Beyond - Misinformation - 2015, Notas de estudo de Bioquímica

Baixe Beyond - Misinformation - 2015 e outras Notas de estudo em PDF para Bioquímica, somente na Docsity! BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 Review Committee Sarah Chaplin, Architect and Urban Development Consultant, Former Head of School of Architecture and Landscape, Kingston University, London Dr. Mohibullah Durrani, Professor of Engineering and Physics, Montgomery College, Maryland Richard Gage, AIA, Founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Dr. Robert Korol, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Retired Professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies, McMaster University, Ontario Robert McCoy, Architect Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University Author Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Technical Editor Chris Sarns Contributing Writers Craig McKee Chris Sarns Andrew Steele BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704 © 2015 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N The World Trade Center site in New York City. The former footprints of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are center. The former footprint of WTC 7 is at the bottom left. 3 4 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H One principle of the scientific method is especially relevant in the early stage of an investigation when data is being gathered and a hypothesis is being formulated. “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences,” observes David Ray Griffin, a profes- sor emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology who has written extensively about the philosophy of science and about the events of September 11, 2001. “[W]e properly assume, unless there is ex- traordinary evidence to the contrary, that each in- stance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.”1 With that principle in mind, we will review the his- tory of high-rise building fires and failures to help us establish what should be considered, or should have been considered, the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. High-Rise Building Fires and Failures The history of steel-framed high-rise buildings spans about 100 years. Setting aside the events of September 11, 2001, every total collapse of a steel- framed high-rise building during that period of time has been caused by controlled demolition. In comparison, fires have never caused the total col- lapse of a steel-framed high-rise building, though high-rise building fires occur frequently. Formulating a Hypothesis This chapter provides a starting point from which to examine the competing hypotheses of fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. First, it will review the history of high-rise building fires and failures. Then it will examine the features that distinguish fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. Before and after photos of World Trade Center Building 7. 1 5 Modern steel-framed high-rises generally endure fires without being structurally compromised be- cause they have fire protection to prevent the steel from heating to the point where it loses a significant amount of its strength. This is usually in the form of gypsum board (drywall), concrete, or sprayed-on insulation. To illustrate the performance of steel-framed high- rise buildings throughout history, let us first exam- ine the instances in which fires have caused the total or partial collapse of high-rise buildings. In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an international historical survey of fires in multi-story buildings (defined as four or more stories) of all kinds that resulted in total or partial collapse.2 From news data- bases, published literature, and direct inquires with 23 organizations, the survey identified 22 fire-induced collapses between 1970 and 2002. Originally, the survey included WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. However, it was revised in 2008 to remove WTC 1 and WTC 2, because, according to NIST, their destruction did not result solely from fire, but from a combination of structural damage, dislodged fire- proofing, and fire caused by the airplane impacts. However, in this chapter, because fire was report- edly the proximate cause, we will discuss WTC 1 and WTC 2 as fire-induced failures. In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether the structural damage and reported dislodging of fireproofing are sufficient reasons to differentiate WTC 1 and WTC 2 from other steel-framed high-rise buildings that have experienced fires. The results of NIST’s survey were as follows: Partial Collapses Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, 15 were partial collapses, with five of those occurring in buildings that were comparable to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in terms of size or construction (over 20 stories or steel-framed or both). The five are: ■■ One New York Plaza, a 50-story steel-framed building that experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams on the 33rd and 34th floors dropping onto their supporting girders; ■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza, a 15-story steel-framed building in Montreal, Canada, that experi- enced a partial collapse of its 11th floor; ■■ WTC 5, a nine-story steel-framed building in the WTC complex that experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays on September 11, 2001; ■■ The Jackson Street Apartments, a 21-story reinforced concrete building in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, that experienced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly; and ■■ CESP 2, a 21-story reinforced concrete building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, that experi- enced a substantial partial collapse of its central core. The remaining 10 partial collapses occurred in buildings with eight or fewer stories and construct- ed of materials including concrete, brick, wood, or masonry with cast iron. None were steel-framed. Total Collapses Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, seven of them (including WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7) were total col- lapses. