduced possibility of disruption to the immediate area.

Along with family members, safety officials and just about anyone paying attention, Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, added his voice to the actions of FEMA claiming: “I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.” [15] Which brings us to WTC owner Mr. Larry Silverstein, who must have been positively jumping for joy at the supernatural “luck” he enjoyed on September 11.


 “Of course, we all wish we could have gotten it done a lot faster.”

– Larry Silverstein on Sep 09, 2014 after the completion of the lower Manhattan revival


On July 24, 2001, just seven weeks before the attacks, Larry and his Silverstein Properties signed a $3.2 billion deal to purchase a 99-year lease on the WTC complex including the Twin Towers, World Trade Centre Buildings 4 and 5 (two nine-story office buildings), and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. It was the first time that the WTC was placed under private control in its 33 year history. Silverstein made a down-payment of $124 million and quickly insured it for $3.6 billion. In this insurance contract he was conveniently covered against “terrorist attacks” and specifically given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed. What makes this move doubly suspicious is that the building itself was worth considerably less than the amount he had it insured for. In fact, the World Trade Centre towers were “filled with asbestos” and deemed “nearly worthless” at the time. [16]

Very soon after the attacks Silverstein, now 83, declared his intent to re-build but not before he filed for damages of over $7 billion from his insurers. He claimed the attacks on the World Trade Centre constituted two separate events and thus entitling him to double the pay-out. [17] (After years of financial wrangling with the insurance company, Swiss Re, he was paid $4.6 Billion)

Larry-Silverstein

Larry Silverstein

Not being one to ignore safety and security (especially when his own skin is involved) Mr. Silverstein changed the security company for Securacom (now Stratosec). The board of directors included George W. Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush and the CEO was none other than Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III. (Securacom’s job was to provide electronic security for the WTC and also Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, both of which had a key part to play in the 911 attacks). [18]

Members of the Silverstein family and associated high level business colleagues survived the WTC tragedy. Instead of the usual, scheduled breakfast meeting to take place at the WTC, Larry had a doctor’s appointment on September 11th.

One year after the September 11th attacks Silverstein gave an interview for the 2002, PBS documentary America Rebuilds. He then makes a serious gaff by telling the PBS reporters: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

It seems to me – and one would imagine anyone hearing words like “pull” and “collapse” in the same sentence – that this would be referring to demolition of a building. Journalist Joël van der Reijden, writing in a 2005 article on 9/11 contacted implosionworld who told him the following:

“There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant “pull out” as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, “pull a building” can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.” [19]

It is also worth remembering that he said “pull it” Not “pull them”. The word “it” was referring to the building as anyone can logically deduce. Later attempts by Silverstein to claim that he was talking about pulling the fire-fighters from WTC 7 is implausible in the extreme considering there was no one left inside at the time of the statement. This is verified by the fact that Silverstein has admitted that he made his “pull it” statements “at about 3:30 or 4:00pm,” [20] with the official NIST report indicating that Building 7 had already been fully evacuate between 12:30pm and 2:00pm. [21] So, when Silverstein and the fire commander were apparently having this conversation to “pull it” everyone was long gone.

However, there is something odd about the whole thing. Would Silverstein really have let slip such a thing if he did indeed have insider knowledge? We hardly need such an obvious statement to deduce that building 7 was demolished. Reijden believes it is a red herring, which may be the case. As to Silverstein’s “need-to-know” role in the events of 9/11 is obviously vague. Financially however, he was set to gain by this tragedy and gain substantially.

A 2010 Fox News report by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reported on an alleged discussion Silverstein had had with his insurance carrier about demolishing Building 7:

“Shortly before the building [Building 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein … was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.” [22]

Shapiro ended up shooting himself in the foot with this admission because the report was designed to be a hit piece against Governor Jesse Ventura who is highly sceptical of the official story. Finally, if true, Shapiro’s statements not only suggest foreknowledge and criminal culpability on the part of Silverstein, but confirm the reality of a controlled demolition.

Fourteen years later After Mr. Silverstein used the insurance proceeds from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to help fund the construction of 4 World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center, Silverstein Properties is still busily raking over the mythos of Ground Zero and making considerable profits to boot. His latest building project is World Trade Center Tower 3 a planned 80-story, 2.5 million-square-foot, $2.3 billion office tower in the financial district of WTC. [23]

Unfortunately, for Larry, the construction loans amount to $1.1 billion, a sum that the Port Authority refused to guarantee, much to his apparent “surprise”, citing doubts about profitability amid a depressed market. According to  Crain’s New York Business:

“Mr. Silverstein has burned through more than $460 million that was available for 3 World Trade Center building the property’s below-grade infrastructure and first eight stories, where it is currently capped. That space will be used for retail and the mechanical systems for the neighboring PATH hub—areas of the building that Silverstein Properties does not control.” [24]

Since he and his private sector cartels are used to profiting from tragedy if need be, this must indeed be a blow. As Chris Ward, the former executive director of the Port Authority mentioned, no doubt with a wry smile: “Larry was used to getting everything he wanted at the site,” … “To lose the support he was hoping to get, I think must be a shock and a blow.” 

