I feel a sense of urgency over this issue because it involves the dangerous influence of a powerful,highly organizing but factually incorrect set of beliefs that has taken hold in the minds of mostAmericans - and many others as well. These beliefs inherently create an unconscious mentaldisconnect from factual reality that can be exploited as the basis for drastic changes in law and policythat would be impossible otherwise.
I am wary of any belief - whether it be mine or someone else's - if it is formed with little or no substantial verification. I'm learning to consider the possibility that a tempting new belief may havebeen 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 adesire to learn the truth about these events. Even if you disagree with my conclusions I hope youcan at least share my intentions. This report is primarily an information assist for family and friendswho are looking at these questions on their own.
The information presented here can be easily verified and/or expanded upon with simple internetsearches. Many good sources are available. Independent research is a healthy exercise for anyone'scritical and logical faculties - it is also a profound opportunity to reclaim control of the future.
Why did three steel frame high-rise structures collapse on 9/11? Many conflicting answers arebeing put forward, but unlike most of history's unanswered puzzles, the collapse of the WTC Towersis a matter of physics. We cannot even begin to define the crime of 9/11 until we have a basicunderstanding of the indisputable 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 thepublic record presents a number of striking problems with the belief that the airplanes initiated a chainof events that caused the Towers to collapse (and of course Building 7 was not hit by an airplane).To clearly see these problems, it is helpful to have a little background on materials behavior and anawareness of some of the distinct and remarkable features of the events themselves.
Structural steel has been used in the construction of buildings, bridges, towers, etc. for well over100 years and its characteristics and behavior under adverse conditions have been well tested andanalyzed over this long period of time. The greatest risks to any building (apart from military attacksand severe earthquakes) are fire, high winds and accidental airplane collisions. Consequently, muchresearch and engineering design testing have been done over the years to assure that buildings especially high-rises - can withstand these adversities. Based on this history, here are a few thingsthat are known:
1) In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing liquid its internaltemperature (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 internaltemperature will gradually rise during prolonged exposure to constant high temperature, if thetemperature stabilizes the steel will not continue to weaken as a cumulative effect. As its temperaturechanges - either up or down - its strength also changes accordingly.
3) At high internal temperatures below the melting point, steel can lose its load bearing strengthand 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 steelstructures in intense fire scenarios. To summarize the significant consensus of these tests, thestrength of steel is reduced to 20% of normal when it reaches an internal temperature of around720˚C (1328˚F).
This is significant because standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload. Since maximum theoretical loads rarely occur, the temperature in a typical situation couldprobably go significantly higher before failure would occur.
For example, fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facilityat Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed theperformance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperaturesof 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel but no structural collapse took place.Keep in mind that real fires in closed spaces can't be sustained due to oxygen starvation.
4) One of steel's best qualities and a major reason it is used in building construction is its ability todissipate heat quickly and stand up unscathed in even the worst "towering inferno" conflagrationson 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. Internal steel temperatures neverreached higher than 360˚C (680˚F). This is an important number to remember for later when we look at the various collapse theories.
5) The Towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest commercial aircraft that were inuse at the time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were not significantlylarger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days carried jet fuel just like they do now. Buildingsurvival is accomplished through redundancy and dynamic redistribution of loads to the survivingparts of the structure.
6) Prior to 9/11 no steel-frame highrise had 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:
All of these fires were true "towering infernos" with dramatic, raging emergent flames bursting outfrom entire floors of the building through shattered windows. None of these buildings collapsed.
Jet fuel (refined kerosene) is a hydrocarbon and burns at a known maximum temperature in anopen 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 planeshave capacity for intercontinental flight, but carried only the needed fuel for their domestic flight plan.
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 beburning for the entire 1-2 hours until the Towers fell is not consistent with the behavior of a volatile and highly flammable liquid in a high temperature environment. It would have either ignited, or - ifinadequate oxygen was available to support combustion - it would have left the building as a vaporalong 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 theNorth Tower where more of the jet fuel was taken inside the building) but the jet fuel could not havebeen 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 producecombustion temperatures no higher than jet fuel. House fires typically produce temperatures in the500 - 650˚C range.