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 stand out from the WTC 5 on September 11, 2001. WTC 5 on September 21, 2001. B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N 8 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H Table 1: The Features of Controlled Demolition versus Fire-Induced Failure CONTROLLED DEMOLITION FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE The collapse is total, leaving virtually no parts of the building standing. The collapse is usually partial (always partial in the case of steel-framed buildings), leaving much of the building standing. The onset of collapse is always sudden. The onset of collapse is gradual, with visible building deformations appearing prior to the actual collapse. The collapse lasts a matter of seconds. The collapse takes place over many minutes or hours. The collapse typically starts at the base of the building, though they can be engineered as top-down also. The collapse occurs randomly anywhere in the building. The building descends symmetrically through what was the path of greatest resistance, though asymmetrical collapses are sometimes engineered on purpose. Collapse is always asymmetrical. The building typically descends to the ground at near free-fall acceleration. The descent of falling portions of the building is slowed or stopped by the lower sections of the building. “Demolition squibs” (isolated explosive ejections) are visible outside the main zone of destruction. Explosions only occur at the location of fires, if at all. Concrete and other materials are sometimes pulverized, resulting in fine dust clouds. Concrete and other materials are not pulverized. Most of the building’s remaining structure is left intact or in large sections. The building’s steel structure is totally or mostly dismembered. The building’s steel structure is left mostly intact, even if heavily damaged. of the four smaller non-steel-framed buildings that NIST’s 2002/2008 survey identified as having suffered total collapse from fire). If we look closely at the five buildings in NIST’s survey that were over 20 stories or steel-framed or both, and that suffered partial fire-induced collapse, we find that none of them exhibited the features of controlled demolition in Table 1 above. ■■ One New York Plaza experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams dropping onto their supporting girders on two floors. ■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza experienced a partial collapse of its 11th floor, which was arrested by the floor below it. ■■ WTC 5 experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays. ■■ The Jackson Street Apartments experi- enced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly. ■■ CESP 2 experienced a substantial partial collapse of its central core. The degree of deformation prior to collapse is unknown. Other than possibly experiencing little defor- mation prior to collapse, CESP 2 exhibited no other feature of controlled demolition. In comparison, as we will discuss in the chapters ahead, the destruction of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, while WTC 1 and WTC 2 exhibited eight out of the nine features listed in the table (the collapse WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not start at their bases). 9 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N What Is the Most Likely Hypothesis? We now have two main observations to help us es- tablish the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. First, the probability of fire causing the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building is exceedingly low. Such an event has never occurred prior to or since September 11, 2001. On the other hand, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building in history has been caused by controlled demolition. Second, fire-in- duced failures exhibit virtually none of the features of controlled demolition. Yet, as could be seen on the day of September 11, 2001, the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 exhibited nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced failure. If the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were caused by fire, this would make them the first steel- framed high-rise buildings in history to suffer total fire-induced collapse (combined with structural damage from the airplane impacts in the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2). They would also be the first fire-induced collapses to exhibit nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced collapse. Edward Munyak, a fire protection engineer, puts it this way: “Even one progressive global collapse would have been extraordinary. But to have three occur in one day was just beyond comprehension.” Let us revisit the principle introduced at the begin- ning of this chapter: “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences…. [W]e properly assume, unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that each instance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.” Indeed, we can properly assume, based on the above observations, that the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is that it was caused by controlled demolition. Only if there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary should an unprecedented cause be posited. In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether that extraordinary evidence to the contrary exists — or not. ■ Debris from the demolition of an unidentified building. Debris from the demolition of the Grand Palace Hotel/Claiborne Towers building, New Orleans. 