9/11 – Has
By Richard de Zoysa
Long
before the dust settled after this catastrophe, Americans were
questioning the very unprofessional and indifferent manner in which the
investigation into this alleged terror attack had been directed and
conducted. The clock is ticking perpetually, and yet there has not been
any top level government appointed committee to study and go into the
startling alternate possibilities of how that fateful day may have
evolved.
What
half the world or more does not know, and those who did know paid
little or no attention to is what can be described only as the bizarre
destruction of an ancillary tower of the World Trade Centre, referred
to as WTC 7. The available evidence that dawns on crucial facts that
this building which was 47 stories high was brought down by a fire can
without question be disputed. It was the manner in which the
authorities reported the destruction of this skyscraper that led to an
in-depth study, especially by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, which gave birth to the theory that this may not have been
brought about by fire as reported, but by wilful detonation - giving
clear indication that a hidden hand planned the attack.
With
overwhelming evidence that clearly points a finger at the Bush
administration of having carried out a farce of an investigation, it is
a puzzle to comprehend that the citizens of the United States of
America who pride themselves in pursuing the truth, have not been
successful to date in obtaining an executive direction ordering a
thorough probe of the 9/11 debacle.
When
the results of the last US Presidential election were announced, the
whole world paused momentarily, full of hope that Barack Obama, the
first African-American President to be elected to lead the free world,
would bring to us all justice, fairplay and prosperity.
The whole of
SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 – WAS
By Johnny Christy
Time: 8.46 AM
What was going on?
What Really Happened
(The story that the world was told)
On the morning of September 11th 2001,
hijackers took control of four commercial airliners over the skies of
the
19
hijackers in all launched a well planned and premeditated attack
targeting the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and supposedly the
The
hijackers reportedly used tear gas and mace in the process of the
hijacking as well as knives to stab the crew and passengers while
taking over command of the airplane.
Of
the four airplanes hijacked on that day only one, United Airlines
Flight 93 failed to reach it’s intended target destination, and this is
attributed to the valour of the passengers on board who overpowered the
hijackers to regain control of the airplane. Reports say that a
hijacker ordered the plane to be rolled when he realised that they were
losing control of the aircraft.
Flight 93 crashed in
Both the North and
The
attacks were responsible for the deaths of 2,976 innocent civilians. At
least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers,
landing on the street and rooftops of nearby buildings. A total of 411
rescue workers died while trying to rescue civilians and put out the
fires.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS STORY?
1.
What took the Air Force and other authorities so long to figure out
that something was radically wrong with the aircraft that had suddenly
stopped communicating with ATC and were veering drastically off course?
2.
How did WTC 7 collapse when it wasn’t even hit by an airplane?
Apparently it collapsed due to fires but is that cause justifiable?
(See following article)
3.
Why was there molten metal (metal needs temperatures greater than 3000
degrees Fahrenheit to melt) at the site of the wreckage, when jet fuel
cannot reach temperatures that high?
4. How would amateur pilots know how to fly a sophisticated
jet aircraft and use the navigation systems?
5. How were cell phone calls made from airplanes that were
flying at over 15,000 feet?
6. Why did the US Government, even after being warned of an
attack, not prepare countermeasures or react in a timely manner?
7.
And most importantly, why have all these queries, backed by reason, not
been acknowledged by the US Government but merely called ‘conspiracy
theories’ and ignored?
In this issue, Asia Digest has featured the September 11th,
2001
attacks on the World Trade Centre and included an investigation
led by a team of professionals from Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth. These individuals have examined the evidence that was found at
the scene of destruction and at length gone to prove how certain
elements of the whole story do not add up – particularly the collapse
of a building known as WTC 7.
Expressing My Conviction
Interviewed by Johnny Christy
Like
most other Americans, I was in a state of shock as these multiple
attacks were repeated again and again on TV that day. We’ve never seen
a progressive collapse in a steel frame building before so we didn’t
know how to evaluate what we were seeing in the destruction of the twin
towers. This combination of circumstances led me to agree with the
spoon-fed official response from experts that it was a gravitational
collapse due to jet plane impacts and fires, even though it exhibited
all the characteristics of a very explosive destruction. I didn’t know
what to think. We found out that there had been a terror attack, we saw
a plane flying into the World Trade Centre. I really didn’t know what
to think.
How
did you come to the conclusion that something was amiss beneath the
surface of the information that the mainstream media released to the
world?
The
information provided by David Ray Griffin on the radio in March of 2006
led me to an objective evaluation of the evidence not seen in the
mainstream media or the official reports of the destruction of these
three buildings. All of this evidence conclusively added up to support
the hypothesis of controlled demolition, as documented on the website
AE911Truth.org
As
an architect, representing over 900 architects and engineers, I focus
on the science based forensic evidence found in the behaviour of the
buildings, the aftermath and eyewitness testimony. A real investigation
with subpoena power and testimony under oath, which we are demanding,
will yield the truth about who may have been responsible, why they did
this, and how exactly it was done. We implore every Asia Digest reader
to support us in this historic effort.
