Can Physics Rewrite History?


A compilation of physical impossibilities & overlooked evidence

in the official explanations for the destruction of the

World Trade Center Complex


by C. Thurston

updated 11/07



This report is divided into the following sections:



The Structures

Considerations Regarding Fire

Fuel for the Fires

The Tower Impacts

The Official Theories

Dramatic Features of the Tower Destruction that are Ignored by All the Official Theories

The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7

Final Considerations and Conclusion





I feel a sense of urgency over this issue because it involves the dangerous influence of a powerful, highly organized but factually incorrect set of beliefs that continues to have a strong hold on the minds of many Americans — and many others as well. These beliefs inherently create an unconscious mental disconnect from factual reality that has been exploited as the basis for drastic changes in law and policy that would have been otherwise impossible.


I am wary of any belief — whether it be mine or someone else's — if it is promoted and accepted with little or no substantial verification. I'm learning to consider the possibility that a tempting new belief may have been engineered to serve the purposes of others unknown to me.


My independent research efforts into this matter are of a volunteer nature and are motivated by a desire to learn the truth about these events. Even if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you can at least share my intentions. This report is primarily an information assist for others who may also be looking into these questions on their own.


The information presented here can be easily verified and/or expanded upon with simple internet searches. Many good sources are available. Independent research is a healthy exercise for anyone's critical and logical faculties — it is also a profound opportunity to reclaim control of your understanding and perspective. How can we hope to control the future if our beliefs about the past and the present are the products of deliberate deception?


How were three steel frame high-rise structures completely destroyed on 9/11? Many conflicting theories are being put forward, but unlike most of history's unanswered puzzles, the destruction of the WTC Towers and the mysterious collapse of WTC7 are matters of physics. We cannot even begin to define the crime of 9/11 until we have a basic understanding of the physical events that we all witnessed. The consideration of who had the means, motive and opportunity can only begin once we know what actually happened!



Existing photographic and video evidence that has undisputed authenticity and is a part of the public record presents a number of striking problems with the belief that the airplanes initiated a chain of events that ultimately destroyed the Towers, and of course Building 7 was not hit by an airplane.


To clearly see these problems, it is helpful to first have a basic understanding of materials behavior and the design of the Towers, and then become aware of the distinct and remarkable features of the events themselves. This report includes a critical evaluation of the leading "official" explanations, followed by an examination of the compelling forensic evidence that is consistently either ignored or misrepresented by these explanations.



The structures:


Structural steel has been used in the construction of buildings, bridges, towers, etc., for well over 100 years and its characteristics and behavior under adverse conditions have been well tested and analyzed over this long period of time. The greatest risks to modern highrise buildings (apart from military attacks and severe earthquakes) are fire, high winds and accidental airplane collisions. Consequently, the engineering and design of tall buildings must guarantee that they can successfully withstand these adversities.


The World Trade Center Towers were the world's tallest buildings when they were built. Historic innovations in high-rise design were conceived and implemented in order to safely reach such unprecedented heights. Structural steel buildings up to this time were typically designed with the support columns arranged in a grid-like configuration. This type of framework meant that the office space was periodically interrupted by these evenly spaced columns.


The Towers, however, were designed according to a "tube" concept, wherein load-bearing columns are moved to the perimeter of the structure and ALSO concentrated in a central core. The office floors could then be suspended between like large square donuts. This design provided a column-free office environment and also produced a very strong, flexible and relatively lightweight structure with tremendous sheer strength. The Towers could be 100 stories high and still withstand hurricane force winds and collisions from large commercial jet aircraft.


Engineering News-Record reported in 1964 that the specially manufactured high strength steel perimeter columns had strength significantly greater than the 5 X load requirement of standard building codes, stating that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."  From the book City in the Sky (Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003,  page 133), we're told that the calculations of the engineers working on the Tower design showed that ALL the columns on one side could be cut, along with the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind!


Post-9/11 assertions that the Towers were poorly designed or poorly built do not square with the historic record. They were built to be incredibly strong and were considered to be engineering marvels. John Skilling, the lead designer, won prestigious awards for their design excellence.



Considerations Regarding Fire:


1) In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing liquid, its internal temperature (as opposed to the surrounding temperature) must be raised to 1538˚C (2800˚F).


2) The strength of steel is correlated to its internal temperature at a given moment. While internal temperature will gradually rise during prolonged exposure to constant high temperature. If the temperature stabilizes, the steel will not continue to weaken as a cumulative effect. As its temperature changes — either up or down — its strength also changes accordingly.