10 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H This chapter provides a brief account of the investigations conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with a focus on how their hypotheses were developed over time. Toward the end are summaries of NIST’s final “probable collapse sequences,” which are the sequences of events that NIST claims led to the total collapse of the buildings. Whether the evidence supports the scenarios put forth by NIST will be discussed in the following chapters. In the last chapter, we established that the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was that it was caused by controlled demolition. Let us now consider a second principle of the scientific method that is relevant in the early stage of an investigation. David Ray Griffin describes it as follows: “When there is a most likely explana- tion for some phenomenon, the investigation should begin with the hypothesis that this possible expla- nation is indeed the correct one…. Doing otherwise would suggest that [the investigators’] work is being determined by some extra-scientific motive, rather than the simple desire to discover the truth.”1 With that principle in mind, we will now examine whether investigators started with or ever consid- ered the most likely hypothesis. The FEMA Building Performance Study “‘It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building,’ said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, ‘I was very surprised.’” The Official Investigations 2 13 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N Thus, rather than pursuing the most likely hypothe- sis for WTC 7’s destruction, FEMA posited a hypoth- esis that it found no evidence for; that involved an unprecedented cause; and that it acknowledged had “only a low probability of occurrence.” The NIST Investigation Amid a growing sense that the FEMA Building Performance Study was insufficient for the task of conducting a full-scale investigation, NIST began planning its own investigation in October 2001 to eventually succeed FEMA’s. The NIST investigation was announced on August 21, 2002, and was sched- uled to take 24 months. Although a new agency was assuming the task of investigating the World Trade Center destruction, a number of key members of the FEMA Building Per- formance Study would come to have principal roles in the NIST investigation. Some of them included: ■■ Therese McAllister and John Gross, who became Co-Project Leaders of the most important part of the NIST investigation, “Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis.” McAllister had been the editor of the FEMA Building Performance Study and the Chapter Leader of the report’s introduction. Gross had been a con- tributing author to the introduction. ■■ Ronald Hamburger, whose firm was awarded the most important contract related to WTC 1 and WTC 2: a study of the thermal-structural response of the buildings to the fires. Hamburger had been the Chapter Leader of FEMA’s chapter on WTC 1 and WTC 2. As discussed above, Hamburger initially thought that “charges had been placed in the build- ing” but apparently ruled out this hypothesis when he learned it was not compatible with the official account. ■■ Ramon Gilsanz, whose firm was awarded the most important contract related to WTC 7: the development of structural models and collapse hypotheses for WTC 7. Gilsanz had been the Chapter Leader of FEMA’s chapter on WTC 7. In its final plan, released in August 2002, NIST acknowledged that fire had never caused the total collapse of a high-rise building prior to September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, it pursued its hypothesis confidently, even going so far as to declare it as fact: “The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise build- ings where fire played a role.” NIST’s first progress report in December 2002 did not discuss hypotheses in any detail. In May 2003, it released a second progress report, which laid out three leading hypotheses for the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. One was FEMA’s “pancake theory” involving the failure of floor connections. Another suggested that the floor connections held strong, which then allowed the sagging floors to pull the ex- terior columns inward until they buckled. This would become the main initiating mechanism in NIST’s probable collapse sequence (see Table 2). The third hypothesis posited direct fire-induced column fail- ure. The May 2003 progress report, however, did not explore hypotheses for the destruction of WTC 7. In June 2004, NIST released a third, much more ex- tensive progress report containing interim findings and a working hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and this time WTC 7. Although the working hypothesis for WTC 1 and WTC 2 described the overall sequence of events from airplane im- pact to collapse initiation in relatively clear steps, NIST did not settle on an initiating mechanism or on a location in either building where it might have occurred. In regards to WTC 7, NIST suggested that an initial local failure somewhere below Floor 13, caused by fire and/or structural damage, trig- gered a column failure and subsequent vertical progression of failures up to the east penthouse. The resulting damage, NIST hypothesized, set off a horizontal progression of failures across the lower floors, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire building. COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS “WTC 7 collapsed because of the diesel fuel fires.”5 Although this was a leading hypothesis for several years, FEMA and NIST found no evidence to support it and NIST eventually ruled it out, stating, “Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.” “WTC 7 collapsed because of a massive, extremely hot fire. It was a raging