A
letter was sent to NIST (National Institute of Standards and
Technology), and we received a letter saying that the analysis of the
nano thermite was inconclusive. There was steel in the building and
there was aluminium in the building, but it is very clear that steel
and aluminium cannot form themselves into nano thermite in a perfect
ratio as found in the remains of the buildings.
In
addition we have written to the President of the American Institute of
Architects highlighting all this evidence and there has been no
response from him. NIST has responded to the claims in general however,
but it was the same response as before.
No, I have not.
We
started three and half years ago when I heard the radio interview with
David Ray Griffin. I did some research, I looked around and I said to
myself where are the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? After all
we have Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. So I started
a petition based on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and gave a presentation to
15 architects who I worked with, who were quite doubtful about the
story that I was telling them. At the conclusion of the lunchtime
presentation, their jaws had dropped and fourteen of them signed up. I
proceeded to show other architecture firms, including the one that I
ended up working for a year later. Thirty eight of them signed up. A
quarter of the architects came after signing the petition and half of
them came due to presentations. We now have over 900 architects and
engineers for 9/11 Truth demanding a real investigation into 9/11.
No we haven’t been promised a new investigation by any
members of Congress.
There are several lawsuits regarding this in the
What
do you have to say about other conspiracy theories – remotely
controlled aircraft, terrorists were agents of the government etc?
It’s
very clear that the airplanes hit the twin towers but no airplane hit
the third skyscraper that collapsed that day, which was building 7.
That was a classic example of a controlled explosion, the building
having fallen at free-fall acceleration in six and a half seconds into
it’s own footprint without regard to the 40,000 tons of structural
steel which was there to resist any such collapse. The building
supposedly fell by fire.
But
more specifically to what you asked me, I’m not an expert on the remote
controlled aircraft. The Pilots for 9/11 Truth will be able to give you
a better outlook regarding how those planes might have been controlled.
David Ray Griffin’s extensive research also casts a shadow of doubt on
the history of the hijackers.
The
planes certainly hit the buildings. I’ve spoken personally to people
throughout the country during my travels who saw the planes hitting the
towers with their own eyes.
Yes.
Absolutely! The world will know the truth about 9/11. It has taken a
long time, but we are reaching critical mass and the story is being
forced and the media is having to respond to it, such as Asia Digest
and many publications in the United States, several of which have had
to respond with front page articles on Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth. Because we have assembled the necessary body of building
professionals, we have the credibility to reach the unbelieving minds
of millions of Americans. So it is happening, and we are breaking
through into the mainstream as we speak. Within a year or two you will
see examples of many major mainstream articles being forced to
acknowledge that the 9/11 Truth Movement is being joined by millions
every year. Government officials are also forced to acknowledge and
deal with and criticise the growing 9/11 Truth Movement whereas before
they could simply ignore it. When they criticise it, they do not
criticise the solid body of evidence that we print, they simply call us
names like conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers etc. It’s not a
critical examination of the overwhelming body of evidence that all
three
The
Destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11
love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants,
and for a time
they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.
Think of it. Always.”
-Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Viewing the fall of WTC 7, a
person even only remotely interested in the events of 9/11 is suddenly
confronted with the reality that something is “not right with this
picture”. The many videos of WTC 7’s
demise are
startling (Google: videos of collapse of WTC 7) because they are in
gross contradiction to what the public has been told via “official”
reports or through the mainstream media. The government does not want
the general population to know of the existence of the WTC 7
building, nor the facts supporting its controlled demolition, because
it then becomes a most reliable “smoking gun” motivating people to
further investigate the crimes allegedly perpetrated by the government
that eventful day.2 The very fact that only a few
Americans are even remotely aware of the existence of WTC 7 and the fact that the building was not even mentioned in the
9/11 Commission report support this claim.3
Writing
an article such as this poses a little bit of a challenge in today’s
politically charged, “anti-terrorism” milieu. Ridicule is often
directed at authors or speakers who expose facts regarding the events
of 9/11. Ridicule is intended to intimidate - preventing the person
advocating the truth from coming forward and being heard. If ridicule
is not successful in silencing, then some form of character
assassination is usually the next course of action. People exposing the
truth about 9/11 are very often labeled as conspiracy theorists. However, much closer to the
truth are the now famous words of a courageous American actor by the
name of Charlie Sheen:
To label anyone a conspiracy theorist is an ad hominem
argument and has no factual value. It demonstrates with clarity that
the person or persons advocating a fallacious argument utilise this
strategem as a desperate attempt to defend their inferior position from
the obvious truth presented by their opponent. It
is amazing how often this chicanery is used to refute the cause of
truth and those sincerely interested in a factual, legitimate,
independent investigation of 9/11.
It is not the intention of this article to provide theories
as to who, what or even why the World Trade Centre Towers were or were not
attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001 as claimed by government
reports. Those are realities that should be investigated and clarified after having brought just a few undeniable facts to light.