3) At high internal temperatures below the melting point, steel can lose its load bearing strength and rigidity and become subject to bending, sagging, etc. Much well documented testing has been done over the years to determine these temperatures in order to predict the behavior of steel structures in intense fire scenarios. To summarize the significant consensus of these tests, the strength of steel is reduced to 20% of normal when it reaches an internal temperature of around 720˚C (1328˚F).


This is significant because, as mentioned, standard building design specifications require that structures be able to bear five times their maximum theoretical load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steel in a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximum load. Since maximum theoretical loads rarely occur, the steel temperature in a typical situation could probably go significantly higher before failure would occur.


For example, fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facility at Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed the performance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperatures of 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over 1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel, but the structure did not collapse. Keep in mind that real fires in closed spaces cannot be sustained due to oxygen starvation.


4) In addition to being relatively lightweight in proportion to its strength, one of steel's best qualities and a major reason it is used in building construction is its ability to dissipate heat quickly and stand up unscathed in even the worst "towering inferno" conflagrations on record.  Open test structures were subjected to prolonged and intense fires of up to 1200˚C (2192˚F) in an international study of structural steel car parks, but internal steel temperatures never reached higher than 360˚C (680˚F). Fire temperature and internal steel temperature are NOT the same. This is why meat thermometers were invented.


Remember 360˚C for later when we look at the various theories and claims based on the unproven assumption that the Towers "collapsed".


5) The Towers were designed to withstand impacts from the largest commercial aircraft that were in use at the time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were not significantly larger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days carried jet fuel just like they do now. Building survival is accomplished through redundancy and dynamic redistribution of loads to the surviving parts of the structure.


According to John Skilling, the lead designer of the Towers (from a Seattle Times interview from February 27, 1993), an impact from a Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph "would result in only local damage" and that “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.”


6) Prior to 9/11 (or since) no steel-frame highrise has ever collapsed from fire. There have been numerous cases of high-rise fires far more severe than those observed on 9/11. Here's a few examples:


• Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building burned for 17 hours over 26 floors

• LA, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank 62 stories, 5 floors burned for 3.5 hours

• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza. 38 stories, 8 floors burned for 18 hours

• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories, burned for six hours

• Madrid, February 2005, Windsor Bldg, 32 stories, burned for 24 hours, total loss



All of these fires were true "towering infernos" with dramatic, raging emergent flames bursting out from entire floors of the building through shattered windows. None of these buildings collapsed.



Fuel for the fires:


Jet fuel (refined kerosene) is a hydrocarbon and burns at a known maximum temperature in an open fire when supplied with unlimited amounts of air (as opposed to pure oxygen) of approx 1000˚C (1832˚F). Temperatures are lower if the fire is oxygen-starved, as evidenced by black smoke. Significantly higher temperatures are possible only with forced mixing of pure oxygen. Early reports wildly overestimated the amount of jet fuel involved based on tank capacity. The planes had capacity for intercontinental flight, but carried only the fuel needed for domestic flight plans.


It is now acknowledged that most of the jet fuel, which is highly volatile, was consumed in the first few minutes by the huge fireballs at the time of impact. The idea that large pools of jet fuel could be burning for the entire 1-2 hours preceding the Towers' destruction is not consistent with the behavior of a volatile and highly flammable liquid in a high temperature environment. It would have either ignited, or — if inadequate oxygen was available to support combustion — it would have left the building as a vapor along with the smoke. Indeed, the smell of jet fuel was reported over a wide area. 


The burning jet fuel did of course start the fires inside the buildings, which were more severe in the North Tower where more of the jet fuel was taken inside the building. But the jet fuel could not have been a significant ongoing fuel for the fires. Known combustible materials within the buildings (carpets, desks, paper, plastics, etc.) are also mostly hydrocarbon in nature and can produce combustion temperatures no higher than jet fuel. House fires typically produce temperatures in the 500 - 650˚C range.



The Tower Impacts:


1) The airplane impacts into the WTC were quite dramatic with the huge fireballs. After the first few minutes, however, we simply had office building fires with some amount of structural damage. Interior damage is hard to determine based on visual evidence. The investigative report released by NIST in 2005 claims that 14-15% of the core columns in each Tower were severed. While often repeated as fact, this is an estimate derived from questionable computer simulations. Even if true, this amount of damage would leave the buildings well-within their load-bearing redundancy. More on the NIST Report later. 


2) Airplanes are made of aluminum which is a much lighter and weaker material compared to structural steel. Airplanes may look big and substantial, but they are actually made to be as lightweight as possible. Their aluminum skin is only 2 mm in thickness.