inferno.”6 NIST concluded that the fires in WTC 7 were not unusual or extreme. In its final report it stated: “The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.” The thermal expansion of beams that initiated the collapse occurred “at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings.” NIST’s working hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 7 was further elaborated in a Popular Mechan- ics article from March 2005, which said: “NIST re- searchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by debris than the FEMA report indicated.... NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse.” In April 2005, NIST an- nounced that its technical work was nearly finished and that a draft report on WTC 1 and WTC 2 would be released for public comment in June 2005, fol- lowed by the final report in September 2005. NIST also announced for the first time that its report on WTC 7 would be released as a supplement to the other report, with a draft report due in October 2005 and the final report slated for December 2005. This schedule for the WTC 7 report was repeated at a public briefing on June 23, 2005. In its April 2005 progress report, NIST addressed the subject of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the first time — but only in relation to WTC 7: “NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.” NIST did not describe what methods it used to search for evidence of controlled demolition. Whether it conducted an adequate search for such evidence will be discussed in later chapters. Then, in September 2005, at a three-day technical conference where NIST released its final report on WTC 1 and WTC 2 (see Table 2 for a summary of NIST’s final probable collapse sequence), it announced that its report on WTC 7 would be further postponed, with the technical work being completed in January 2006, the draft report for public comment scheduled for May 2006, and the final report finished in June 2006. But NIST ended up significantly extending that time- line. A report that in June 2005 was set for release by the end of that year would end up being released almost three years later. In a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, NIST lead investigator Dr. Shy- am Sunder provided some possible insight into why the report was delayed so long. When asked about 14 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H Table 2: Summary of NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1 and WTC 2 STEP 1: Structural Damage from Airplane Impact The impact of the airplane severed 35 exterior columns and six core columns in WTC 1. An additional two exterior columns and three core columns were heavily damaged. In WTC 2, the impact of the airplane severed 33 exterior columns and 10 core columns. An additional exterior column and core column were heavily damaged. STEP 2: Redistribution of Loads The damage to exterior columns caused their loads to be redistributed mostly to the columns next to the impact zones. Damage to the core columns was distributed mostly to the core columns next to them that were still intact, and to a lesser extent to the exterior columns via the hat truss and floor systems. Additional loading redistribution occurred as some core columns were weakened and thus shortened, redistributing loads to the exterior columns. Loads increased by up to 25% in some areas and decreased by up to 20% in other areas. STEP 3: Dislodging of Fireproofing The sprayed-on fireproofing was completely dislodged on all sides of some exterior columns, trusses, core beams, and all the gypsum board was knocked off some core columns over a wide area of multiple floors. According to NIST, the dislodging of fireproofing was necessary for the collapses to have occurred: “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires... if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” STEP 4: Sagging of Thermally Weakened Floors Pulled Exterior Columns Inward Heated floors began to sag and pull the exterior columns inward, though in some areas the floor connections failed rather than pulling on the exterior columns. In WTC 1, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior columns occurred on the south side from the 95th to the 99th floors. In WTC 2, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior columns occurred on the east side of the building from the 79th to the 83rd floors. STEP 5: Exterior Columns Buckled, Causing Instability to Spread The bowed exterior columns buckled. Their gravity loads were transferred to the adjacent exterior columns, but those columns quickly became overloaded as well. In WTC 1, the south wall failed. In WTC 2, the east wall failed. STEP 6: Global Collapse Ensued The portions of the buildings above where the failures occurred tilted in the direction of the failed walls, accompanied by a downward movement. The stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the falling upper sections. COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS “WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from WTC 1; it wasn’t just the fires that made it collapse.” 