Poor Larry.

This set back didn’t stop him in his decade-old bid to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the 9/11 attacks in order to rebuild the World Trade Centre. Having already collected the tidy sum of $4.1 Billion from insurers over the WTC destruction U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein thankfully rejected his bid on July 19th 2013.

Perhaps he should hold out for another “terrorist” attack on his latest rebuild?

wtc7-old-new1

The Old WTC 7 (left) and the New WTC 7 started in 2002 and completed in 2006 | Source: Wikipedia and www.911review.com/

There are other reasons why WTC 7 may have needed to be “pulled “on 911. The sky-scraper wasn’t just another office building but housed financial institutions and government agencies including the offices of the IRS, Secret Service, SEC and the CIA (though the latter was not listed). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had their work cut out after the financial terrorism of 2008. But SEC had been working hard on many case files for 3000 – 4000 of its cases, a “substantial” number of which were stored in building 7 and reportedly destroyed during the implosion. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were also destroyed. [25] SEC was still covering investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom before the 911 attacks though nothing more has been heard of these and similar investigations. (See Table below).

This is not the only whiff of opportunism in the air. According to a New York Times report from November 2001, the CIA’s clandestine New York station “… believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area,” was also destroyed. The Times continued: “The agency’s New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.” The agency’s officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations. [26]

The reporter gives us the background about the stalwart defenders of US freedom had sharpened up their act since the Iranian embassy hostage crisis of 1980. Since then, no classified documents would see the light of day even under such dire circumstances as the 911 attacks. One could also speculate that there would have been even less of a paper trail if this CIA front wasn’t solely an intelligence hub at all but served as the central command centre for the demolition(s) themselves. The report goes on to say that: “… the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.” [27]

Which is exactly what may have been required: a new reason for those tax dollars and the introduction of a whole new episode in Cold War propaganda to fuel that insatiable military-corporate-intelligence machine. After all, this is standard Zio-Conservative ideology: perpetual war serviced by the a global financial shock doctrine. 

Tenant

Square Feet

Floor

Industry

Salomon Smith Barney

1,202,900

GRND, 1-6,13,18- 46

Financial Institution

IRS Regional Council

90,430

24, 25

Government

U.S. Secret Service

85,343

9,10

Government

C.I.A.

N/A

N/A

Government

American Express Bank International

106,117

7,8,13

Financial Institution

Standard Chartered Bank

111,398

10,13,26,27

Financial Institution

Provident Financial Management

9,000

7,13

Financial Institution

ITT Hartford Insurance Group

122,590

19-21

Insurance

First State Management Group, Inc.

4,000

21

Insurance

Federal Home Loan Bank

47,490

22

Financial Institution

NAIC Securities

22,500

19

Insurance

Securities & Exchange Commission

106,117

11,12,13

Government

Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management

45,815

23

Government

Organisations, agencies and companies in Building 7 on September 11th 2001. (And the CIA).  [Courtesy of Jim Hoffman http://www.WTC7.net.]

If the above love-in between intelligence and financial sharks all under one roof doesn’t cause concern then I’m not sure what does. Right at the bottom we find our super-hero Mayor once again.

Rudy Giuliani received an honorary knighthood by the Queen and managed to have his mug plastered across Time magazine as person of the year 2001, despite the Fire and Police department offering a very different view of Rudy’s contribution. [28] As we know, Mayor Giuliani vacated WTC 7 just a few hours before it was “pulled.”

His Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command centre was on the 23rd floor, and against considerable public protest had already received 13 million dollars’ worth of renovations, “… reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators.” It also had: “… rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses and where it was: “… staffed around the clock and … intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism.” [29]

The centre was ridiculed as “Rudy’s bunker,” and according to author Philip Shenon it: “… seemed the supreme example of how Giuliani’s ego and arrogance knew no bounds after four years in office.” [30] In Giuliani’s modestly named biography Leadership (2002) he states: “As shocking as [the first] crash was, we had actually planned for just such a catastrophe.” [31] All of that being so, as 9/11 journalist Jim Hoffman at WTC7.net mentions: “How curious that on the day of the attack, Giuliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.” [32]

It is commonly known that various officials on the day relayed warnings that something was afoot with Building 7 – namely, that it was in danger of coming down. The rumour that the building was falling was in the air. The ubiquity of foreknowledge seemed to extend to the TV networks in what can only be described as a major glitch in communications. Yet, two TV networks announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it had actually happened.