3) Both buildings quickly re-stabilized after impact and showed no observable signs of instability or the beginnings of structural failure prior to the sudden onset of their destruction.


4) The North Tower, unlike the South Tower, took a direct hit with the plane completely disappearing inside the building. If the load bearing central core of the building (see construction photos, above) had been severed by the impact of the plane, structural distress would have been evident almost immediately. Apart from the fires, the North Tower remained stable until the onset of destruction, almost two hours after impact.


5) The South Tower took a glancing blow at the corner, which created a very dramatic fireball but apparently had little significant impact on the structural core, and less fuel was carried inside the building. People were evacuating from the upper floors through the impact zone via stairwells in the central core area prior to the onset of destruction. The fires were smaller in this Tower, but it was destroyed first, 56 minutes after impact.



The Official Theories:


The destruction of the buildings has been attributed by official investigators and various "experts" promoted by the mainstream media primarily to fire — causing one form or another of structural failure leading to "total progressive collapse". While most of these theories allow that impact damage was probably a contributing factor, few have suggested that this damage alone caused the total destruction of the buildings.


While we look at these so-called "collapse" theories, it is very important to keep in mind that the use of the word "collapse" is a misnomer. What these theories are REALLY saying is that the upper part of the building above the impact zone CRUSHED the lower undamaged portion of the building. Remember that the structural integrity of the Towers was undiminished below the impact zones and much heavier and stronger materials were used in the lower parts of the building in order to support the much lighter upper floors.


1) One of the first explanations was put forward by the American Society of Civil Engineers in an article titled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? — A Simple Analysis", by Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou. Their theory depends on the simultaneous failure of the majority of the columns on a given floor, which they say would allow the upper part of the building to fall freely onto the lower part, thus allegedly triggering a sequence of events that would "doom" the entire tower. They acknowledge that this "triggering" condition would require more than half of the column steel on a given floor to reach temperatures exceeding 800˚C (1472˚F), but they fail to distinguish between fire temperature and internal steel temperature and offer no explanation for how this could possibly occur.


An obvious fallacy with theories of this type is that column strength and heat conductivity were NOT segmented by the vertical spacing of the office floors. Load-bearing strength was vertically continuous over many "floors" for any given region of the building. The columns in the core structure were specially fabricated to be multiple stories in height and were joined together by welded connections. Dense cross-bracing between columns created a monolithic entity that was structurally independent of the office floor attachment locations. Heat produced by burning material on a particular office floor would also be vertically dissipated over a multi-story region of the building. It really makes no sense to talk about about column behavior on a "given floor". The columns didn't have "floors".


We've already seen that high internal steel temperatures are very difficult to achieve over a large area in a large structure. Not only is Bazant and Zhou's so-called triggering condition clearly impossible given the test data presented earlier, but the results of the examination of steel recovered from the fire zones, as reported by NIST in 8/04, showed no evidence of temperatures over 625˚C (1157˚F) and only rare instances of temperatures over 250˚C (482˚F)! This is consistent with the international fire test results mentioned earlier.




2) Another theory was put forward by Thomas Eager, a professor of materials engineering from MIT, that appeared in JOM, the journal for the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and was also presented in a NOVA interview that many people have seen. The transcript is available online. Eager apparently believes that these buildings were not designed to withstand a fire covering an entire single floor! (He doesn't say where he gets this idea, but we know that Skilling certainly allowed for this possibility.) Because the spilling of the jet fuel may have caused this to happen, he suggests that the heat from this type of fire scenario caused the floor slab truss connections ("clips" he calls them) to fail — "unzipping" almost simultaneously around an entire floor — causing a pancaking sequence that also somehow pulled down the vertical support structures.


"Pancaking" collapses are sometimes seen in Third World countries where badly designed and poorly built concrete structures are subjected to earthquakes. Modern American buildings (including the WTC towers) are designed and built according to robust specifications that require structural unification of horizontal and vertical members. This is done specifically to prevent pancaking floor collapses.


Eager also ignores the continuous vertical strength of the core structure and its heavily cross-braced and unified design. Even if some of the floors had somehow broken loose, the more heavily built column structures would have remained standing. The floors did interconnect the core with the perimeter and they added strength to the structure as a whole, but they were also designed to be as lightweight as possible.


3) Two highly produced, made-for-television specials have been particularly influential in determining many people's beliefs about the destruction of the WTC Towers.


Below are two graphics used in the NOVA program "Why the Towers Fell". The one on the left misrepresents the structural core of the building to look like mysterious floating horizontal slabs with no vertical support! The one on the right is from an animated sequence of falling floor trusses that is also very misleading.