This article’s intention is to focus on WTC 7’s question-laden demise
and the implications. Illumination of facts surrounding the collapse of
this relatively unknown building is
prismatic in diffusing the light of truth over the entire events of
9/11. If it is demonstrated that what the government has said
“officially” about WTC 7
and what the facts reveal are diametrically opposed, then it is only
logical to conclude that what the government has said about other
details surrounding the 9/11 events are in need of serious
“independent” investigation. The more
diligently
one searches for the truth, the clearer the panoramic view of the chasm
that exists between the official government reports and the simple
facts surrounding the fall of WTC 7.
Just
recently, on this year's anniversary of the event, Charlie Sheen was
further referenced by the media; even making demands of the current
American President to re-investigate the 9/11 event. (Google: Charlie
Sheen twenty minutes with the President).
“Sheen,
the highest-paid actor on U.S. TV, argues that 'the official 9/11 story
is a fraud' and says the commission set up to investigate it was a
whitewash. He claims that the attacks simply served 'as a pretext for
the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights'. The
actor, 44, says the administration of former President George Bush was
behind the attacks, which they were then able to use to justify an
invasion of Iraq. He urged other Americans who were skeptical of the
investigation into the attacks to demand the truth. He said: 'We cannot
allow governments to continue to advance their political agendas by
exploiting forged pretexts, and the fact that big budget hit pieces
against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the
establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag
terror.'”5
Why do I reference Charlie Sheen and his truth-filled
statements regarding 9/11? Charlie Sheen
was first attracted to investigate the 9/11 incident after inadvertently viewing a video of the collapse of WTC
Building 7. Viewing the almost free-fall
collapse of WTC 7
compelled Charlie to investigate further. Easily recognised by any
physics professor, the “free-falling” evidence is clear and most
disturbing. Buildings do not collapse at nearly free-fall speed unless controlled demolition is
involved. It is a demonstrable law of physics.6 Charlie sensed this intuitively
and was motivated to find out why or how the building could come down
that fast.
I too was motivated to further investigate 9/11 after seeing
a video of the collapse of WTC 7.
I had no idea that the building even existed until I came across a
video on the internet where I watched it fall quickly and symmetrically
into its own footprint. I was amazed how similar the collapse was to
videos I had seen of intentionally controlled destructions of old
buildings. I also realised that something was not correct in what I
thought about 9/11 and what I was viewing in the video. I investigated
further and ultimately it led to my writing of this article.7
The second noteworthy comment I would like to make in
reference to this article is that the facts will speak for themselves. The difficulty lies in where the facts lead. No
doubt there will be some readers who will refuse to accept the facts
because they point to not only the questionable destruction of WTC Building 7
but the accompanied dismantling of their trust in the government of the
United States. This is very understandable given the harsh reality of
the article’s logical conclusions. I have found this to be the greatest
impediment to readers or listeners accepting the revealed facts and the
serious discrepancies surrounding the 9/11 events. In a word, this
article may lead some readers to experience a certain loss of hope. However,
trusting in the evidence, and not in what the US Government or the
media has told you, is the surest way for truth to triumph over treason
and deception.
A
government and its official investigation agencies need to be honest,
straightforward and trustworthy in matters such as these - out of
respect for the lives that were lost and for the prevention of further
loss of life. Investigation of a mysterious collapse of a building such
as WTC 7
on 9/11 needs to be done in a professional and competent manner as to
prevent any chance of recurrence and to foster public trust and
confidence in the investigating agency and the government it
represents. To act contrary is to foster public outcry.
This article proposes that WTC 7
did not “collapse” at all but rather was brought down in a “controlled
demolition.” Looking closely at the controlled demolition of WTC 7
is the surest way to show that major statements reported in the
official government reports do not just simply lack credibility but are
intentionally deceiving. It is because of the clarity of the facts
surrounding the demolition of WTC 7 that this building was chosen for this article as a simple
vehicle to promote the truth surrounding the event. Uncovering the truth
of 9/11 has the power to bring “positive, lasting change” to both
America and the world.8
The purpose of this article is to bring to the attention of
as many people as possible not only the reality of WTC 7’s
one-time existence and demise, but its dubious collapse as explained by
“official” government reports. It is critical to look at this
particular 9/11 event because the mystery of the building's
destruction, as reported by the government, is not just difficult to
comprehend - almost impossible - but it defies the laws of physics,
historical investigation, the observable facts and scientific evidence.
In contrast however, the building’s perfectly symmetrical collapse is
very much in accordance with an alternate theory that has yet to be
legitimately and professionally investigated by the appropriate
agencies of the government. Buildings
do not
collapse at relatively free-fall speeds unless “controlled demolition”
is involved - and they do not collapse because of fire. Major official
reports published by the American government; the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Report and the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Reports
agree on this point: The collapse of WTC 7 was the “first known instance of the total collapse of a
tall building primarily due to fires.”9
I
will mention the significance of the videos of the building falling at
almost free-fall speed later, but for now I need to emphasise that
extensive historical research reveals that no modern steel-structure
building has ever collapsed due to fire.10 According
to W. Gene Corley PE, SE with Construction Technology Laboratories,
Inc., “Following the adoption of fire-resistance requirements for
high-rise buildings, the experience has been very good. No modern
fire-protected building had collapsed as a result of a burnout prior to
9/11.”11
Please
note, the following examples illustrate that the structural integrity
of modern buildings is extremely resistant to fires.