Discovered in a vast archive of broadcast footage publicized in late February of 2007, a video clip of CNN anchor Aaron Brown was seen announcing live, that: “We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade centre complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.” Allowing for confusion, who was it that told him that a collapse was even a possibility? [33]

bbc-wtc-building-7

BBC journalist Jane Standley on end of a confusing cock-up in timing. Someone let the script out of the bag at the wrong time. | Source: The Goddard Report archives

Similarly, archived footage of television broadcasts from 9/11/2001 shows the BBC’s Jane Standley reporting the collapse of WTC 7 about 23 minutes before it actually occurred. She is unaware that the building is still standing behind her. At 4:57pm the BBC News anchor Philip Haton announced: “…We’ve got some news just coming in actually, that the Salomon Brothers’ [WTC 7] Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.” At 5:07 pm he continues:

“Now more on the latest building collapse in New York … you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it’s only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks. We’ll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers’ Building and its collapse?” [34]

Standley explained in a later interview: “It’s very unfortunate that this whole conspiracy – kind of – ridiculous situation has grown out of what’s really a very small and very honest mistake.”  [35] Actually, it was a rather enormous mistake, the import of which seems to have been lost on her. Reporting that the Solomon building had collapsed, while it actually remained standing in the live shot behind her head until the BBC promptly cut the feed seems more than a little odd. Just 23 minutes later when WTC 7 did collapse suggests scripted foreknowledge on the part of someone, though not necessarily the reporters in question.

The BBC’s Richard Porter defended the organisation from accusations of foreknowledge stating:

“We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today ‘so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy…’” [36]

Porter’s protestations are correct in that foreknowledge does not necessarily imply complicity on the part of the BBC reporter and staff. What he fails to acknowledge is why such a precise “cock-up” regarding the collapse of WTC 7 was even on the table. Who was it that communicated the information to create such a scenario? Who planted the seed?

 


Notes

[1] Gilsanz, Ramon, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold ‘Bud’ Nelson (May 2002). ‘WTC7 (Chapter 5)’ (PDF). World Trade Center Building Performance Study. FEMA.
[2] BBC Conspiracy Files: “9/11 – The Third Tower.” June 7 2008. | ‘The Survivors inside the Towers “they scrambled”’ By paul Vallely, The Independent, September 13, 2001.
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ. Starts at 2:05 into the video; ends at the 3:40.
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho
[5] This is excluding the Penthouse residing on the top floor of WTC 7 which began to collapse before the primary structure and should be taken as a separate entity in itself as Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti describes: “The WTC 7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from the exterior columns and moving down completely also. It is unlikely that the roof beams were severed from the exterior columns, which is what would be necessary for a core collapse to cause the penthouse to collapse.”
[6] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://www.911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[7] ‘Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7’ By Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth March 28, 2008.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] op. cit Roberts
[12] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
[13] Ibid.
[14] Danny Jowenko: – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosive Demolition is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko’s explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers. | Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07 http://www.patriotsquestion911.com /engineers.html | For mp3 recording of telephone conversation go to: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3.
[15] ‘Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,’ New York Times, December 25, 2001.
[16] ‘Asbestos in the WTC’ Towers’ Destruction ‘Solved’ Asbestos Problem’ www 911research.wtc7.net/ | “The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would have necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings’ construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves.”
[17] ‘Magnate’s Tower Plan Under Threat’, By Simon English, Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2001.
[18] ‘Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein’ September 7 2006. http://www.informationliberation.com
[19] ‘9/11 – My own review of the entire event’ By Joel van der Reijden, March 19, 2005. | http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
[20] See “WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08,” http://911blogger.com/node/14361,(1:45)
[21] NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Draft for Public Comment, August 2008, pages 301-302. See http://www.wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_comment.pdf
[22] ‘Shame On Jesse Ventura!’By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, FoxNews.com, April 22, 2010.
[23] ‘Silverstein: Build it and they will come’ By By Konrad Putzier, Real Estate Weekly, April 2, 2014.
[24] ‘The toughest test of Silverstein’s nine lives’ By Daniel Gieger, Crain’s New York Business, June 1, 2014.
[25] ‘SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations’, National Law Journal, September 17, 2001.
[26] ‘Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11’ by James Risen, New York Times, November 4, 2001.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Rudy seemed to revel in the attention. In August 2007, Giuliani claimed that “I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most workers…. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.” This understandably caused anger amongst New York’s Fire and Police personnel 911 workers. In actual fact, Rudy was had also been telling porkies it seems. “He had spend a total of 29 hours over three months at the site; with his appointment logs unavailable for the six days immediately following the attacks. This contrasted with recovery workers at the site who spent this much time at the site in two to three days. The recovery workers often spent hundreds of hours working 8 to 12 hour shifts.” (Wikipedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani_during_the_September_11_attacks#During_the_attack
[29] ‘New York City’s Anti-Terrorism Efforts go Hi-Tec’ CNN.com, June 7, 1999.
[30] ‘Mayor of the World’ by Eric Pooley, Time, December 22, 2001.| The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon. Published by Twelve, 2008. | ISBN-10: 0446580759 (pp.346 – 347)
[31] p.3-6; Leadership by Rudolph W. Giuliani Published by Miramax Books, 2002.
[32] Jim Hoffman, http://www.wtc7.net/background.html
[33] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
[34] www.http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
[35]’9/11: “Honest Mistake” or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence’ James Higham
Global Research, August 18, 2011-nourishingobscurity.com 18 August 2011.
[36] ‘Inside the BBC: Mission and values’ Richard Porter, February 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values/

Advertisements

The Destruction of the Twin Towers

 By M.K. Styllinski

“I was on the ground floor of the building …. (the foyer of WTC) … “There was a huge bang ….”But seconds later, there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook.”