Missing from this animation are at least three major components that would have prevented this behavior: 1) the perpendicular cross trusses, 2) the welded-plate wall connections, and 3) the steel floor pan that is connected to the trusses, onto which the concrete slab is poured. The floor pan interconnects the trusses and provides stiffness and strength to the entire floor system.



Another TV special titled "Anatomy of the Collapse" was produced for the Discovery Channel and also appeared shortly after 9/11. These two programs are similar and include numerous fraudulent statements. We are told, for example, that jet fuel had not been considered in the design of the Towers, that it had saturated the buildings and that steel temperatures had reached 2000ΊF. None of these statements are true.


We are also told that the buildings would collapse without the floor trusses, that the floor trusses were connected by only two bolts, that the perimeter walls were comparable to sheets of cardboard and that the columns were like free-standing wobbly sticks. The perimeter and core column structures were, in fact, highly robust and independent structures unto themselves, each fully capable of standing on its own. And the biggest lie of all? We are told that total destruction was inevitable.


3) The government report issued by FEMA uses misleading diagrams (below) to make it look to the casual, non-technical reader like there was no central core at all!



A careful reading of the fine print says the vertical members on the right side of the diagrams are core columns and we are only looking at a detail of the structure, but this is not obvious at a glance. There is also no indication of the immense strength and dense cross bracing of the structural core of the building. Many people seem to believe that the Towers were supported only by the perimeter walls. It's easy to imagine a building collapsing if it were built to look like this diagram!


Even the 9/11 Commission Report, on page 558, claims that: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft…" This is a blatantly false statement with no conceivable explanation other than the desire to intentionally deceive the American public. The 9/11 Commission Report includes many other outright lies, distortions and critical ommissions. See David Ray Griffin's book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions, for a comprehensive and thoroughly documented examination of over one hundred of its deliberately deceptive failings.


Below is another view of one of the Towers during construction. Compare it to the diagrams above and the statement by the 9/11 Commission. This gives a good look at how much of the footprint of the building was taken up by the core structure and its massive design.


America, who used to be so proud of her expertise and execution on every level, is now it seems pleading incompetence in new creative ways every day, including projecting that incompetence back into the past. Forgetting about the jet fuel and the possibility that an entire floor might catch fire was bad enough but now there's this:


4) Hyman Brown, construction manager of the WTC and University of Colorado civil engineering professor said this in 2004 (quoting from the Boulder Weekly):


"It is correct that the towers did not collapse because of the airliners hitting it. But we do know how it collapsed and it has nothing to do with conspiracy," says Brown. "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel and the fire-suppression system that we now have, which basically blocks off five-floor blocks, so the fire can’t go up and the fire can’t go down. You now have a fire confined to a five-floor area, burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts. All the tonnage above the five-floor area comes straight down when the steel melts. That broke all the connections, and that caused the building to collapse."


Who could have guessed that the fire suppression system, instead of causing the fires to die down from lack of oxygen and depletion of flammable material like everybody expected, actually caused the fires to become hotter! So hot that they melted all the steel in a five floor area of the building! To fuel this fire, Mr. Brown apparently assumes that unlimited quantities of jet fuel (and oxygen) were available on all five floors of both buildings for up to two hours in a 1093˚C (2000˚F) environment. The behavior of volatile flammable liquids in a high temperature environment would not allow this.


When Mr Brown says that steel "melted", I think he means to say that it failed — the melting point of steel, as we've seen, is 1538˚C (2800˚F). But failure is also a clear impossibility. Remember those open steel test structures? They were subjected for a longer time to fire even hotter than the one he imagines, but the highest recorded steel temperature never went higher than 360C (680F) — far below the temperature where failure could occur. Mr. Brown's fire may have been confined to a five story region, but the steel was still free to dissipate heat throughout the entire building framework.


Also, to match his own description, this fire would have to fully engulf all five floors, with large emergent flames bursting from every window on all sides of the building. From photographic evidence we see only lots of black smoke with flames here and there. And the "tonnage" he's speaking of is simply the upper part of the structure that the lower part was designed to support.



I wouldn't spend so much effort examining Mr. Brown's highly improbable theory, except that he has been connected informally by the media to findings reported by NIST, the US government science agency that has recently completed a $20,000,000 investigation into the destruction of the WTC Towers. It was said in 2004 by the media that Mr. Brown's views were supported by the preliminary findings of the NIST investigation!