7 Although NIST considered this hypothesis, it eventually ruled it out, stating, “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” 15 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N WTC 7, Dr. Sunder said that NIST had some “prelimi- nary hypotheses,” then added, “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” This was three and a half years into NIST’s WTC investigation. That same month, NIST awarded a new contract to Applied Research Associates for the job of determining the location and cause of the initiating event and the sub- sequent series of failures that led to the total collapse of WTC 7. The contract was appended in August 2006 to include the task of determining if any “hypothetical blast event or events” contributed to the destruction of WTC 7. As we will see in Chapter 6, NIST would use the analysis performed under this contract in its attempt to disprove the hypothesis of controlled demolition. In August 2008, the draft for public comment was finally released. That November, the final report was published. Diesel fuel fires and structural damage were no longer hypothesized to have contributed to the collapse. In- stead, normal office fires were said to be the sole cause, making it “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” ■ Table 3: Summary of NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 7 STEP 1: Debris from WTC 1 Ignited Fires Falling debris from WTC 1, which collapsed at 10:28 AM, ignited fires on at least 10 different floors between Floors 7 and 30. STEP 2: Fire Spread Because water was not available in WTC 7, as a result of the water main being broken when WTC 1 collapsed, the automatic sprinkler system and the firefighters were unable to suppress the fires. Fires on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 spread over the course of several hours. STEP 3: Thermal Expansion of Beams The fires heated steel floor beams in affected areas to temperatures up to 700°C (1,292°F), causing them to thermally expand and damaging the floor framing on several floors. STEP 4: Girder Walk-off On the northeast corner of the building below the 13th floor, thermally expanding beams below Floor 13 pushed a critical girder (girder A2001) off of its seat at core corner Column 79. This thermal expansion occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400°C (750°F), which is “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings.” STEP 5: Cascade of Floor Failures The unsupported girder, along with other local fire-induced damage, caused Floor 13 to collapse. This caused a cascade of floor failures down to Floor 5. STEP 6A: Buckling of Column 79 Due to the cascade of floors, Column 79 was left laterally unsupported over nine floors, causing the column to buckle eastward between Floors 5 and 14. As Column 79 buckled, its upper section dropped, causing the kink and subsequent fall of the east penthouse observed in videos. STEP 6B: Buckling of Columns 80 and 81 The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in Columns 80 and 81, as well as debris falling onto them and loads being redistributed to them, causing them to buckle. STEP 7: Propagation of Internal Column and Floor Failures All of the floor connections to Columns 79, 80, and 81 as well as the connections to the exterior columns failed, causing all the floors on the east side of the building to fall and leaving the exterior façade on the east quarter of WTC 7 a hollow shell. The interior column failures then progressed westward, with each north-south line of three core columns buckling in succession as a result of the loss of lateral support from floor system failures plus forces exerted by falling debris plus and the redistribution of loads from buckled columns. This sequence led to the drop of the screen wall and west penthouse. STEP 8: Failure of the Exterior Columns With loads redistributed to the exterior columns, the exterior columns buckled between Floors 7 and 14, causing the entire visible section of the building to drop uniformly as a unit, as observed in the videos. A floor plan of WTC 1. Rather than a conventional design where the support columns are arranged in a grid, the designers concentrated all of the columns at the center and the perimeter, creating a central core and an outer shell connected by horizontal floor trusses spanning from the center to the perimeter. WTC 1 during construction. A floor plan of WTC 7. According to NIST, Column 79 on the northeast side was the first column to fail. A view of the 47-story WTC 7 from the viewing area of WTC 2. 18 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H ures that NIST claims occurred are not apparent in the videos, which instead show the sudden fall and disintegration of the upper sections. Constant Acceleration through the Path of Greatest Resistance According to NIST, once collapse initiated, WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell in approximately 11 seconds and 9 sec- onds, respectively,5 each coming down “essentially in free fall.”6 To many observers, the speed of collapse was the most striking feature of their destruction. Yet, NIST’s explanation for why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed “essentially in free fall” was limited to a half-page section of its 10,000-page report titled “Events Following Collapse Initiation.” In this section, NIST attempted to explain the speed and completeness of the collapses simply by saying: The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points. The structure below the level of collapse initi- ation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the down- ward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of defor- mation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. However, NIST provided no calculations or mod- eling to support its claims. Instead it simply cited the videos as evidence. A Request for Correction to NIST’s report, filed under the Information Quality Act in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, argued that this was not scientifically valid: Here, NIST has not offered any explanation as to why (i.e. the technical cause of) the story below the collapse zone was not able to arrest the downward movement of the upper floors. The statement “as evidenced by the videos from several vantage points” is only an explanation of what occurred, but gives the reader absolutely no idea why it occurred. Basic principles of engineering (for example, the conservation of momentum principle) would dictate that the undamaged steel structure below the collapse zone would, at the very least, resist and slow the downward movement of the stories