– Stephen Evans WTC survivor, BBC North American Business Correspondent (http://media.guardian.co.uk 9/11/01)


The official account would have us believe that the North and South Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airliners and the resulting heat produced by numerous fires within the buildings. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a performance study of the buildings in May 2002, declaring that “… the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitely determined.” Though it said that the WTC design was not to blame and that certain extraordinary factors were responsible which had been beyond the control of the builders. One of those factors was the apparent weakening of the floor joists by the internal fires caused by the initial impact which precipitated a progressive “pancake” collapse of all the floors as they detached from the main structure falling one by one onto each other. [1]

September 2005 saw the completion of another investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Following FEMA’s lead the NIST also gave a clean bill of health for the WTC design, choosing the sheer scale of the destruction from two jet airliners had not been envisaged by the builders or architects. The NIST deviated slightly from FEMA and pronounced sagging floors themselves as the culprits which caused “… the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.” [2]

Although the report was riven with assumptions, conflicts of interest, and attempts to re-write the laws of physics which bordered on farce, this remained the primary source of refutation for official theory adherents, (a tradition for which the IPCC would have been proud). Indeed, FEMA and the NIST (whose subsequent reports continue to astound) are not the only ones to promote the official theory. The BBC, the History Channel and government agencies have firmly stuck to what amounts to propaganda in the face of objective evidence, marginalising and ridiculing those who come forward.

Numerous architects and engineers had quickly discovered that the temperature of the fires required to collapse the North and South Towers would have to have been enough to melt the steel, namely temperatures of 2,770°F (1,500°C). The burning of jet fuel or kerosene doesn’t even come close to these temperatures as it burns off extremely fast. Remember the impact of the planes repeated endlessly on our televisions? All that thick black smoke was a product of hydro-carbon fires and not very hot ones at that. The official theory clings to the idea that the fires were responsible for steel-reinforced buildings to fall into their own footprints in around ten seconds. For such a thing to happen the fires would have to have spread throughout the North and South towers with the evenly distributed heat of a furnace burning for a very long time indeed – none of which is the case, since the jet fuel that spilled from Flight 11 when it hit the North Tower had mostly burned up by this time. The NIST commented in its report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” further confirmed by many independent observers including engineering Professor Forman Williams who stated the jet fuel: “burned for maybe 10 minutes.” [3]

impactnorthtower1South Tower fireball on impact (left) North Tower impact damage (right) (wikipedia)

There is no evidence of fires in the North Tower that could constitute the kind of intense heat needed to bring down a steel-framed building. Only a jagged hole with dark smoke pouring out of it can be seen with hardly any flames visible, indicating the cooling of fires consistent with kerosene burn off, rather than increasing heat. This is also true of the South Tower which had only a few cursory fires on floors above the impact point. After 16 minutes had passed the idea that a raging inferno was already present is patently false. As Dr. David Ray Griffin points out, the evidence shows from the copious amounts of photos that: “… the fires were not even that hot. … the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin … This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, ‘only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],’ and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures.” [4]

Even if the building had been engulfed in flames it would not have collapsed, just as the 32-story steel framed Windsor building in Madrid, burned for more than 24 hours in 2005 and did not collapse. Or the fire in October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, where a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. There is also the 1991 fire which gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, burning for 18 hours. This building also, did not collapse. [5] Nevertheless, we are still told the huge Twin Towers collapsed the South in just under an hour and the North in an hour and a half. If the official theory is true, it would be the first time in history a steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire.

Hundreds of architects and engineers have begun to question the official story providing their testimony and professional evaluations. To that end, Architects and Engineers for Truth at www.ae911Truth.org provides a forum for gathering peer-reviewed evidence and testimony from over 2,337 professionals and another 20,117 supporters who cannot accept the science in the official story and seek an independent investigation. In a recent, comprehensive ae911 Truth report, 29 civil engineers voiced their concern over the collapse theory. Consulting civil/structural engineer Nathan S. Lomba with 39 years of professional experience asked: “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?” Whereas Dennis Kollar, P.E. a licensed professional engineer “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.”

Frank Cullinan, P.E., explained that “…These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail ‘nearly simultaneously,’ but also ‘in sequential order,’ …That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and … small, short-duration fires.” [6] Charles Pegelow who has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings also raised concerns about the action of symmetrical collapse which would “… require simultaneous failure of all supporting columns. How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant? … Fires could not do that.” [7] 

Richard F. Humenn, PE, Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems at the entire World Trade Centre, had over 60 people working under him. Humenn stated: “On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel. After viewing material presented by Architects and Engineers for 911 truth Humenn “… supported the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual free-fall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.” [8]