5) The final report released by NIST in 2005 does indeed start with the assumption that the Towers simply "collapsed" on their own, once impacted from above by a block of floors that allegedly "fell" through the impact zone. They depend on fire to "soften", "shorten", "buckle" and "snap" core and perimeter columns and floor trusses where necessary in order to create a plausible sounding "collapse initiation" sequence. They don't explain how the combustion of typical office contents could possibly produce enough heat at a high enough temperature to cause the extensive steel deformations necessary to support their hypothesis. And they also do not explain how they reconcile this hypothesis with their own test data (mentioned earlier) from 8/04!


The NIST report also fails to explain or reconcile the fact that they were unable to duplicate failure in their post-9/11 floor model fire tests. They try to convince us that hypothetical damage to the fire-proofing of the steel explains everything, but they provide no scientifically verifiable data to support this conclusion or carry it beyond the status of pure speculation.


And, like Mr. Brown, once the alleged "collapse" begins, it is supposed to be obvious to anybody why it would crush the entire structure. This part is never explained. Out of all the thousands of pages in their supposedly exhaustive report, the actual destruction of the building is dismissed with ONE SENTENCE: "Global collapse then ensued". That's it! That's all they have to say about it. This is the key issue and it should have been the focus of the entire report!


NIST's failure to look at evidence or to carry their analysis beyond the point of "collapse initiation" is extremely suspicious and highly unscientific. Their inability or unwillingness to PROVE their a priori assumption that the Towers were destroyed by a so-called progressive gravitational collapse invalidates the entire report.


Also in the October 2005 report (updated by a FAQ in August 2006), we find a stunning reversal that would put even a star NFL running back to shame. Not only has NIST officially backed away from the "pancaking collapse" theory (with no apology), but those much-maligned floor truss connections (remember the "two bolts"?) that were originally blamed for just about everything, are now somehow conspiring with alleged floor sagging to pull on the specialty high-strength steel perimeter columns with enough force to cause an entire face of the building to "snap" from inward bowing! And they still don't explain how even this fantastic scenario would cause the inevitable destruction of the lower portions of the building.


After hearing the astonishing comments by S. Shyam Sunder, Ph D, the lead investigator for NIST, made during an interview about "conspiracy theories" with NOVA and available on their website, I feel compelled to question either his competence or his honesty, or both. Among other bizarre statements, he claims in a matter-of-fact sort of way that the Towers "fell" at the rate of free-fall because they were "70% just air in volume" (as if that explains anything) and because the columns weren't made of "solid steel" but were "steel boxes" with walls only 1/4" -  3/4" thick!


Buildings have NEVER been constructed with solid steel members. The very idea is absurd! They would be excessively and unnecessarily heavy. Box columns, I-beams and H-beams of comparable strength are much lighter. Large box columns were indeed used in the core structure. At the base of each Tower they measured 52" x 22" and the steel was, in fact, FOUR INCHES thick!



6) Not to be left out, Popular Mechanics magazine in its March 2005 issue attempted to discredit legitimate questioning of the WTC destruction by using intimidation tactics and presenting long lists of experts. This effort was continued in 2006 with the release of Debunking 9/11 Myths, a book length presentation of similar material. While the authors and their band of "experts" claim to have exhaustively debunked 9/11 skepticism, they have in fact only attacked long-discredited claims and "straw man" arguments while ignoring the serious questions. They fail, for example, to satisfactorily address any of the observations described in the next section of this paper.


All of these experts apparently forgot their high school physics since they, like gullible members of a new cult, "believe in" the free fall progressive collapse theory — a ridiculous impossibility. See "The elapsed time of the destruction" section, below. The Popular Mechanics experts also claim to believe (of course) that the Towers "collapsed" because fire weakened and distorted the steel.


I believe that all the above theories (and all similar ones) have to be rejected from the outset for at least two reasons:


a) They all depend on fire to do what fire is not able to do — and has never done before — that is, heat structural steel to the point of causing a total building failure.­

b) The intact lower portions of the buildings would have arrested or deflected any conceivable collapse (crushing) process. 



Dramatic features of the Tower destruction that are ignored by all of the official theories:


1) The Towers look like they are exploding, complete with rising mushroom clouds before any debris reaches the ground (indicating tremendous heat release) and lateral ejection of material with great force to great distances. Sections of the heavy structural steel perimeter columns were ejected as far as 500 feet — a distance equal to more than 1.5 football fields! The blast wave alone shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away. Sections of heavy steel column structures were literally "stuck" into the sides of neighboring buildings.