The
First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles suffered a very
devastating fire in 1988 which raged for almost four hours completely
destroying four floors. However, it did no significant damage to the
structural integrity of the building and the building did not collapse.12
The
One Meridian Plaza Building, a thirty-eight story structure in
Philadelphia, suffered a very extensive fire in 1991, completely
engulfing eight floors. Because three firefighters died while fighting
the blaze the fire chief prudently let the fire burn. “The blaze, which
burned for nineteen hours, raged from the 22nd floor to the 30th floor
before a sprinkler system installed by a tenant on the 30th floor
extinguished the flames.”13 Although
a total of eleven floors were damaged, the building did not collapse.
Due to insurance litigation, after inspection it was abandoned to
remain standing for seven more years and was not demolished until 1998.14
The
One New York Plaza Building in 1970 suffered a severe fire that burned
for over six hours but did not cause the building to collapse. “Light,
spray-on fireproofing, which at some point had been knocked away, left
steel supports for the floors exposed to the blaze. They twisted and
pulled away from their connections, initiating collapses that stopped
only because the concrete slabs of the floors refused to give way.
Although the building stood, the fire burned for more than six hours.”15
More recently, in Caracas Venezuela in 2004, fire destroyed
the top third of the tallest skyscraper in South America. The 34th
floor to the summit of the 56-story building was completely engulfed in
flames. But the building did not collapse.16
“The
blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East
Tower in the complex… By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more than
17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was
built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark….“Engineers have
gone up there and inspected... [the building] is very solid.”17
In
February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught
fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in
flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet
the building remained standing.18
The
most spectacular of all skyscraper fires to have occurred in recent
times was the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire in February of 2009.19 Although
completely engulfed by flames for at least three hours it did not
collapse. “Despite the fact that the fire extended across all floors
for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large
portion of the structure collapsed.”20
The
reader is cordially invited to do further research. However, I mention
again, no matter how extensive your research, you will not encounter a
single steel-structure building that has totally collapsed due to fire.
This of course is excluding the claim by the US Government’s reports
that WTC 7 collapsed solely because of fire.
World Trade Center Building 7 was built compliant with the Fire and Safety Codes of the City
of New York. “Sprayed
on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a
layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick.
Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for
at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in
a fire of any duration”. Buildings 4, 5
and 6 in the World Trade Center remained standing “despite suffering
damage of all kinds, including fire.”21
The
first official report about the mysterious collapse was issued by FEMA
in 2002. The report summarised their findings with the following
convoluted statement:
“Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of
weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th
floors. The specifics of the fires and how they caused the building to
collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on
the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability
of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to
resolve this issue.”24
The
statement above is italicised and underlined by me to illustrate by
example the report’s “confusing tone” in general. The report contains
many speculations that are supported by “if” and “maybe” statements,
but no real evidence to support the theories. The report’s conclusion
that the “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”
leads to only one disturbing reality. Where are the facts? Why was the
document published and why are we reading a report which by its own
words expresses that there is a high probability that what is being described as having
never occurred?
Although diesel fuel was present on the premises of WTC 7,
the report expresses - in what could be argued excessive verbiage so as
to deceive - that investigators have no idea if the fires were
sustained by diesel fuel. I quote the same official FEMA report.
“From a structural standpoint, the most likely event would have been the collapse of Truss 1 and / or Truss 2
located in the east end of the 5th and 6th floors. These floors are believed
to have contained little if any fuel other than the diesel fuel for the
emergency generators, making diesel oil a potential source of the fire.
As noted in Section 5.4, the fuel distribution system for the emergency
generators pumped oil from tanks on the lower floors to the generators
through a pipeline distribution system. The SSB [Salomon Smith Barney]
fuel oil system was a more likely
source of fire around the transfer trusses. The SSB pump is reported as
a positive displacement pump having a capacity of 75 gallons per minute
at 50 psi. Fuel oil was distributed
through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe. A portion of the piping ran in close proximity
to Truss 1. However,
there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate
or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.”25
It is important to note that the FEMA report - an official
government explanation - proposes at best only “speculation.” This tone very much permeates the entire official document. In contrast, a simple forensic test would have laid the
speculations to rest. This
test is implied by law and recommended in fire investigation manuals of
any fire where suspicion of explosion is involved. This test would have
been a definitive answer as to why the building collapsed. However, the
test was never conducted by FEMA nor by NIST. NIST was the second
Federal Agency to investigate the events of 9/11. They too followed in
the footsteps of their colleagues at FEMA and failed to present a
trustworthy explanation to the public.
But
NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for
residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and
Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection
Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be
undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no
doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says: High-order damage
is characterised by shattering of the structure, producing small,
pulverised debris, walls, roofs, and structural members splintered or
shattered, with the building completely demolished.26 That description applied to
the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence -‘Debris is
thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet’ - applied to the
destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact
that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.27
Tons
of “dust” particles, remnants of the buildings involved, was produced
on 9/11 and can be legally connected to the events on that day
including the destruction of WTC 7.
