Thursday, 31 July 2008

Letter to Congressman Robert Wexler - From Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (27/7/08)

Dear Congressman Wexler:

My name is Richard Gage, AIA, a 20-year licensed practicing architect and member of the American Institute of Architects. I am founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., and I am asking for your help in a matter of grave importance to the United States of America.

Just over a year ago, I heard on a radio program new facts and compelling arguments regarding the terrible events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I was stunned. After completing some investigation, I realized that we had not been told the truth about the events of that day.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was born and we began an online petition drive for fellow architects and engineers who are also determined to learn and publicize what really happened to the three World Trade Center Towers that collapsed on 9/11.

We developed a multimedia presentation that exposes the myth of the official explanation using simple, rational forensic inquiry and basic physics. I travel the country speaking to building professionals and others to expose the fallacies. The response to this presentation is the same everywhere I go. A simple show of hands before and after reveals that about 90% of those who believe the "fire-weakened steel" hypothesis come to accept the "controlled demolition with explosives" hypothesis after the presentation. The explanations of the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 offered by FEMA and NIST defy laws of physics. This is easy to prove and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The existing, prevalent physical evidence shows that the explanations offered cannot be true. That such serious inconsistencies remain unaddressed, and that additional questions remain unanswered – even unasked – is untenable. We must pursue them now. operates an increasingly popular website that receives more than a thousand daily visits. We host over 2,000 petition signers, of whom more than 400 are degreed/licensed architects and engineers. Our licensed A/E's have agreed to uphold a code of ethics upon obtaining their licensure and they are meeting that obligation today by responding with great courage to the myth that we know as 9/11.

They ask the following questions and document these observations, which are just a few of many that remain unanswered or ignored by those who, at the behest ultimately of the White House, directed the official investigations:

• Why did more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard at the onset, and during, the collapse? Why did we not know about these 10,000 pages of FDNY "oral history" evidence until August, 2005 – and only then after a court order for their release? FDNY's own Chief of Safety, Albert Turi, and FDNY's nationally recognized Chief, Ray Downey, the "premiere collapse expert in the country" according to a fellow chief, both spoke of the presence of explosives in the Towers prior to their failures. More than 100 testimonies referring to multiple, violent explosions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA.

• What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the complete obliteration of more than 1,100 human bodies that were never found?

• How were massive structural steel members hurled from the Twin Towers at 70 mph – some of them landing 600 feet away?

• Why were most windows within 400 feet of each tower blown out?

• Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?

• Why were there explosive ejections of dust & gases (squibs) 20, 40 and 60 stories below the rapidly descending "collapse" in each tower? These can be seen in many publicly available videos and show rapidly ejecting pulverized building materials – over 200 feet a second.

• How did the elevated building mass destroy 80,000 tons of structural steel at near free-fall speed , and with such radial symmetry? Given the asymmetrical structural and fire damage and the tendency of any disorder to grow over time (as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the falling building sections should have "rolled off" of the intact sections below, resulting in only partial collapses.

• Given that open-air jet fuel fires and normal office fires both burn at a maximum of around 1,500° F., and the melting point of steel is around 2,700° F., what thermal energy source produced the tons of molten metal observed flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse – and also seen for weeks after 9/11/01 in the basements of the Twin Towers and Building 7 by numerous witnesses, including the WTC structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.

• What explains the chemical evidence of thermite , an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams? In Appendix C of its BPAT Report, FEMA documented that "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or jet fuel or office fires.

• What is the source of the billions of microspheres consisting of previously molten iron in all the pulverized concrete of the World Trade Center? The United States Geological Survey, in its "Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust Report," and RJ Lee Group, Inc., in its December 2003 WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology, both document these once-molten drops of metal without explanation. These microspheres also contain the chemical signature of thermite, an incendiary material used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

• Why did Building 7 start its sudden and uniform collapse at an acceleration rate nearly that of a body in free fall? Video analysis shows the upper portion of the structure accelerating at the maximum rate gravity allows. This can only mean that the structure below offered no resistance. What mechanism can account for the simultaneous failure of the critical number and distribution of columns required to produce this rate of acceleration? NIST now attributes the catastrophic collapse of Building 7 to "normal office fires," with little to no contribution from falling debris or diesel fuel. At this suggestion by NIST, are we to suddenly accept that our understanding of fire science, materials and structural behavior has been deeply flawed? The American Institute of Architects has steadfastly resisted changes to the building codes after 9/11! Here is the potent 5-minute AE911Truth executive summary testimony delivered to NIST on Dec 18, 2007.