The airplane impacts into the WTC were quite dramatic with the huge fireballs, smoke, glass andbuilding cladding flying everywhere. What was left after the first few minutes, however, was simply anoffice building fire with some amount of structural damage. The nature and amount of the structural damage sustained by the buildings is hard to determine based on visual evidence, but afew things are known:
1) Airplanes are made of aluminum which is a much lighter and weaker material compared tostructural steel.
2) Both buildings quickly re-stabilized after impact and showed no observable signs of instability orthe beginnings of structural failure prior to the onset of their rapid demise.
3) The North Tower, unlike the South Tower, took a direct hit with the plane completely disappearinginside the building. If the structural, load bearing core of the building (see construction photo onpage 2) had been severed or fatally damaged by the impact of the plane, the upper portion of thebuilding would have fallen almost immediately. The actual collapse took place almost two hours later.
4) The South Tower took more of a glancing blow at the corner, which created a very dramatic fireballbut apparently had no significant impact on the structural core. People were evacuating from theupper floors through the impact zone via stairwells in the central core area prior to the onset ofcollapse. (This collapse occurred first, 56 minutes after impact.)
Because of these and other considerations, the failure of the buildings has been attributed by most"official" experts (and the media) primarily to fire - causing column failure, floor support truss failure,etc. leading to "total progressive collapse". While most of these theories allow that structural damage may have been a contributing factor, few have suggested that the impact damage alonecaused the buildings to fail.
1) For example, one of the first explanations was put forward by the American Society of CivilEngineers in an article titled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - A Simple Analysis", byZdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou. Their theory depends on the simultaneous failure of the majority ofthe structural support columns on a given floor, which they say would allow the upper part of thebuilding to fall freely onto the lower part, thus triggering a sequence of events that would "doom" theentire tower. In order for this triggering event to happen, they acknowledge that more than half of the column steel on a given floor would have to reach temperatures exceeding 800˚C (1472˚F).They fail to distinguish between fire temperature and internal steel temperature, however, and do notexplain how this condition could possibly occur.
As we have seen, high internal temperatures are difficult to achieve -- particularly over a largearea in a large structure with heavy steel acting as a vast heat dissipation "sponge". This triggeringcondition is clearly impossible given the test data presented earlier. Indeed, results of metallurgicaltesting on recovered steel as reported by NIST in 8/04 showed no evidence of temperatures over625˚C (1157˚F) and only rare instances of temperatures over 250˚C (482˚F)! The location where theperson is standing in the photo below from the North Tower was apparently not very hot.
2) Another theory was put forward by Thomas Eager, a professor of materials engineering from MIT, in a NOVA program that a lot of people have seen and which is still rebroadcast occasionally. Thetranscript is available online. Eager apparently believes that these buildings were not designed towithstand a fire covering an entire single floor (he doesn't say where he gets this idea, but I find it hard to believe that the engineers and architects who designed these buildings did not allow for this possibility!) and the spilling of the jet fuel caused this to happen. He suggests that the heat from thistype of fire scenario caused the floor slab supports ("clips" he calls them) to fail - "unzipping" almostsimultaneously around an entire floor - causing a pancaking sequence that also pulled down thevertical structural supports.
"Pancaking" collapses are sometimes seen in Third World countries where poorly designed andpoorly built structures are subjected to earthquakes. Modern American structures (including the WTCtowers) are designed and built according to robust standards and specifications that require structuralunification of horizontal and vertical members. This is done specifically to prevent pancaking floorcollapses. Eager also ignores the continuous vertical strength of the core structure and its heavilycross-braced monolithic design. The floor assemblies surround the core like square donuts with alarge hole in the middle (see page 2). Even if the floors had somehow "pancaked", the core structurewould have been left either partially or entirely standing.
Below are two graphics used in the NOVA program. The one on the left misrepresents thestructural 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 verymisleading. Missing from this illustration are both the perpendicular cross trusses that would preventthis behavior as well as the steel floor pan that is connected to the trusses, onto which the concreteslab is poured. The floor pan also serves to interconnect the trusses and provide stiffness andstrength to the entire floor system.