Testing of this dust was done by numerous private agencies as requested
by individuals and insurance companies investigating the events of
9/11. All tests performed confirmed the presence of once “molten” metal
that has undergone “super-cooling” - resulting in “spherical” metal
particles. Spherical particles in the dust are a positive irrefutable
indication that explosives were involved.28 The issue is further addressed
in the following paragraphs because of its obvious implications.
As
previously mentioned, it can be stated with great certainty that the
NIST report involves fraud by intentional omission of evidence and
deception. This is quite evident and easily demonstrated by the next
quotations. They point out that NIST, and FEMA for that matter, should
have checked for the evidence of explosives from the very beginning of
their investigations and failed to do so.
“The
Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was
heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But
Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up,
claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the
WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which
showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a
unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron ...
particles.”29 This meant, the RJ Lee Group
said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical
metallic particles.” 30
“The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been
reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” 31 – meaning 1,749°C
(3,180°F).32
“Another
study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which
was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also
finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found
that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially
significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches
2,623°C
(4,753°F).''33 This temperature is roughly
three times higher than those reached in structural fires.34
The NIST Report mentioned neither of these studies.
They omitted these studies because their investigators were well aware
of what the findings would be. The conclusions would be in
contradiction to their pre-determined cause of the collapse of WTC 7
which was fire. Therefore, they omitted them. These studies clearly
indicate that explosives were involved in the destruction of WTC 7. Forensics do not lie! But the government reports in
question often do!35
A
third report that was published after the NIST final report
conclusively evidences the presence of Nanothermite residue in WTC
Dust. Thermite is an incendiary; however Nanothermite is a high
explosive. Unreacted nanothermite, a residue with a distinctive
chemical fingerprint, was reported by several scientists as conclusive
evidence that explosives were involved in the 9/11 events. This report
by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, and his
colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan did not appear
until 2009 which was several months after the NIST final report.36
Tests
for evidence of explosives should have been done immediately following
the events of 9/11. “When NIST was asked specifically whether its
investigation had looked for evidence of explosives, it replied in the
negative. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this
failure, saying: ‘What about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look
for evidence of explosives?’ Newman replied: 'Right, because there was
no evidence of that.’ ‘But,’ asked the reporter ‘how can you know
there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?’ Newman replied:
‘If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your
time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.’ [You couldn’t make this stuff up.]37
“When
Shyam Sunder, who headed up NIST’s investigation of the WTC buildings,
gave his press conference in August of 2008 – at which he announced
that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery” – he began by saying:
‘Before
I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find. We
did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the
building down.’38 By
making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST’s most
important conclusion - just as it had been NIST’s most important
conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that
this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no
scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the
evidence.39
Now let us mention the free-fall collapse of WTC 7
and its tidy rubble pile. It also serves as a simple but most reliable
witness that what the government reports propose and the observable
facts are at opposite ends. The evidence proposes that the building did
not collapse as claimed by the government reports but was “demolished”
by a pre-planned and professionally orchestrated effort. The WTC dust,
containing evidence of explosives, strongly supports our conclusions.
The perfect symmetry involved in its collapse, as viewing of any video
of the event reveals, is also indicative of a controlled demolition.
The “engineered ballet of destruction” would not have occurred from a
collapse by fire.40 The destruction of the building
had to have included a team of experts involved in its controlled
demolition.
Looking
closely at the details, it is quite evident that the team involved in
the pre-planned destruction did quite a remarkable job - bringing the
building down with great precision. In the
“demolition industry” WTC 7’s
demise reflects a great deal of talent, skill, and professionalism -
dropping a building of such dimension within such a small footprint. To
think that the building collapsed neatly onto itself because of a few
random fires is similar to believing that if you drop 12 coins - let
alone 47 - from shoulder height, they will land neatly stacked. Even if
they were glued together, you and I know that they would not come to
rest vertically but rather topple over. Similarly, actual collapses of
steel-structured buildings due to buckling reflects the reality that
random collapse and ordered demolition are quite different both in a
physics lab and in the actual world.
Professionally
designed, steel-framed modern buildings of the skyscraper type are
engineered to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, and even
collisions by aircraft. This
article has demonstrated by historical investigation that before and
after the 9/11 event, no steel structured building has ever collapsed
because of fire—even though they have been ravaged by fires for up to
18 hours. Contrary to government reports, WTC 7 was not the first. A closer investigation of the fires in
the WTC 7
building, as viewed from photographic data as well as a review of
government reports, reveal that the building only incurred small and
isolated fires for a time-period of roughly six hours. Some of the
fires had even self-extinguished prior to the building’s destruction
and this is very evident in the photographs from the reports.