On behalf of the more than 2,000 petition signers at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – and of the thousands of citizens becoming aware of this deception regarding the destruction of these three high-rises on 9/11 – I urge you to spend ONE HOUR of your undivided attention to review the stunning evidence that answers these crucial questions.

Joel Hirschorn, Ph.D., Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and petition signer, states "First, let the technical truths emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political and conspiracy issues."

We have the technical expertise to support your own research into the collapses of the 3 World Trade Center high-rise "collapses" on 9/11, and we offer ourselves in service to you.


Mr. Richard Gage, AIA
cc: Members of the Board,, Inc.

Richard Gage lays out the physical proof that the World Trade Centre Towers were demolished using explosives. One cannot argue against the forensic evidence here.

911 was obviously an Inside Job and it is up to brave politicians, members of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Military to take a stand and launch a criminal investigation into the attacks.

**Readers please note: the first comment appearing under the article here is from a serial disinformation pest named Arthur Scheuerman.

This man has a long record of putting up false and distorted arguments in order to "debunk" evidence. However, a careful examination of his claims always reveals his explanations to be in conflict with the facts about what was observed. You will note that his primary tactic, evident in his reply, is to miscast the evidence at hand in order to downplay the significance of various critical observations. A man with his fire engineering background(!) should know better than to put forward such gross misrepresentations- lest we conclude that his actions here represent a deliberate attempt to deceive. Although Scheuerman puts up "clever arguments" he is wrong.

In this particular instance you can observe that Mr Scheuerman opens with a nasty little attack on Gage and other experts involved in the 911 truth movement, essentially claiming that there is no hard evidence back up their conclusion that explosives were used to demolish the World Trade Centre buildings. In this endeavour he begins with numerous appeals to authority figures- most of whom worked on the NIST report- a DISCREDITED investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers. Citing a BBC documentary he also refers to the opinion of demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who said in relation to explosives being used on WTC7: “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”

Yet, on Mark’s own website he clearly states how one of his demolition jobs posed a significant problem to the surrounding historic structures - that there were old glass windows on buildings facing the target building and yet he was able to demolish this building (a steel framed structure) without causing hardly any window breakage: “There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion,…”

Clearly not all expert opinion with regard to the WTC collapses can be trusted. We must therefore rely solely on the HARD EVIDENCE and scientific fact to determine the truth. We cannot accept Mr Scheuerman's assurances that the "recognised experts" have got it right.

Taking the side of science, we can see that Scheuerman's next claims about the collapse of WTC7 do not provide a reasonable refutation of Gage's evidence based thesis-that this building required explosives for it to exhibit the symmetrical collapse that was observed. Scheuerman states that because we cannot see exactly how the lower section of WTC7 is collapsing we should not assume the collapse in lower section was symmetrical. The problem with Scheuerman's account is that although he advocates for asymmetric damage occurring in the lower floors he maintains that this would produce the symmetrical drop we all saw. However, his counter hypothesis, lacking any computer or practical modelling, should not lead to a symmetrical collapse. Logically, with various levels of resistance provided by Building 7's immensely strong steel frame, we should have seen a lopsided failure, if any.

Nevertheless, Scheuerman's observations about the fall of the interior of the building, right before the outer walls suddenly give way, are an exact match for how a classic controlled demolition is carried out: blowing the interior columns first so that the exterior collapse is drawn inwards.

Regardless of these collapse features we also have other, very definite indications that WTC7 was deliberately demolished- namely the fact that Molten Steel was found under this structure (no office fire can melt steel in the manner that was observed-ONLY EXPLOSIVE INCENDIARIES CAN DO THIS), and huge shockwave-like explosions which were seen to rip through the building just before it fell.

From the point where Mr Scheuerman writes, "Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc." the reader will encounter this debunker's regular pasted reply that pops up on many well informed 911 truth posts. Thankfully, I have thoroughly demolished such a paste in a previous encounter with this man. See my comments below his.

To Mr Scheuerman. You're doing the country a disservice with your shill debunking attacks. You are smart enough to know that most of what you write cannot possibly be true- especially your claims that the Molten Steel photographed in the rubble might be lead or aluminium. Yellow/orange coloured lead or aluminium is a LIQUID, not plastic as was observed in the photos. This is but one basic error of yours that leads me to suspect your motives.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 31th, 2008 and updated on Aug 1st.]