3) In a similar way, the government report issued by FEMA also uses misleading diagrams (below) tomake it look to the casual, non-technical reader like there was no central core at all! A careful readingof the fine print says the vertical members on the right side of the diagrams are core columns and weare only looking at a detail of the structure, but this is not obvious at a glance. There is also noindication 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!
Below is another view of one of the Towers during construction. Compare it to the diagrams above.This gives a good look at how much of the footprint of the building was taken up by the corestructure and its massive design.
America, who used to be so proud of her expertise and execution on every level is now it seemspleading incompetence in new creative ways every day, including projecting that incompetenceback into the past. Forgetting about the jet fuel and the possibility that an entire floor might catch firewas bad enough but now there's this:
4) Hyman Brown, construction manager of the WTC and University of Colorado civil engineeringprofessor says (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 downfrom lack of oxygen and depletion of flammable material like everybody expected, actually causedthem to become hotter! So hot that they melted all the steel in a five floor area of the building. Tofuel this fire, Mr. Brown apparently assumes that unlimited quantities of jet fuel (and oxygen) wereavailable 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 ofsteel, as we've seen, is 1538˚C (2800˚F). But failure is also a clear impossibility. Remember thoseopen steel test structures? They were subjected for a longer time to fire even hotter than the one heimagines, 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 fivestory 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 largeemergent flames bursting from every window on all sides of the building. From photographic evidencewe see only lots of black smoke with flames here and there.
I wouldn't spend so much effort examining Mr. Brown's highly improbable theory, except that he hasbeen connected informally by the media to the latest findings reported by NIST, the US governmentscience agency that is completing a multi-year funded investigation into the building failures. It hasbeen said by the media that Mr. Brown's views are supported by the preliminary findings of the NISTinvestigation!
5) The reports released by NIST in October 2004 and April 2005 do indeed have fire as the mainculprit, "softening", "shortening" and "buckling" core and perimeter columns where necessary in orderto construct a plausible sounding collapse sequence. They don't come out and say that jet fuel wasburning everywhere, but they also don't explain how the combustion of typical office contents couldpossibly produce enough heat at a high enough temperature to cause the extensive steeldeformations necessary to support their hypothesis. They also do not explain how they reconcile thishypothesis with their own test data (mentioned earlier) from 8/04!
And like Mr. Brown, once the collapse begins it apparently is supposed to be obvious to anybodywhy it would bring down the entire structure. This part is never explained very well - or at all.
6) Not to be left out, Popular Mechanics magazine in its 3/05 issue attempts to discredit legitimatequestioning of the collapses by presenting long lists of experts. These experts refer to the denserapidly expanding dust clouds that killed scores of people as they ran for their lives as "puffs of dust".These same experts also apparently forgot their high school physics since they, like blind followers ofa new religion, also "believe in" the free fall pancaking collapse theory - an absurd impossibility.See "The elapsed time of the collapses" section, below.
And like other experts mentioned previously, the PM experts also believe that the collapses weretriggered by fire weakening the steel. They concede that the steel didn't actually "melt" and that thejet fuel was gone after about ten minutes, but they still try to convince us that "the rest of the stuff"could burn hot enough to cause structural steel to fail!
I believe that the above theories (and all similar ones) have to be rejected from the outset becausethey all depend on fire to do what fire is not able to do - and has never done before - that is, heat steel to the point of triggering a total building failure.
Dramatic observable features of the Tower "collapses" that are ignored by all of the officialtheories include:
1) The Towers look like they are exploding as they come down, complete with mushroom clouds(also see first page) and lateral ejection of material with great force to great distances. Sections ofthe heavy structural steel perimeter columns were ejected as far as 500 feet - a distance equal tomore than 1.5 football fields! The blast wave alone shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
ABC News correspondent N. J. Burkett was standing more than a block away from the WTC Towers on 9/11 when the South Tower suddenly begins to roar. He interrupts his live TV commentary byshouting as everyone runs for cover: "...A HUGE EXPLOSION NOW - RAINING DEBRIS ON ALL OFUS! WE"D BETTER GET OUT OF THE WAY!"