above. NIST’s use of the videos as evidence to explain why the lower structures failed to resist the fall of the upper sections was repeated by investigator John Gross in a talk he gave at the University of Texas in October 2006. In his talk, he actually refers to the video evidence as the reason why NIST did not need to perform analysis: “Once the collapse initiated, the video evidence is rather clear. It was not stopped by the floors below. So there was no calculation that we did to demonstrate what is clear from the videos.”7 But, as the Request for Correction pointed out, the inability of the lower structures to arrest the fall of the upper sections is what effectively claimed the lives of 421 first responders and 118 occupants at or below the impact zones,8 and thus it deserved thorough explanation: The families of the firefighters and WTC em- ployees that were trapped in the stairwells when the entirety of the WTC Towers collapsed on top of them would surely appreciate an ad- equate explanation of why the lower structure failed to arrest or even resist the collapse of the upper floors. In its reply, NIST stated: NIST carried its analysis to the point where “It was not stopped by the floors below. So there was no calculation that we did to demonstrate what is clear from the videos.” — NIST Investigator John Gross 19 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution…. [W]e were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse. Providing a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse While NIST acknowledges being “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse,” other re- searchers on both sides of the issue have analyzed the question extensively through methods other than computer model- ing. A number of papers supporting the hy- pothesis of controlled demolition have mea- sured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall,9 and there was never an observ- able deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. In January 2011, the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Me- chanics published a paper by Dr. Zdenek Bazant and Jia-Liang Le titled Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth. This paper was a response to The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refuta- tion of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, a paper critiquing Bazant’s earlier work attempting to explain why the lower structures provided so little resistance to the upper sections. In the 2011 paper, Bazant and Le claimed that the deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section was “far too small to be perceptible,” thus accounting for why the observed motion is “smooth.” Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and one of the authors of “The Missing Jolt,” and Richard Johns, a professor of Philosophy of Science, submitted a Discussion paper in May 2011 arguing that Bazant and Le used incorrect values for the resistance of the columns, for the lower structure’s floor mass, and for the upper section’s total mass. By simply correcting the values, Szamboti and Johns argued that Bazant and Le’s analysis actually proves that the deceleration of the upper section would be sig- nificant (if demolition were not involved), and that the collapse would arrest in about three seconds.10 While the Journal of Engineering Mechanics inexplica- bly rejected Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper as “out of scope,” Szamboti, Johns, and Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski, a world-renowned expert in structural mechanics, were able to publish a paper addressing Bazant and Le’s analysis in the International Journal of Protective Structures, titled Some Misunderstand- The Journal of Engineering Mechanics’ Rejection of the Szamboti-Johns Discussion Paper Although it is customary for journals to publish Discussion papers about previously published papers, Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper responding to Bazant and Le’s “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth” was never published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, despite passing peer review. Szamboti and Johns submitted their Discussion paper in May 2011. After a year they were told that their paper had been rejected by one peer reviewer (the second reviewer did not respond). Szamboti and Johns found the reviewer’s comments to be erroneous and submitted a rebuttal. The Journal then informed them that their paper had completed peer review and would only require editorial review. Another year passed with no action. In May 2013, Szamboti and Johns contacted the Journal’s editors. Three months later, the editors informed Szamboti and Johns that their Discussion paper was “out of scope” for the Journal. Szamboti and Johns appealed the matter to the ASCE’s Engineering Mechanics Institute Board of Governors, the body that oversees the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Without finding errors in Szamboti and Johns’ paper or explaining why it was appropriate to be deemed out of scope, the Board of Governors determined that Szamboti and Johns were treated fairly and stood by the Journal’s decision to reject the paper. Later, Roger Ghanem, the President of the Board of Governors, told Szamboti: “While your paper may very well be within the scope of the Journal, the Board’s review of your case was concerned with whether or not the submission was treated fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.” In this graph from Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper, the observed velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 is compared with the velocity calculated using Bazant and Le’s analytical method, but with corrected input values, showing significant decelerations at each floor.11 20 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H