Another architect the late Frank De Martini, who worked as the World Trade Centre’s construction manager gave an interview for the History Channel who were making a documentary about the WTC towers prior to September 11th. He stated: “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” De Martini died in his office on the 88th floor of the North Tower when it is was hit on 9/11. According to an associated press report he died when the tower collapsed after helping people escape. [9] This is given further credibility by one of the original structural engineers of the Twin Towers Leslie Robertson, who believed there was: “… little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [10] At a later conference in Frankfurt, Germany in 2001 he said: “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” [11] Robertson would later recant these statements and change his story a few days after 9/11 which led to many suspecting he had been unduly pressured to do so. [12]

In early February of 1964, during the design phase of the towers, a three-page white paper, offered these findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner [Boeing 707-DC 8] traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” [13]

Building designer John Skilling, among the world’s top structural engineers who worked on that particular 1964 paper and the structural design of the WTC, carried out an analysis on the impact of a Jet airliner impact on the Twin Towers which: “… 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.” Skilling also added: “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.” [14]

Just before the North and South Towers collapsed many eyewitnesses including firemen, reported hearing, feeling and seeing the effects of what appeared to be explosions, in the immediate floors and in the sub-basements of the Towers.

Griffin and thousands of others think that is precisely what may have occurred:

[An] alternative explanation is that the collapse was an example of a controlled demolition based on explosives that had been placed throughout the building…With regard to why the collapse was so total and rapid, [Peter] Meyer says that ‘this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds […] Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus has to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower.’ [15]

A common myth promoted by 9/11 truth debunkers and government officials is the idea that the weight of the top sections of the buildings somehow progressively crushed those below, gaining velocity as they did so. To suggest that the upper structure of the Twin Towers could fall through 90-100 floors of an undamaged, full-strength steel core structure at free-fall speed is not only silly, but against the very laws of physics. Any secondary school-boy with a modicum of scientific knowledge knows that this is impossible but the theory remains popular with debunkers, turning themselves inside out to explain its validity.


 Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.”

David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration & 9/11


Engineer Gordon Ross who holds degrees in both mechanical and manufacturing engineering calculated the weight of the floors from the upper sections in a theoretical collapse down onto the lower portions of the two structures. Ross had to simulate a theoretical collapse but first had to veer away from reality in order to stay true to the official story. He had to imagine that there had indeed been extremely hot fires and melting steel structures so that the upper section was able to collapse without any resistance into free-fall scenario. The energy needed for this to happen was also calculated including the amount of resistance needed from the lower sections and how much of the energy would be absorbed by resistance from the initial impact of the upper structure descending downwards. On the first impact alone, he found that the upper sections would have lost 66 percent of their kinetic energy showing that no more energy would have been left to continue even one more story. There was no downward pressure of the kind government officials suggest.  [16]

The simple fact of the matter is that the tops of the buildings disintegrated into fine dust within seconds of the “collapse”. If the reader looks carefully at video shots of the WTC collapse you will see that no upper sections existed for this theory to be tenable. The buildings simply vaporised. Once you see it – it remains with you. But you have to disengage from the mind-programming telling you otherwise. Only carefully designed and placed explosives – possibly with advanced technology – could have allowed such a scenario to be fulfilled, otherwise known as a controlled demolition.

Adding to these suspicions were “hot spots” of molten steel found in the sub-basements, in particular at the bottoms of elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven basement levels which were smouldering for weeks. For example, Ron Burger, a public health adviser who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano. Paramedic Lee Turner was also at the WTC site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. He described his journey: “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground,” where he saw: “… in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [17] In fact, scores of witnesses in the immediate aftermath of 911 and following weeks and months reported seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Centre.  [18]

 molten-metal2

Metal crane at Ground Zero extracting molten metal (left) Molten metal pouring from the 81st floor. Fires were still burning beneath the the World Trade Centre and WTC building 7 and were not extinguished until December 2001.

As each tower collapsed, Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, just 21 miles north of the WTC, picked up a 2.1 magnitude earthquake at 9:59:04, then a 2.3 quake beginning at 10:28:31. [19] According to a report by the Mineta Transportation Institute: “People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring … The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path. Minutes later, at 9:59 a.m., the tower collapsed.”  [20]

If it was a controlled demolition then it was of a type so powerful it literally pulverised the towers so that very little remained.

Dr.Griffin explains:

“… each collapse produced a lot of fine dust or powder, which upon analysis proved to consist primarily of gypsum and concrete […] ‘ Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?’ […] ‘virtually every piece of concrete in each tower was pulverized to a powder. This required a lot of energy.’ […] “…things would actually be moving quite slowly at first…It is very hard to imagine a physical mechanism to generate that much dust with concrete slabs bumping into each other at 20 0r 30 mph…In order to pulverize concrete into powder, explosives must be used.” […] “…when the towers started to collapse, they did not fall straight down, as the pancake theory holds. They exploded. The powder was ejected horizontally from the buildings with such force that the buildings were surrounded by enormous dust clouds that were perhaps three times the width of the buildings themselves…What other than explosives could turn concrete into powder and then eject it 150 feet or more?” [21] [Emphasis mine]

There were many physical anomalies associated with the destruction that cannot be explained using the official story.