2) One problem that everyone is having is that no one has ever seen a "natural" collapse of astructural steel building (because it has never happened), so no one knows what it ought to look like! I think a little common sense, however, would suggest that if the Towers were experiencing agravitational collapse due to some type of mechanical failure you would expect to find a huge heapof material piled within and spilling outside of the original footprint. It would include sections of floorslabs, floor pans, large chunks of concrete, glass and the remains of identifiable building contentsincluding the bodies of the occupants.
This is not what happened - both Towers were almost entirely converted to rather short (30 ft or less)pieces of steel and dust. The remains of over 1000 bodies disappeared completely. Were theyvaporized out of existence? Or just obliterated into particles too small even for DNA analysis? Howcould this possibly happen?
This photo was taken looking straight down within the footprint area where one of the Towers oncestood. The elevation of this area is not significantly higher than the original street level and showsonly pieces of steel and dust. Search and rescue workers were stunned that so many bodies hadapparently vanished - along with the desks, the walls, the glass and everything else.
3) Almost all of the non-steel building materials and contents were pulverized into talcum powdersize (sub 100 micron) dust particles. This took the form of the dense churning dust clouds thatexpanded to enormous size as they raced down the surrounding streets at tremendous velocity andwith clearly defined boundaries, depositing most of the mass of the buildings outside of the perimeterof their original footprints.
4) Both the nearly total pulverization of the building materials and contents and the rapid heatexpansion of the dust clouds (look at the photo on the right below taken only 30 seconds after the start of the collapse of the North Tower) to great elevations and large distances from the buildinglocations would require tremendous amounts of energy. The only energy source presumed to beavailable to explain these phenomena is the elevated mass of the buildings themselves, which isinadequate by at least an order of magnitude according to the calculations that I have seen.
If you were to drop a large chunk of concrete from 1000 ft onto pavement, it would certainly breakapart but it would not be completely pulverized into such a fine powder. In the case of the Towers,the conversion to dust somehow took place in mid-air long before hitting the ground!
5) The elapsed time of the collapses was nearly identical to the time it would take a free-fallingobject to fall from the same height. Again, common sense would suggest that if the upper part of thebuilding somehow began to crush the intact structure below, the strength of the intact structure wouldslow the process at least a little bit, if not arrest it altogether. What we see instead looks as if thepresence of structural support is somehow removed just ahead of the collapse wave.
The Bazant & Zhou article mentioned earlier claims to have a mathematical model that shows how a high-rise steel structure could collapse at the rate of free-fall given sufficient impact on an upper floor.This is another theoretical "pancaking" scenario that does not take into account specific structuralfeatures like the concentration of strength in the core structure - a massive tower within the Tower.
But even if we forget about the core structure, something else about the notion of a pancakingcollapse occurring at the rate of free fall defies intuition. The obvious problem with this idea is thatit does not allow time or energy to overcome the inertia of each of the many floors that must beinstantly 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 anenergy expenditure from the falling material, which will slow it down - and perhaps stop the processaltogether, depending on the strength and design of the structure and the weight of the material.
There are only two ways a building can collapse at the rate of free fall: 1) the collapse somehowbegins simultaneously throughout the entire building - all parts begin falling at the same moment (seeWTC7), or 2) something (like explosives) removes resistance in advance of the falling material.
6) The destruction of each Tower began suddenly and was not preceded by obvious buckling orother dramatic visible deformations. There were no reports from firefighters of sagging, creaking ortwisting steel that might signal impending failure.
7) Incredibly intense fires continued to burn at the sub-basement foundation level for weeks. Melted steel was later found at these locations. What was burning? Concrete? Steel? Why? How?
8) The upper part of the South Tower begins to tip at the beginning of its collapse. Instead ofcontinuing this rotation as would be expected from a rigid structure according to the law ofconservation of angular momentum, the rotation stops as it begins to collapse upon itself before falling into the structure below.
9) Both Towers exhibited almost perfect radial symmetry in the "collapse" wave as it moved rapidlydown each building. In natural materials failures (broken windows, cave-ins, etc) even small variationsin material strength and stresses are amplified into highly asymmetric breakage patterns.