Arthur Scheuerman said...

Richard Gages' pseudoscientific deluge of wishful-thinking misinformation is typical of the absurd ideas put forward by the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. Real scientists rarely speak of the truth until they have spent much time and experimental effort examining the evidence. Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse or building demolition area, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some radio talk shows’ babble as gospel. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeated on the internet without any research or fact checking.

The recent BBC video utilized the top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene immediately and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of Building 5 from fire. These are all top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted for being in on the conspiracy.

Four years after the 9/11 attack and without inspecting any of the steel the Architect Richard Gage is listening to some equally uninformed Philosophy Professor and has an epiphany and from then on he knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How does he know all the columns failed at the same moment?

These lower columns were out of sight of the cameras. The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns had failed. Building 7 took over 13 seconds to collapse not 6.

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc.

Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these 'explosive' sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse.

The undamaged exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have had to have happened with controlled demolition.

When the undamaged south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. This bowing was witnessed and video taped by the Police Aviation Unit. In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when some floors apparently collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these 'explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe practically all the supposed 'explosive' sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and sagging floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive 'explosive' sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors after the top of the building began falling. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

Initial Collapse Cause

Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration.

It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses that buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and this also helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. Differential thermal expansion of the concrete and steel has also been shown by NIST to disconnect the knuckles (knuckles are the steel tops of the bent over bars in the trusses which are imbedded in the concrete slab) from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors.

All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. According the Professor Asif Usmani the UK expert Fire Protection engineer, Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (400 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of sagging trusses or ‘I’ beams after the fire ‘burns out’ or dies down can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns and core columns due to the contraction of the steel trusses or ‘I’ beams. Once the exterior columns buckling spread, along an entire wall removing support on one face, the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and the towers began to tilt. With all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have began falling straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top building section pulled the core over to the south. This is especially telling since with all the damage from the plane impact on the north side, the tower should have leaned over to the north. The South Tower's top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. With the tower top tilting all the columns would be out of alignment.

Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. This is coupled with the fact that the falling top section’s momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section's acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts were increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing in amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

In order for a column to support the loads it has to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. The fact is, columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists affecting floor truss stability. The sagging floor trusses gradually pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall in each tower and the column walls eventually buckled removing support on one side.

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than 'free fall' times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building's tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top, the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and plumb and this was impossible with the top of the building leaning causing eccentric angles of impact. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the east wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. Because of the weight of the accumulating collapsing floors, there was a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars.

Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana after the building top began to impact the floors, these wall columns may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns, these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than 'free fall' times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.

The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (500 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesn’t break up as it falls outward it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls, however, did break at the weak splices as they fell.

The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of the air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards sideways from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shafts built into the building. These vertical shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC openings in the side of the building.

The lightweight aluminum cladding's breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive 'squibs'. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.
After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity to the fire until the steel is glowing red, orange or yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer The deep seated fires which occur in the rubble are supplied with air because natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its bouyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draws in more air. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed. This temperature, however, is still incapable of melting steel.
These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards.

Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn't last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed. Thermite is hard to control and can’t be held against the columns because it would burn down through any material used to support it against the columns.

Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.

About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says "the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range." I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.

Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 4 of their buildings collapsed from fire? (Building 5 had a serious interior multiple floor collapse due to fire.) Do you know that the Port Authority of NY, NJ didn't have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on most of the exterior column, bolted splices. The long span truss floors were never tested for fire resistance at their design length. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings after they collapsed while the building engineers had them all along? I would think the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth would be accepting any excuse that would allow them to avoid the introspection necessary to fully realize their own lack of knowledge of fire safety precautions, even the wild idea that explosives or thermite was involved.

About the eye witnesses; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. Most of the people in tower 2 did not know tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and even felt the radiant heat produced by the fireball. When tower 2 collapsed most of the people in Tower 1 thought the sounds and vibrations came from the building they were in and they even felt the rush of air up the stairs as the air was compressed in the cellars. There can be backdrafts (smoke explosions) particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. There were extensive fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. The one elevator shaft that extended into the cellars had a fuel explosion from the jet fuel spilling down the shaft. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Explosives also produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf of blow out eardrums and usually blow out all the windows on the particular floor. This kind of sharp piercing crack was not heard. The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The reports of "explosions" in the cellars were also probably from such column or floor displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you imbed a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit.

In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced loud sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.