Because
structural integrity is over-engineered into all buildings - with
safety factors of 300 and 400 percent - even substantial local damage
to a building is not sufficient to cause a collapse. Buildings collapse
or “topple” only because of damage caused by extensive earthquakes. (See figure AA Below.) It
is very important to also note, that they do not collapse neatly into
their own footprint - especially when that footprint is relatively tiny
in relation to the height of the building. The only way to get a building to collapse within its own
footprint is by controlled demolition.
“The steel skeletons of buildings like WTC 7
are extremely robust. They are designed to withstand earthquakes and
hurricanes, and are over-engineered to handle several times the maximum
loads anticipated during their lifetimes. Such steel skeletons have
local structural integrity. An event that destroyed one portion of the
structure would not cause distant portions to shatter. If some force
obliterated the load-bearing columns well below the top of a 600-foot
tall skyscraper, the top of the building would topple like a tree, not smash its way down through intact floors and into its
foundation.”41
The
photo above is of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City. It is very indicative of the structural integrity of buildings,
in this case withstanding even bombings. Worst case scenario, imagine
some soot on the building and this is what WTC 7 should have looked like at days end. Still standing - on
all its legs! “To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office
fires is the height of scientific recklessness.” (John D. Wyndham, PhD’s remark to NIST investigative body.)
See the pictures below (Figure AA)
showing structural damage to high rise buildings caused by earthquakes
and note the lack of neat footprints. These building toppled because of
the uneven loads and stress caused by the forces of nature. Notice also that in many cases the rubble pile
is extensive, with some buildings - in a certain sense - somewhat
structurally intact, but just laying on their side. This demonstrates the incredible integrity that is
over-engineered into steel structured buildings.
WTC Building 7 was
about 5 times as tall as it was deep. Its collapse as viewed on all
videos made of the event had all the classic signs of a controlled
demolition.
By looking at the following diagram it can be seen that the
collapse of the WTC 7
building had to be done with great precision if it was not to damage
the adjacent buildings. The “rubble pile” left by its demolition
demonstrates clearly that this was accomplished with great precision.
Notice that WTC 7
was wedged very tightly between the US Post Office and the Verizon
building. The demolition had to take place with respect to the two
adjacent buildings. And you can see in the following photo of the
rubble pile - that is exactly what happened!
In the photos below notice the
neat line of demarcation along Vesey Street in the photo at the top
left of the page. Notice also that no substantial damage has occurred to the
adjacent buildings.
WTC Building 7 is shown above collapsed neatly within its own footprint. Notice that the outside walls have been left on top.
This is extremely unlikely to occur by a stroke of luck or by chance.
This is a classic indication of a very precision - engineered
controlled demolition.
To
do a “good job” or an “efficient job” in performing work is very much a
part of human nature. It is also a means of creating “less” work. The
destruction of WTC 7 was no exception to this work ethic. In the demolition industry the rubble pile remaining after a
building’s controlled collapse is everything.
It becomes the company’s signature, their calling card of competence,
as well as their advertising medium - and even their bragging rights.
The rubble pile shows the skill and precision of the company to satisfy
the needs of the client - no matter how difficult. Future clients are
shown footprints and rubble piles of “difficult demolitions” in order
to verify the company’s capabilities. Difficult but successful
demolitions become the best means of advertising and obtaining new
business. Demolition companies are keenly aware of the rubble piles
because they are the ones responsible for its creation and invariably
for its clean-up. By reducing the rubble pile to its smallest possible
size, additional costs involved in final clean-up efforts are saved. A precisely created rubble pile is the most effective way to
control costs. This
is an industry standard. Demolition companies that cannot produce
relatively neat, tidy rubble piles do not stay in business long. And
those that cannot fall a building within its footprint better have a
lot of additional insurance. It
is absolutely necessary that controlled demolition companies
demonstrate with consistency the ability to fall buildings within the
vertical axis.
The 9/11 demolitions were no exception. The photos confirm this fact.
They inadvertently reveal the expertise of a highly competent
demolition company.
How
ironic that CDI, Controlled Demolition Inc, was involved in both the
hurried clean-up and disposal of the Murray Building after the Oklahoma
City bombing, as well as the hurried clean-up and disposal of the WTC
buildings.42 The
government only uses the best and the most experienced! And in the case
of the WTC buildings there was no room for error! New un-written
records in the industry were set - known by an elite few but speculated
upon by many. In the future these records most assuredly will be
entered into the Guinness Book with other fine records that CDI has set
in the controlled demolition industry. It is a shame that no bragging
rights can be claimed at this time. Patience is a virtue; time will
tell. Peruse their website for a while. Get a feel for what controlled
demolition is all about. See how the collapse of WTC 7 dances to their tune.43
The WTC 7
fell in less than seven seconds - almost the same velocity of an object
free-falling in a vacuum under the influence of gravity. This speed of
collapse - according to the laws of physics - irrefutably demonstrates
that controlled demolition was involved. Irrefutably! It’s
all about kinetic energy vs. resistance and the gravitational speed of
falling objects. I won’t bore the reader with the equation.45 But
I will supply a quotation from a group of over 700 professional
architects and engineers who question by letter NIST’s Chief
Investigator in charge of all aspects of the investigation, Dr. Shayam
Sunder. The five-page letter addressed many of the discrepancies in the
NIST Report as well as the fact that critical evidence was blatantly
ignored in the report. Because of the brevity of this article I will
only quote the section pertaining to the fact that even the NIST report admitted that WTC 7 fell at free-fall
speeds for a period of time during its collapse.