10) A number of small explosions with forceful lateral ejection of white smoke and material can beseen occurring several floors ahead of the leading edge of each collapse. These can be seen in thephoto on the right, above, and also in the right-hand photo on the first page. These have exactly thesame signature appearance as cutter charges (squibs) used in controlled demolitions to removestructural supports within a building at strategic points in a timed sequence. Just a coincidence?
11) Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the onset of each collapse. Firefightersrecollected 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'
12) The Towers had stabilized after impact, the fires were no more serious than a typical office fireand no steel-frame highrise had ever collapsed from fire before - yet there were several reports ofwarnings 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?
And then of course there is Building 7, which very few people even remember. It fell later in the dayand from the beginning was treated almost like an insignificant footnote. WTC7 was a serious 47story 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. It was not seriously battered by debrisfrom the Towers (compared to closer buildings) but it did have two small fires of uncertain origin. Thefact that there was some damage to this building from flying debris is another indication (consideringits distance from WTC 1 & 2) of the explosive behavior in the collapse of the Towers.
Official reports suggest that fires in WTC7 had been "raging out-of-control" all day, but there is no photographic evidence of this. Several clear images from the moment of onset of the collapse donot even show emergent flames, let alone any other evidence of a huge all-consuming inferno.
WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds, imploding perfectly within its footprint, simultaneously collapsingstraight downward from all points and looking just like a perfect controlled demolition.
The straight-down, vertical collapse of Building 7 could not have happened and with such perfectsymmetry unless all 58 perimeter columns and all 25 core columns somehow were removed exactly simultaneously.
In the three-image collapse sequence above, look carefully at the large facing surface on the nearside of WTC7 in the first image. The light and dark mottled pattern of small clouds of smoke
appeared at the onset of the collapse. These again look just like evidence of explosive cuttercharges 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 supportcolumns (or any of them for that matter - as we have seen). The fact that WTC7 was built over a preexisting three story substation also does not explain the perfect symmetry of the collapse.
This failure was also attributed to "progressive total collapse" brought on by fire in FEMA's report.
WTC7 was not even mentioned in the 911 Commission Report.
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? 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, theseunprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profoundforensic 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 strenuousobjections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims - and has been melted down inoverseas markets. The blueprints for the Towers have also become unavailable.
Two groups who have been extremely vocal in protest of the destruction of evidence and lack ofreal forensic investigation have been the families of those killed and firefighters. Fire Engineering Magazine - the primary journal for firefighters everywhere - ran a scathing editorial in January 2002 inwhich they referred to the official investigation blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society ofCivil Engineers as a "half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forceswhose 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 to9/11 there was no precedent to prevent or even caution them against entering the WTC Towers togo 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 reachedthe 78th floor sky lobby and found only "two pockets of fire". They called for "two lines" and began toimplement their evacuation plan just before the Tower "collapsed".
Now what are firefighters supposed to do? In this new world, fires in high-rise steel structures canapparently trigger a "progressive total collapse" at any moment with no warning or even a clear set ofcausative conditions. And this can happen not only in stable damaged structures, but in healthy,intact structures as well!
I wonder how much fear this adds to the lives of our firefighters and if high-rise fire rescue effortshave been curtailed in any way since 9/11, perhaps even causing unnecessary loss of life, due tothis new uncertainty over entering burning steel structures?
If the official story is true, then companies that offer complex controlled demolitions usingexplosives are clearly going to be out of business. Thanks to those wily hijackers we now have amuch cheaper solution. If a structural steel high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is topick a floor somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood the floor withjet fuel, light a match and stand back.
The building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously crush itself, shredding the steel intotidy 12-30 ft sections. The rest of the building will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that willbe spread over a large area so somebody else will have to clean it up!
This photo shows the start of an explosive demolition of a large brick chimney
We have to find the courage to think for ourselves, open our eyes and look - and keep looking. Thetruth will not go away. Once we see that most of what we thought we knew about these events isactually wrong, we can finally get to work on discovering the real story of 9/11....
"...any ordinary person can tell a collapse from an explosion!"