SpookyOne said...

Arthur, you goose. Here we go again. I've already dealt with your opening remarks in my post, so here is my pasted reply to your pasted comment continuing from the part "Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc." downwards.

The original post over which this reply was framed can be found here:

Sir, your reply to my post was most intriguing. However, the argument you provided was totally inadequate (failed) with regard to debunking the evidence of molten steel and thermate/thermite products found in the rubble of all three World Trade Centre buildings.

Your lengthy reply consisted of two parts. The first part (that avoided the molten steel and thermate issues) was a highly involved explanation that appeared to account for reports of explosions and the observed exterior warping and subsequent collapse of the Towers. The warping hypothesis you provide actually appears reasonably sound.
On the other hand your explanation for the heavy duty explosions reported from within the towers does not gel with the testimony or later observations. Furthermore, your overall theory in relation to the "global collapse" does not account for the rapid collapse rates- rates of collapse that defied the laws of physics in terms of non-explosive hypotheses (see below for more details).

The second part of your reply, which does directly address the evidence in question, is simply wrong and contains a number of highly suspicious "errors" and distortions that I find incredulous coming from such a highly educated and experienced person such as yourself. I find it hard to believe that these are simply mistakes on your part.

The most important thing to note is that your alternative (non-demolition) "take" on the evidence- indicating that the fires caused the collapse of the towers- rests on the localised "bowing" observed on single facings of the structure. That is the sum of your evidence in support of a fire induced collapse (other than the the presence of a weak fire, which is, in itself, problematic). The other "arguments" you put forward in your rebuttal are not based on any specific evidence but are simply failed refutations of the available science that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. In otherwords you disprove nothing presented in the blog post.

I will now deconstruct your argument showing that it is made almost entirely of dubious, misleading or outright false claims.

PART 1. The significance of the "bowing" and the validity of your "global collapse" hypothesis.

Although significant, the bowing witnessed in the towers does not necessarily indicate the fires were the cause of this feature despite the computer "modeling" undertaken by NIST- modeling that has since been disputed.
NIST never fully disclosed the workings of its computer models and there are reports that they manipulated their simulations to ENSURE a failure when the data did not support it: (You stated that "It is clear from the computer studies." It is not clear at all). The bowing could just as easily be attributed to a controlled demolition process (for which we have hard evidence).

Comparing the two possibilities with regard to the warping high in the towers we have:

A. The position that the relatively weak fires caused the steel in the floor trusses to expand unevenly and dislodge themselves thereby moving the perimeter columns out of alignment and leading to the collapse. [Evidence to support this comes from the NIST Investigation- an investigation that has been thoroughly debunked]; and

B. The building's structure was weakened through the use of thermate/thermite-type incendiaries for which we have two sources of hard evidence:

b1. The first, and most damning, is from scientific analysis on WTC steel and dust samples indicating a match for thermate-incendiary products (addressed in the blog post).

b2. The second is the observation of molten iron or steel in the rubble and, specifically in relation to the bowing you cite, a hot bright yellow orange liquid flaming from the side of the towers near the collapse points. Skeptics and 911 Truth academics generally accept that this flowing liquid is a metal. The 911 truth academics contend that it resembles the product of a thermate/thermite reaction and is causing damage to the structure. The skeptics claim that it is molten aircraft aluminium. However, it is unlikely to be fire melted aluminium since the colour indicates it is at an impossibly hot temperature- in excess of 1000 degrees celsius. The fires were not this hot, and in any event we would expect to see molten aluminium as silver in colour.

So far we can see the second hypothesis is the one best supported by the established evidence.

Furthermore, even if we believe the towers did end up bowing from the fires this does not necessarily mean this section should fail, or that a localised collapse would TOTALLY DEMOLISH the more robust lower portion of the towers- and in a manner and speed comparable to an explosive demolition (with a collapse front moving downwards encountering resistance from the lower levels comparable to air, rather than fixed steel).

On this point (the rapid collapse rates) you have provided a detailed explanation describing how the towers fell down so fast because:

"Once the columns got out of plumb [alignment], there would have been little resistance to their buckling at their weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the building gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns."

However, when compared to computer models using extremely conservative variables, ones that do not account for ANY resistance of the bolts- having the floors suspended in mid air, we find your explanation is still impossible.

It has been shown that the collapse times for WTC 1, 2 & 7 were too fast for any non-explosive hypothesis. This scientific paper shows that even if the floors were SUSPENDED in air, with NO COLUMN SUPPORT- of any kind- the rate of collapse would be equal to or slower than the official 11 second collapse time cited by NIST.