The 9/11 Commission Report said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” and the NIST said that the tops of the buildings came down “essentially in free fall.”  [22] This conflicts with the official “pancake” theory whereby the floors weakened by the impact of the airliner falling on the floor below starting the so-called chain reaction. This is clearly not what happened because there was literally no resistance from a reinforced steel and concrete structure. But the rubble falling internally compared with externally fell at the same speed. Architect and physicist Dave Heller tells us that the pancake theory is untenable because: “The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how? … In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual free-fall.”  [23]

oem_9_16_pic05

What was left of the first ever steel reinforced building to collapse. The WTC Twin Towers were built to withstand jet airliner impacts through a “mosquito net” design. Jet fuel? Really?

This leads us to the total collapse of 110-story buildings with an inexplicably small amount of debris. Where did the 47 massive steel box columns go? According to the pancake theory they should have been still standing. Tons of concrete was simply vapourised. Massive steel girders were found twisted in strange shapes. If it was a controlled demolition then something other than normal explosives seemed to have been used. The anomalies experienced at ground zero offer no other explanation.

NIST hasn’t been much help in offering scientific and impartial analysis either. Its $20 million 2005 report at 10,000 pages (yes, that’s right) is taken as a definite account to explain how fires and plane impacts destroyed the WTC. Unfortunately, as Ronald Brookman, S.E., a licensed structural engineer from Novato, California tells us: “The report not only fails to explain why and how the towers completely collapsed,” … “it states that the collapse became inevitable without any further explanation,” and where the report considered: “conservation of energy and momentum principles only up to the moment prior to collapse.” [24] And since the NIST stopped its computerized models before the onset of collapse, no work was carried out to calculate what happened during the failure. [25]

Significant quantities of thermetic material were found in dust samples from the WTC site yet showing clear evidence of advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. NIST officials deemed this inadmissible as evidence, despite researchers showing that the material could not have been found from a natural process before or during the destruction of the Twin Towers. Pyroclastic flow was observed in the concrete-based clouds which are only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious health issues not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The presence of such a pyroclastic material would offer partial explanation as to the formation of pyroclastic clouds observed during the destruction of the WTC given that many thousands of tiny blasts would be required:

“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. […] The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form. The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .

Although these elements — aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon — were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The iron-rich spheroids formed by heating the chips in this manner match those found in abundance in all of the samples of WTC dust studied, and those produced by the reaction of commercial thermite, both in appearance and in chemical composition revealed by XEDS analysis.” [26]

However, even thermite does not explain the sheer destruction which was visited on the WTC in such a rapid space of time. Some researchers have rightly stated that claims for thermite have thus been exaggerated. [27] Other researchers suggest the presence advanced experimental technology not currently recognised in military circles. Not only did concrete disappear but other construction materials such as glass and alloys, along with office furniture and tens of thousands of computers. [28] The pulverisation of 99 percent of concrete into ultra-fine dust and recorded by official studies was not the only example of effects outside the norms of a controlled demolition.

A Finish military expert who wished to remain anonymous due to fears for his safety wrote a summary of why there may be more unconventional reasons for the WTC destruction, some of which are included here:

  • Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heat so rapidly that the steel goes above its boiling temperature.
  • 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts.
  • 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges.
  • The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized.
  • A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally.
  • Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. [In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents]. [29]
  • Rubble height was some 10percent of the original instead of 33percent expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.
  • 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic)
  • Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels.
  • No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory.
  • 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.
  • Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.
  • Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. (See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm)
  • EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC. [30]

Rather than purely a nuclear device or conventional explosives former Virginia Tech professor of mechanical engineering Dr. Judy Wood is convinced the only explanation is derived from the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) having “… ruled out a Kinetic Energy Device (bombs, missiles, etc.) as the method of destruction as well as a gravity-driven ‘collapse.’” Somewhat understandably, she has been marginalised by both the 9/11 Truth movement and less surprisingly, the MSM. This is probably due to aspects of her research which tend to push the boundaries of what can be considered rational, which is problematic for the 9/11 Truth movement which is still struggling to get people to accept that an “inside job” is even possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Wood contends that: “…the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed” and that a: “satellite-mounted military weapon” may have been used to destroy the WTC. [31]

The foundation of Wood’s theory is not only from the evidence at the WTC itself but the existence of DEW’s sourced firstly from the Star Wars Program, also known as the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). “Since the invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely.” Having been secretly developed over 100 years and one of the most classified of military weapons it surely a case of near certainty. [32]

The reasons Woods gives for concluding that DEWs were responsible for the type of destruction wrought on WTC is vast in scope. A very brief selection of the main points of contention is included from Dr. Wood’s website:

  • The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (at free fall speed ‘collapse’).
  • They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
  • The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
  • The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage.
  • The WTC mall survived well.
  • The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
  • The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet…seismic signal was no greater than background noise.
  • The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
  • The upper 90 percent, approximately, of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
  • File cabinet with folder dividers survived.
  • Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often alongside burning cars.
  • Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust.
  • All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
  • Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
  • The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
  • The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
  • The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass.
  • The WTC7 rubble pile was too small and contained a lot of mud.
  • Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
  • There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

northtowerpulverization4

Various shots of the North Tower turning to dust? | Source: http://www.drjudywood.co.uk