“NIST
has acknowledged the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of
its 6.5-second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who
are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet NIST does not acknowledge the
obvious implications of such free-fall collapse – that the structure
had to have been removed – forcibly – by explosives. High school
physics makes it clear that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a
freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of
structural steel, because all of its gravitational potential energy is
being converted to energy of motion.” 46
Even
if the WTC building had collapsed because of fire, a fire that burned
basically only on the south side of the building, then the collapse
would have occurred in such a way as to be representative of the uneven
heating and subsequent loss of integrity of the steel beams - thereby initiating a non-symmetrical collapse.
Portions of the building not affected by fire would have still
maintained structural integrity and offered resistance to the falling
section of the building, thereby causing a collapse that would not have
been at free-fall speeds nor perfectly symmetrical. The buildings
collapse would have imitated more the collapse of a wooden structure
with unburned and unaffected parts of the building left standing. A “buckling” would have occurred; not a complete, perfectly
symmetrical, systematic falling of tons of steel and concrete!47
The pile of rubble produced by WTC 7
speaks mountains about the method of its collapse. Its shape is quite
conducive of a controlled demolition and has no resemblance to a
building felled by an “authentic” structural collapse. The rubble pile left by the controlled demolition of WTC 7
was less than two stories high.
Only two stories! A perfect signature! Consider that the original
building was 47 stories tall and had only minimal structural damage
caused by debris or fires as reported by the government. Yet it collapsed perfectly inside its own footprint!
People in the demolition industry know that this was a job very well
done! It possessed a high degree of difficulty considering the adjacent
buildings! Remarkable planning and expert execution! Not an ounce of
luck involved here - only control!
In closing I would like to quote the words of persons who
have spent hundreds of hours investigating the “collapse” of WTC 7:
“Buildings do fall vertically like Building 7, when destroyed by controlled demolition.
Controlled demolition destroys vertical steel structures
while overcoming their tendency to topple onto adjacent
real-estate. It does so by shattering the steel skeleton through the
precisely timed detonation of explosive charges.”
“Most demolitions seek to implode the building, causing the
mass to move toward the center, resulting in a tidy rubble pile.
In tall buildings this is typically done by shattering the interior
structures of the building first or ahead of the exterior structures.
That causes the interior mass to fall first, pulling outer structures
toward the center. Pieces of the outer walls end up on top of the rubble pile.”48
Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top are exactly the kinds of results that controlled demolitions
achieve through careful engineering.49
The
official government reports seem to have re-written the laws of
physics. Demolition companies need to take careful note! “...follow new
laws of physics that dictate to implode a building perfectly within its
own footprint, you just need to set a few office fires.”50 The
government’s response to any questioning of their official reports -
and the obvious errors, deceptions, and omissions that they contain -
can be summed up: “That’s my
story and I’m sticking to it!” In lieu of the evidence presented, the
following quotation characterises what the government has intended from
the beginning - to deceive the public as to the actual destruction of WTC 7
because it is in their best interest to do so.
To claim that the collapse of WTC 7
is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder
stated, smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the
official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable
“new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing
explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the
official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.51
The
truly sad reality is that even with the evidence presented, many people
are so lulled by the comfortable existence offered by a prosperous
lifestyle that their reaction to this article will be minimal instead
of what is truly needed at this time in history. Public outcry is a necessary response to the intentional
deceptions by governments.
I
hope this article has intimated that in similar fashion to the
destruction of the WTC Buildings on 9/11, so too has public trust been
systematically dismantled by government leaders and public servants.
Insulting government reports filled with falsifications and omissions
is not a proper response to a public that desires and expects some
semblance of truth from their elected officials. But,
it is obvious that a new level of “lack of integrity” has been reached
in government, and a truly higher plateau of “questionable character”
has been displayed by many politicians and public servants - as the
“official reports” of this tragedy plainly indicate. The
need for this article’s authoring - and the truth that it contains - is
proof of that statement. Hopefully, a new level of complacency has not
been equally reached by the American people and many will rise to the
occasion. The future of America depends on it. It is high time that
American foreign policy looks at the international neighborhood with a
different set of eyes - eyes that are filled with honesty, love and
compassion and not deception and greed. The power to make a difference
is in the hands of the readers. Just make sure the word gets out! The
bullies on the block are no longer welcome.
Nearly
3000 lives representing over 90 countries were lost on September 11,
2001 during the destruction of the WTC buildings and surrounding
events. Immediately following, America invaded Afghanistan launching
their so-called “War on Terrorism.” Iraq was invaded March 20th,
2003
under the pretext that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were
present in the country and were a threat to national and world
security. The weapons were never found - and believed to have never
existed in the first place. Over 1.2 million deaths have occurred
related to the war in Iraq. The war has uprooted more than 4.7 million
Iraqis since its conception which was declared illegal by UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the United Nations Charter in
September 2004.