Taking into consideration the energy required to pulverise the concrete, or overcome, even weak joins, and push through the stationary lower structure, we would see results in collapse times considerably longer than what was observed.

You did try to cover yourself against this observed lack of resistance seen during collapse by stating that perhaps the outer walls of the towers "peeled out like a banana ... that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times...and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of the impacted floors above." If this is so, then what process caused the massive pulverisation of the concrete in the towers from very early in the collapse ? It was not simply residual dust, or damage caused by flying aluminium paneling (that you mention later), but destruction on a massive scale.
If the floors all took off and started their falls before being impacted from above, there would not have been such phenomena (even for poor quality concrete). You can't have it both ways. This position on the collapses does not marry with the observed data.

You also act as an apologist for NIST's complete lack of computer modeling on the collapses (as opposed to the fire damage "modeling") by stating that they did not run these simulations because "after collapse began the chaotic impact of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analysed accurately with even the strongest computers." Nevertheless some simple computer modeling is very useful in setting up theoretical boundaries- and has been done by independent researchers to prove certain points. For example in an extreme case computer model, where there is no column resistance at all (a scenario already mentioned in this reply), the rate of collapse is still equal to what was observed !! No wonder NIST avoided running such simulations.

You also believe the "lightweight aluminium cladding's breaking free from the buckling columns would account for the huge dust clouds" and other flash phenomena associated with the explosive demolition hypothesis. The source of the flashes I will leave open to interpretation but the aluminium cladding would not account for the massive pulverisation of the concrete that WAS the dust clouds. You imply that the dust clouds are easily explained but you can only do so by pushing an oversimplified and grossly misleading version of events.

Another claim you make is the fact that no "characteristic tears and fractures" were found on the steel in the debris that would have indicated explosives were used. There are two problems with this declaration. Firstly, some of the steel beams photographed in the rubble had unusual features that could be interpreted as damage due to explosives and/or incendiaries Secondly the clean up site was a restricted area (even to FEMA investigators) and the few hundred pieces of steel made available during the initial investigation (out of hundreds of thousands) were vetted by the same company that cleaned up the Oklahoma City Bombing - an incident in which there is abundant evidence of a cover up involving more than one explosive device.

Nevertheless, despite the inadequacies of your arguments thus far, my post was centred on the key smoking guns of Molten Steel and the thermate traces- topics which we shall now consider along with the remainder of your case.

PART 2. The latter part of your essay's "rebuttal" makes an attempt to dismiss clear evidence in support of the explosive demolition hypothesis by resorting to bogus claims or heinous distortions of the data. In this part of your reply we can easily see that you are grasping at straws. I will cover 9 points of "gross error" therein:

A. Your suggestion that hot forge-like temperatures (as per a blacksmith's forge) were achieved in the rubble pile, causing steel beams to heat and become red is both preposterous and deceptive. You attempt to downplay the facts by suggesting the steel was only red whereas it was orange yellow - indicating an extreme furnace-like temperature and not at all the "mundane" occurrence you attempt to portray. Furthermore, this unique phenomena occurred independently in three (!) separate locations (WTC 1, 2 & 7) as evidenced by photographs, eyewitness reports and NASA thermal imaging.

B. You then imply that those iron rich microspheres, found in abundance in the WTC dust, are due to rescue/clean-up-crew oxyacetylene torches. This account of events is simply not true. Some of these metal samples were collected on the day of the attacks away from the WTC site and BEFORE these operations were underway. You should already know this. I find it interesting that you avoid directly naming the microspheres as if doing so would point to their origins (within dust samples that largely consisted of pulverised concrete) and that the nature of these samples was of microscopic sized particles (sizes we associate with explosive forces rather than with a low velocity crushing force).

C. Your worst suggestion is that the molten metal in the rubble pile may be battery lead. However, hot lead at a yellow orange colour is a liquid and would not be be in this plastic state. Lead melts while it is still silvery in colour. This basic error casts doubt on your whole agenda. Surely you know that it is not lead. Your other suggestions that the molten metal may be due to aircraft aluminium or computer circuit boards is similarly ridiculous- especially the latter proposition.