Dr. Woods is a very controversial figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Whether we find the above evidence too outrageous to contemplate should not necessarily preclude its validity. However, there is no doubt that the WTC was effectively turned to dust. Something other than conventional weaponry was used, perhaps unknown to the military. The problem appears to be that Wood assumes she know what it is, which is clearly not the case. In amongst the valuable information there are persistent assumptions with no evidence to back it up. Overall, Wood maybe onto something, and her work has highlighted important anomalies which as yet, cannot be explained. The question mark appears to be over Dr. Wood herself and her associations with known disinformation agents. [33]As with most unconscious CoIntelpro operatives and their handlers, their information is valuable and designed to be derailed through the protagonist’s erratic behaviour and supposition theories which don’t necessarily stand up to scrutiny (Hutchison effect). It is in that way that the glimmers of truth lying behind the information is discarded while people who could provide collaboration and possible answers steer well clear. For now, Wood must be treated with extreme caution whilst acknowledging the central thrust of her work. Perhaps in the future, as 9/11 justice gains further momentum information may safely come to light and in the right hands.

(Note: For an interesting discussion on Dr. Judy Woods’ work please visit: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/)

All good quality reseearch contributions must be included whilst maintaining the momentum of pressure for an independent investigation – an admittedly slim chance when criminal elements are still in control. This fact became abundantly clear when a federal offence was committed (actually aided and abetted by federal officials) who allowed the crime scene itself to be carted off and sold to scrap dealers who put it on ships to Asia. Vital evidence was forever lost to forensic science, a decision which was roundly condemned by many within the engineering and fire-fighting communities, culminating in a virtual riot by fire-fighters at Ground Zero, who were: “… protesting the desecration of the dead in a hasty ‘scoop and dump’ clean-up of the structural steel debris.”  [34]

One senior level fire-fighter Bill Manning called the WTC investigation a “half-baked farce,” adding: “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Manning also concluded that many of his colleagues and other fire-fighters are of the opinion that: “… the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Yet, “[a]s things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals.”  [35] This is something that has been quite useful for obfuscation and pseudo-science as we have seen in previous posts.

gz_d1391p02WTC debris Source: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/

The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC in the few days after the destruction was also protested by some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts. The 20 engineer team at Ground Zero leading the investigation also found constant obstruction by FEMA officials when attempting to interview witnesses and examining the site itself. Requests to see videos and detailed blueprints of the buildings were also denied. [36] Despite steel components being stamped with identification numbers for reassembly and study at a later date, this proved impossible.

Another spectre that plagued the ground zero responders and New York Residents is the issue of poor health arising from the smoke inhalation from the pulverized WTC material. On September 18, 2001, then chief of the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) Christine Todd Whitman told reporters through a press release: “We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances,” and that “given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.” [37] Rudy Giuliani (below) agreed with her assessment, cheerily stating that: “the problems created … are not health-threatening” and that “the air quality is safe and acceptable.” [38]

1rudy-giulianiFormer Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: Ground Zero Hero?

In a 2006 CBS News Interview EPA scientist Dr. Cate Jenkins described some of the dust at Ground Zero “As caustic and alkaline as Drano.” She also claimed that EPA officials had been aware of air toxicity and had chosen to lie about at the behest of the Bush Administration. In fact, before the publication of a 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA pressure was brought to bear to remove and alter information which urged caution regarding the dangers surrounding the air quality at Ground Zero. The fact that the air was described by one air pollution expert as “wildly toxic,” due to contaminants and carcinogens saturating the atmosphere at the time, it should not come as a shock that getting Wall St. back into business rather than saving lives was by far the most important order of the day – Bush family crimes have been part of its sordid history for quite some time. [39] Exposure to Ground Zero toxins has meant increasing numbers of residents reporting symptoms of respiratory illnesses with over 75 ground zero recovery workers having been “… diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.” [40] [41]

AASreeetAPAfter trying to play the hero at Ground Zero further evidence of Giuliani’s actions contradicting his own words were shown in November 2001 when he: “…wrote to members of the city’s Congressional delegation urging passage of a bill that capped the city’s liability at $350 million. And two years after Mr. Giuliani left office, FEMA appropriated $1 billion for a special insurance company to defend the city against 9/11 lawsuits.” [42]

Described as a “benevolent dictator” by one Ground Zero official, Giuiliani and his City team: “seized control” and largely limited the influence of federal authorities in the clean-up operation. The use of respirators and basic health procedures were discarded in favour getting Wall St. operational under the instruction of the Bush Administration. New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health industrial hygienist David Newman said, “I was down there watching people working without respirators.” He continued: “Others took off their respirators to eat. It was a surreal, ridiculous, unacceptable situation.” [43]

Judging by Giuliani’s legacy of corruption and racism [29] after leaving the mayor’s office, the mythology of a Ground Zero hero continues to feel the strain. Furthermore, it seems foreknowledge of some kind was in evidence. Giuliani, one of many officials at the time, told ABC News that he received a warning that the WTC was “gonna’ collapse” about ten minutes before it did.