ABC News correspondent N. J. Burkett is standing more than a block away from the WTC Towers on 9/11 when the South Tower destruction suddenly begins. He interrupts his live TV commentary by shouting as everyone runs for cover: "...A HUGE EXPLOSION NOW — RAINING DEBRIS ON ALL OF US!  WE"D BETTER GET OUT OF THE WAY!"


2) The destruction of each Tower began suddenly and was not preceded by obvious buckling or other dramatic visible deformations. There were no reports from firefighters of sagging, creaking or twisting steel that might signal impending failure.


3) One problem that everyone is having is that no one has ever seen a "natural" collapse of a steel frame high-rise building (because it has never happened), so no one knows what it ought to look like! Earthquakes sometime topple modern buildings, but they retain their shape, even if distorted, and they don't explode or fall apart.




If the Towers were experiencing a gravitational collapse due to global structural failure, you would expect to find a huge heap of identifiable parts of the building piled within and spilling outside of the original footprint. It would include sections of floor slabs, floor pans, large chunks of concrete, glass and the remains of identifiable building contents, including the bodies of the occupants.


This is not what happened — both Towers almost entirely disintegrated into rather short (30 ft or less) pieces of steel, dust and other metal debris. Hundreds of tiny human bone fragments have been discovered on the roofs of neighboring buildings, and the remains of over 1000 bodies disappeared completely. Were they vaporized out of existence? Or just obliterated into particles too small even for DNA analysis? How could this possibly happen?



This photo was taken looking straight down within the footprint where one of the Towers once stood. The elevation of this area is not significantly higher than the original street level and shows only pieces of metal and dust. Search and rescue workers were stunned that so many bodies had apparently vanished — along with the desks, the computers, the glass and all the other building contents. Note the complete lack of identifiable portions of the building itself. Of particular interest is the fact that the corrugated steel floor pans are missing — along with the concrete floors. There is no stack of floors piled up within the footprint of the former building.


4) Almost all of the non-steel building materials and contents were pulverized, much of it into talcum powder size (sub 100 micron) dust particles. This took the form of the dense pyroclastic dust clouds that expanded to enormous size as they raced down the surrounding streets at tremendous velocity and with clearly defined boundaries, depositing most of the mass of the buildings outside of the perimeter of their original footprints. Concrete and gypsum, along with large amounts of asbestos and countless other dangerous materials were all part of these huge toxic dust clouds that spread over lower Manhattan and poisoned the air at Ground Zero.


If you dropped a large chunk of concrete from 1000 ft onto pavement far below, it would certainly break apart, but it wouldn't be pulverized into microscopic particles. In the case of the Towers, the disintegration into dust somehow took place in mid-air long before any debris reached the ground.



5) Both the nearly total pulverization of the building materials and contents and the rapid expansion of the dust clouds (the photo on the right, below, was taken only 30 seconds after the start of the destruction of the North Tower) to great elevations and large distances from the building locations would require the release of tremendous amounts of heat energy. The only energy source presumed to be available to explain these phenomena is the elevated mass of the buildings themselves, which is inadequate by at least an order of magnitude according to conservative estimates.




6) The elapsed time of the destruction was nearly identical to the time it would take a free-falling object to reach the ground from the same height. Common sense would certainly suggest that if the lightweight upper part of the building had somehow dropped onto the intact structure below, the strength and resistance of the more heavily built lower portion of the building would not only slow the process, but would arrest it altogether or deflect it to one side. Several scientific papers supply proof for this conclusion — see the following websites for an abundance of bona fide analysis.


And IF the structural support for the upper part of the building actually DID give way because of damage and high temperature, it would have exhibited gradual deformations as it approached its failure threshold. The interconnected framework, even if it began to bend or sag, would still prevent a sudden drop of the upper floors. (See Cardington fire tests, mentioned earlied.) What we see instead looks as if the presence of structural support is instantly obliterated as the wave of destruction begins.


Based on video and photographic evidence, and FEMA's mapping of the widespread debris field, each Tower appears to have been progressively and systematically exploded from the top down, starting from the impact zone. The explosive sequence was timed to occur at a pace close to free-fall, thus allowing the falling debris to blanket over and partially hide the continuing explosions.



The Bazant & Zhou paper mentioned earlier, and other papers by Frank Greening and Manuel Garcia, all claim to have mathematical models that show how a high-rise steel structure can crush itself at the rate of free-fall. These theoretical "pancaking" scenarios do not take into account the strength of specific structural features like the continuous verticality of the core column assemblies or the fact that much stronger and heavier materials were used in the lower part of the building. They also employ the entire mass of the structure to drive the process while ignoring the fact that most of this mass is actually landing outside of the original footprint and would therefore be unavailable.