D. Your contention that because the EPA reported 400 different types of chemicals in the pile we might expect to see some sort of thermate reaction in any event, and by implication, at three separate rubble sites (WTC 1, 2 & 7) strains credibility once more. Your whole argument here is nothing but desperate conjecture. And your claim that what we witnessed could not have been a thermate-type reaction because it "wouldn't last hours or days" does not negate the fact that molten metal was found at WTC ground zero in the hours and days following the attacks, and that evidence of a thermate reaction was nevertheless discovered on steel samples originating from the site.

E. You also try to imply that the data indicating thermate-type products is due to contamination with other building materials even though the standard being applied here is the same for similar forensic investigations dealing with arson that might be similarly contaminated. You do not address the fact that the thermate products were specifically evidenced from the iron rich microspheres- microspheres that must have experienced superhot temperatures exceeding 1300 degrees celsius (steel melting point) and being entirely consistent with a thermate reaction.

F. You cite Dr Frank Greening. His concrete pulverisation calculations have been proven wrong. Even for sub-par concrete (that you claim is susceptible to pulverisation) there would be inadequate energy in order to gain the required level of destruction we witnessed.

G. As for the WTC Architects hiding the building plans because of "deficiencies in design"- you will find that it was the N.Y. City Port Authority that held back these documents presumably to avoid POTENTIAL litigation whilst the official investigations were underway. These people might have reasonably been afraid of perceived deficiencies, not actual. This scenario is entirely understandable given that the managers of this entity would want to hinder any legal threat to themselves regardless of whether the designs were flawed or not. We cannot assume the design plans were flawed because they have been held back. The plans might have been held back because they showed the towers were stronger and more resistant to collapse than previously thought. Eventual analysis of the blueprints will reveal which is the more likely case.

And as for your claim that "5 of their buildings collapsed from fire" (in relation to those design "deficiencies") ... now you are really throwing words around !! Show me the five buildings that collapsed from fire and the evidence for it. So far you have struck out on the Twin Towers. The other three buildings in question (not mentioned thus far) are World Trade Centres 5, 6 and 7. I shall leave WTC 6 and 7, and focus on WTC 5. You mention that Building 5 suffered "a serious interior multiple floor collapse from fire." The reality is that despite the building being smashed by falling debris from WTC 1 and being COMPLETELY ALIGHT (unlike the towers), only a portion of its floors failed (4-9), and this collapse was quickly arrested (!) by the lower floors (1-3). A fairly strong design, wouldn't you say ?

H. You continue to white wash eyewitness testimony of multiple and massive explosions that occurred many floors below the fire zones by implying that the timing of these explosions occurred only with the aircraft impacts or were concurrent with the WTC collapses. This is blatantly not true.

You also claim that aviation kerosene was probably responsible for reports of the lower floor elevator explosions and basement explosions. However this is highly unlikely in that most of the kerosene would have been consumed in the fireballs. According to your view tons of unignited jet fuel ran down 300+ meters of elevator shafts to then explode in the lower floors or basement levels. Over such a distance the surviving kerosene would have been thinly spread and unable to wreak such extensive damage.

Furthermore, you make a number of generalisations about the nature of the explosions that occurred in the buildings- with regard to pressure levels and burst ear drums stating that, "this kind of sound was not heard." I would not be so sure. The testimony is not detailed enough to completely determine the facts without further review or investigation.We do know that the explosions were massive, that they knocked people off their feet, knocked them senseless, that experienced firefighters reported bombs going off all over the place and that one explosion destroyed a 50 ton machine press in the basement levels. Most explosion survivors appear to have been protected from these events by walls. People in close proximity, whose eardrums would have burst, were most likely killed.

I have noted that throughout your attack on the eyewitness testimony you tended to portray significant evidence as "mundane." This is best summarised with your false claim that, "The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition." You imply that there were no explosions before the time of the collapse whereas, if you bothered to read the last link I provided, you will find there were many- exactly as you said "would have happened with controlled demolition."

I. Finally you mention the extensive to the damage lobby and cellar, attributing this to torque forces and jet fuel. I'm sure you would agree that torque forces and jet fuel would be unable to obliterate that 50 ton machine press. (and see this link )

You seem to resort to ANY explanation, no matter how implausible, in order to avoid the specific evidence and phenomena indicating the controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

In conclusion I think the reports and evidence supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis CANNOT be explained away by any of the claims you made. Most notably some of the claims you make reveal you to be either grossly ignorant of certain scientific facts and observed phenomena (especially when it suits your debunking agenda) or that these blatant "errors" you commit are indicative of a deliberate attempt at deception on your part.
The evidence stands.