“I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna’ to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us. ” [44]

Quite apart from there being no historical basis for such a prediction – no steel girded building had fallen in such a way – and with only isolated fires reported just before the collapse, why was it that no one but select officials were warned? What about Port Authority police?

Most importantly, why were fire-fighters still in the impact zone wholly unaware of an imminent collapse of WTC 2?

 


Notes

[1] Hamburger, Ronald, et al.. “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” (PDF). Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[2] ‘NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster’ (PDF) ‘World Trade Center Disaster Study’ – “On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster that occured on September 11, 2001. The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act.” | http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
[3] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 (pp. 183) | Popular Mechanics| http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842?page=1
[4] ‘The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True’ by Dr. David Ray Griffin Global Research, via 911truth.com January 29, 2006.
[5] ‘Towering Inferno In Caracas’ February 11, 2009 | ‘One Meridien Plaza’ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridia| ‘Commuter chaos after Madrid blaze’ BBC News, 14 February, 2005. | See also Christopher Bollyn’s ‘9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire.’
[6] ‘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 June 17, 2009.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer. Published by Times Books, 2005. (p.149)
[10] Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, (pp. 1-17)
[11] ‘Towers built to withstand jet impact’ Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.
[12] ‘What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11’ http://www.911Blogger, February 21, 2007.
[13] City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, (pp. 70-71)
[14] ‘Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision’By Eric Nalder, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.
[15] op. cit. Griffin; 2004 (p.17)
[16] ‘Momentum Transfer Analysis of the collapse of the Upper Storeys of the WTC1’ By Gordon Ross. Ross was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. www. gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
[17] ‘Memories’By Marci MacDonald, US New & World Report September 2002.| ‘Messages in the Dust’ by Francseca Lyman, The National Environmental Health Association 2003.www.neha.org/
[18] ‘September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero’ 911 Timeline – http://www.historycommons.org
[19] ‘Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not by Ground Shaking, Columbia Seismologists Report’ in November 20 issue of Eos – Researchers Call for Seismographic Stations in Urban Areas. Earth Institute Colombia University /11/16/01.
[20] ‘Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks’ MTI REPORT 02-06 by Brian Michael Jenkins & Frances Edwards-Winslow, Ph.D., CEM. September 2003.
[21] The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin (2004) (1st edition)
[22] 9/11 Commission: ‘Final Report on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States’ (p.305). | Ibid. NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers Washington D.C. Govermment Printing Office; September 2005.
[23] Heller, David, 2005. ‘Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center,’ Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).
[24] op. cit. Roberts et al.
[25] ‘29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11’ Gregg Roberts and Staff June 17, 2009.
[26] ‘Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnic In Debris From the Twin Towers’ by Jim Hoffman.Version 1.00, http://www.911research.wtc.7.net, April 3, 2009. | ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31The Open Chemical Physics Journal ISSN: 1874-4125.2008.
[27] ‘On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community’ by Jim Fetzer – “The Dynamic Duo” radio show of 17 May 2007, Genesis, communications Network, http://www.gcnlive.com, Channel 2. Transcribed by Jeannon Kralj http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/media/0517071.mp3 / http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/media/0517072.mp3.
[28] 9/11 Deceptions By M. P. Lelong Published by XLibris 2011. (pp.118-119)
[29] See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906
[30] ‘Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11’ 2005; http://www.11syyskuu.net/evidence.htm
[31] ‘The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons’ (DEW) (A focus of the Star Wars Program) by Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds ,October 17, 2006.
[32] Ibid. | See also: ‘US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights’ projectedcensored.org
[33] ‘Pete Santilli / Dr. Judy Wood January 13, 2013 via Before Its News www.americanfreedomradio.com/
[34] ‘29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11’ Gregg Roberts and Staff June 17, 2009.
[35] $elling Out the Investigation By Bill Manning January 1, 2002 http://www.fireengineering.com
[36] ‘Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall’ By James Glantz and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, December 25, 2001.
[37] ‘Death by Dust – The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer’, by Kristen Lombardi Village Voice, November 28, 2006.
[38] ‘Dishonorable Non-Mention: Juan Gonzalez and the Daily News’ 9/11 Pulitzer’, by Keach Hagey Village Voice, April 24, 2007. | ‘Buildings Rise from Rubble while Health Crumbles’, By Anita Gates, The New York Times, September 11, 2006, reporting on the documentary by Heidi Dehncke-Fisher, Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11.
[39] EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement, Report No. 2003-P-00012, August 21, 2003.
[40] ‘Lost in the Dust of 9/11’ By Ellen Barry, Los Angeles Times, October 14, 2006.
[41] op. cit. Lombardi.
[42] ‘Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani’s Legacy’, By Anthony DePalma, The New York Times, May 14, 2007.
[43] Ibid.
[44] ‘New York’s ex-mayor Giuliani leaves a legacy of corruption and racism’ By Bill Vann WSWS.org, 24 May, 2002.