Within weeks of 9/11 the US Government passed the US Patriot Act
and its “War on Terrorism”- a campaign that was spearheaded by the
events of 9/11. The legislation has allowed the government of the
United States to place any person, for any reason, and in any location
throughout the known world on their “list of suspected terrorists.” As
author of this article I too am at risk of being put on this list. The
legislation, “strongly infringed on civil liberties” but was passed
quickly by both houses of Congress and signed into law on October 26,
2001 How it was written and passed so quickly says much about the
government’s proficiency in implementing their agenda of deception
regards 9/11.
Thank
you dear reader for your time and for allowing me to bring you the
truth regards one small piece of the big puzzle of 9/11. May I encourage you to accomplish a minimal investigation in
order to satisfy your own mind
and further the cause of truth and justice - in memory of the lives
lost. For personal investigation into the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7, I suggest the reader visit the following websites for
their simplicity of design and overwhelming evidence. Remember to look only
at the facts and not to dismiss or reject them because of the
disturbing realities that the facts point to.
www.ae911truth.org
www.911research.com
References:
1. www.nytimes.com, The New York
Times, N.Y/ Region, Engineers
Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center, by James
Glanz, Published: Thursday, November 29, 2001. (September 21, 2009).
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html
2.
Some straightforward words from the Firefighters for 911 Truth and
their non-acceptance of the “official government story.”
“We believe
TOWER 7 is the crux of the entire investigation.
There was no official report as to how a 47 story concrete and steel
high rise, that was not struck by an airplane, collapsed at near
free-fall speed into it’s own footprint. That is until this week
(8/21/08) - Almost 7 years later after unrelenting public pressure.”
www.firefighters
for 911 truth.org, Tower 7, 21
Aug 2008, (September 21, 2009).
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158
3. www.globalresearch.ca,Centre
for Research on Globalization, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page
Lie, by Dr. David Ray Griffin, September 8, 2005, (Septermber 21, 2009) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=907
4. MailOnline
World News, “America
5. Ibid., MailOnline
World News. (Monday, September 14, 2009).
6.
thepeoplesvoice.org,
news & viewpoints, Environmental, political and social issues, Dr.
Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report, by John D.
Wyndham, PhD. (September 21 2009) . http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/09/p28469
7. See High Resolution
Video,
Collapse of WTC Building 7 and its comparison to “controlled
demolition” collapse of similar style building.
www.firefightersfor 911truth.org., Tower 7, 21 August 2008. (September
21, 2009)
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158
8. 911 Proof.com, 911 Fact
Sheet, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. See question #4. (September 25, 2009).
http://www.911proof.com/FactSheet.html
9. NIST NCSTAR 1A,
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade
Center Disaster, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center
Building 7, Executive Summary, ES.1. World Trade
Center Building
10. 911research.wtc7.net, Fires Versus
Steel Buildings, Other High-Rise Fires. (Septermber 20,2009),
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html
11. Fire Protection
Engineering, The
Official Magazine of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Life
Safety In High-rise Buildings After 9/11, By: W. Gene Corley, P.E.
(September 21, 2009).
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/department.asp?issue_id=14&i=171
12. LAFIRE.COM, Los Angeles
First Interstate Bank Fire, (September
21, 2009).
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm
13 Nation Master.com, Encyclopedia:
One Meridian Plaza
14. The New York Times, Real Estate, A Vacant
Tower in Philadelphia
15. www.nytimes.com, The New York
Times on the Web. US Report on Trade Center
16. cms.firehouse.com,
Firehouse.com, Photostories, Fire Sweeps Landmark
Caracas Office Tower
17. www.cbsnews, CBS News
World, Towering
Inferno In Caracas, Military Joins Battle
Against Blaze In City's Tallest Building, by
Francis
Grace, CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004, (September 21, 2004).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
18. What Really Happened.com, The Madrid
19. BBC
News, Fatal Fire Destroys Beijing Hotel, Mandarin
Oriental Hotel Fire Video, 9 February 2009, (September 21, 2009). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7879571.stm
20. 911research.com, Other
Skyscraper Fires, The
Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire, (September 21, 2009).
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
21. New York
Times, N.Y. / Region, Engineers Suspect Diesel
Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center , by
James Glanz, Published Thursday November 29, 2001.(September 26, 2009).
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html
22. Want to
Know.info, 9/11 Commission Report Questioned by Over 100 Professors.
(September 21, 2009) http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911
23.
“The task of providing the definitive explanation of the
collapse of WTC 7
was given to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Although NIST had been expected to issue its report on this building
along with its report on the
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201
“Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has
reported that it has been ‘fully hijacked from the scientific
into the political realm,’ with the result that scientists
working for NIST ‘lost [their] scientific independence,’
and became little more than ‘hired guns.’’ Referring in particular to
NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be
approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency,
and the Office of Management and Budget—‘an arm of the Executive Office
of the President,’ which ‘had a policy person specifically delegated to
provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.’ See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201
(Emphasis mine.)