But even if we forget all these objections, something else about the notion of a progressive collapse occurring at the rate of free fall defies intuition. The obvious problem with this idea is that it does not allow time or energy to overcome the INERTIA of the materials in the lower part of the building that must be instantly accelerated up to the rate of free fall in order to join the already falling material from above without slowing it down. In fact, each of these encounters with stationary mass WILL require an energy expenditure from the falling material, which WILL slow it down — and, when combined with the strength of the structure, quickly stop the process altogether.


There are only two ways a building can be destroyed at the rate of free fall:

a) all structural support is simultaneously removed at the foundation level — all parts of the building will then begin to fall at the same moment and at the same rate (see WTC7), or 

b) something (like explosives) progressively destroys the building from the top down at the rate of free fall, while simultaneously removing resistance in advance of the falling debris.


See the following links for thorough examinations of Garcia's (and other related) theories:


7) Oxidation and intergranular melting were observed by FEMA in their metallurgical examination of steel samples from the Towers. They describe this as "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack". Edges of a one inch column were described as having been thinned to "almost razor sharpness", while a formerly solid flange had "gaping holes—some larger than a silver dollar".


These findings were reported in The New York Times, where they were described as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". Deposits from a molten liquid mixture containing iron and sulfur that have also been found in the same types of locations are, according to Dr. Steven Jones, a PhD physicist from BYU, the chemical signature for the type of reactions caused by thermite and thermate — incendiaries and explosives used in building demolitions.



8) Intense hotspots persisted at the sub-basement foundation level for weeks. Molten metal was later found at these locations. Several days after 9/11, NASA conducted an infrared aerial survey of Ground Zero and detected hot spots in the rubble that were over 1300ΊF! What was the source of this heat? Again, the use of incendiaries or some other type of high energy destruction appears to be the only plausible explanation.




Steven Jones has also discovered the presence of previously molten iron microspheres in the dust that blanketed lower Manhattan in the wake of the destruction. The "atomizing" of molten iron can also be explained only as a byproduct of explosives and incendiaries.


9) The upper part of the South Tower begins to tip at the beginning of its destruction. Instead of continuing this rotation as would be expected from a rigid structure according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the rotation stops as it begins to disintegrate before falling into the structure below. Without this unexplained disintegration, the upper block of floors would have toppled to the side and crashed to the ground as an intact structure.


10) The debris distribution from both Towers exhibited almost perfect radial symmetry as the wave of destruction moved rapidly down each building, spewing cladding, structural steel and pulverized material in all directions like a giant fountain.


11) The destruction followed the path of greatest resistance. In natural materials failures, like broken windows or cave-ins, even small variations in stresses and materials strength are amplified into highly asymmetrical breakage patterns, while the process inherently seeks the path of least resistance.



12) A number of small explosions with forceful lateral ejections can be seen occurring many floors below the leading edge of the destruction. These can be seen in the photo below, and also in the right-hand photo on the first page. These have exactly the same signature appearance as cutter charges (squibs) used in controlled demolitions to remove structural supports within a building at strategic points in a timed sequence. Popular Mechanics would have us believe that this is just air being forced out as a bellows effect by pancaking floors. But where are the pancaking floors? And why would this occur so far down the building and include so much dust?



13) Many eyewitnesses, including over 100 first responders, reported explosions before and during the destruction. Firefighters, for example, recollected their experience as they were running from the South Tower:


fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..

fireman1: yea detonated yea

fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,

          boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...

fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'


14) The Towers had stabilized after impact, the fires were no more serious than a typical office fire and no steel-frame highrise had ever collapsed from fire before — yet there were several reports of warnings that collapse was imminent. For example, from the 9/11 Commission Report:


"At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse."


Who was this "engineer" and how or why did he know this?



The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7:


And then of course there is Building 7, which many people have forgotten. It fell later in the day and from the beginning was treated like an insignificant footnote. WTC7 was an imposing 47-story structure and more modern than the Towers. It was not hit by an airplane and was a block away from the Towers with another lower building in between. According to the debris distribution data contained in the FEMA report, it was not seriously battered by heavy debris from the Towers. It did have fires of uncertain origin and extent.


Official reports suggest that fires in WTC7 had been "raging out-of-control" all day, but there is no convincing photographic evidence of this. Clear images from the moment of onset of the collapse do not even show emergent flames, let alone any other evidence of an all-consuming inferno.



WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds, imploding perfectly within its footprint, collapsing straight downward from all points and looking just like a perfect controlled demolition. Even the "kink" in the roof line seen in the second image of the sequence above is evidence of a demolition technique that is used to make sure the walls collapse inward, thus minimizing damage to surrounding structures.


The straight-down, vertical collapse of Building 7 could not have happened and with such perfect symmetry unless all 58 perimeter columns and all 25 core columns somehow were removed almost simultaneously. In the three-image collapse sequence above, notice in the first image the light and dark mottled pattern of small clouds of smoke that appeared at the onset of the collapse. These look just like evidence of explosive cutter charges as used in controlled demolitions.




It has been said that a large amount of fuel oil may have been stored in the building, but even if this was burning it could not have caused the simultaneous structural failure of all the support columns — or any of them for that matter. As we have seen, open-air hydrocarbon fires are incapable of creating enough heat at a high enough temperature to cause the failure of steel-frame high-rise structures. The fact that WTC7 was built over a pre-existing three story substation also does not explain the perfect symmetry of the collapse, or the collapse itself.


Official investigators and "conspiracy theory debunkers" are now suddenly claiming that a section of the lower facade of WTC7 was "scooped out" by flying debris from the North Tower. This of course contradicts the detailed debris distribution mapping contained in the FEMA report produced shortly after 9/11. But even if true, this cannot account for the symmetry of the collapse since it would create an overhanging mass. And it can't explain the collapse itself since these new damage estimates still leave the building as a whole well within its load-bearing design redundancy.


The site diagram above shows the distance that heavy steel would have to be propelled in order to cause serious damage to WTC7. More than anything else, this would be evidence of the explosive force used in the destruction of the Towers!


This failure of WTC7 was attributed to "progressive total collapse" brought on by fire in FEMA's report, but with the caveat that their hypothesis "has only a low probability of occurrence". WTC7 was not even mentioned in the 911 Commission Report!


And, most revealing of all, none of the official theories have been able to explain the live news coverage from British television announcing the collapse of WTC7 while it was still standing in the background of the live video feed from NYC! Somebody was reading their script a little too soon!



And finally, consider this:


What would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious fire, or even a serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of fact, no one would build them — they would be too dangerous. If the WTC buildings DID collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind).


This did not happen. The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed — over the strenuous objections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims — and most of it has been melted down in overseas markets. Access to Ground Zero was forcefully restricted and study of the final blueprints for the Towers has not been permitted.


Two groups have been extremely vocal in their protest of the destruction of evidence and lack of real forensic investigation: the families of those killed and firefighters. Fire Engineering Magazine — the primary journal for firefighters everywhere — ran a scathing editorial in January 2002 in which they referred to the official investigation blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers as a "half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."


This is obviously a big concern for firefighters because they have to go into burning buildings! Prior to 9/11 there was no precedent to caution them against entering the WTC Towers to go about their work of rescuing people and putting out the fires. Surviving audio-tape of firefighter communications from the South Tower show that they had reached the 78th floor sky lobby and found only "two pockets of fire". They called for "two lines" and began to implement their evacuation plan just before the destruction suddenly began!


Now what are firefighters supposed to do? In this new world, fires in high-rise steel structures can apparently trigger a "total progressive collapse" at any moment with no clear warning conditions. And this can happen not only in stable damaged structures, but in fully (or nearly) intact structures as well!


I wonder how much fear this adds to the lives of our firefighters and if high-rise fire rescue efforts have been curtailed in any way since 9/11, perhaps even causing unnecessary loss of life, due to this new uncertainty over entering burning steel structures?


And this:


If the government's story is true, then companies that offer controlled demolitions using explosives are clearly going to have some new competition. Thanks to those wily hijackers we now have a much cheaper solution. If a structural steel high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is to pick a floor somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood the floor with jet fuel, light a match and stand back.


The building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously explode, shattering all of the steel in the building into tidy 12-30 ft sections. The rest of the building and all of its contents will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that will be spread over a large area so that somebody else will have to clean it up!



And this:


This photo shows the start of an explosive demolition of a large brick chimney.   



Look familiar?


Characteristic features indicating the use of explosives:

1) Outward arching dust plumes

2) Formation of debris cloud that is symmetrical around the vertical axis of the structure

3) Heavier material is propelled out ahead of the dust





We have to find the courage to think for ourselves, open our eyes and look — and keep looking. The truth will not go away. Once we see that most of what we were told about these events is actually false, we can finally get to work on discovering the real story of 9/11...




                        "...any ordinary person can tell an explosion from a collapse!"