ings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis. Today, Bazant and Le’s paper is the sole piece of analysis upon which the official hypothesis’ expla- nation for the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rests. By rejecting Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics has sup- pressed criticism of Bazant and Le’s paper within its walls. But the papers discussed herein, published elsewhere, argue compellingly that the constant acceleration and lack of observable deceleration, by themselves, constitute irrefutable evidence that explosives were used to destroy WTC 1 and WTC 2. Pulverization, Dismemberment, and Explosive Ejection of Materials Because NIST stopped its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, it did not provide an explanation for the manner in which the buildings’ materials were destroyed. Pulverization and Dismemberment One of the most noticeable features of the two build- ings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of their concrete flooring. New York Governor George Pataki provided this account: There’s no concrete. There’s very little con- crete. All you see is aluminum and steel. The concrete was pulverized. And I was down here on Tuesday, and it was like you were on a for- eign planet. All over lower Manhattan — not just this site — from river to river, there was dust, powder two, three inches thick. The concrete was just pulverized.12 In addition, the buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered. Aside from some of the exteri- or walls at the base of each building still standing, vir- tually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. What can explain the near-total pulverization of ap- proximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring and the near-total dismemberment of 220 stories of steel structure? NIST provides no explanation, and gravity alone appears to be implausible. A simple analysis of the approximate amount of energy required to pulverize the concrete and dismember the steel structures indicates that about 1,255 gigajoules of energy would have been required, far exceeding the estimated 508 gigajoules of gravitational potential energy contained in the buildings.13 The near-total pulverization and dismemberment of the structures becomes even more difficult to ex- plain when we consider that the collapses occurred “essentially in free fall.” Near-total pulverization and dismemberment would require a tremendous colli- sion of materials at each floor, and yet NIST claims that the structure below “offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass.” The official hypothesis thus attempts to have it both ways: “minimal resis- tance,” “free fall,” deceleration “far too small to be perceptible” — and yet near-total pulverization and dismemberment of the buildings’ concrete and steel. But according to Dr. Steven Jones, a former physics professor at Brigham Young University, “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypoth- esis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.”14 The pulverized concrete submerged lower Manhattan in enormous dust clouds and blanketed the streets with several inches of dust. Debris from the dismembered structures of WTC 1 and WTC 2. 23 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N Table 4: How Supporters of the Competing Hypotheses Have Accounted for Each Area of Evidence NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION Sudden Onset Ignore the suddenness and claim the occurrence of a series of structural failures for which there is no evidence. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of the sudden detonation of explosives. Constant Acceleration Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Speculatively claim that the collapse became inevitable after conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives destroyed the lower structures before the upper sections reached them. Pulverization, Dismemberment, and Explosive Ejection of Materials Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Do not acknowledge in final report or in FAQs. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives pulverized, dismembered and explosively ejected the buildings’ materials. Demolition squibs Stop analysis at the point of collapse initiation. Do not acknowledge in final report. Speculatively claim in FAQs that they are “puffs of smoke” caused by compressed air. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of explosives destroying the structure ahead of the collapse front. Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions Ignore in final report. In FAQs, deny existence of evidence of explosions collected by the FDNY. When formally challenged, claim that the eyewitness accounts “taken as whole” do not support the hypothesis of controlled demolition. Acknowledge and interpret as testimonial evidence for the use of explosives. charges,” said Christopher Fenyo in his WTC Task Force Interview. John Coyle recalled in his interview, “I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards…. Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.”36 The Request for Correction filed with NIST in 2007 ar- gued that NIST had, among other problems, ignored the eyewitness evidence of explosions contained in the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews. NIST responded by saying that it had reviewed them, and, “Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers” — a markedly different position from the one given in its FAQs, which said that “There was no evidence (collected by…the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions….” In any case, MacQueen rejects NIST’s assessment, writing in the paper 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers: We have 118 witnesses out of a pool of 503. Over 23 percent of our group are explosion witnesses. In my judgment, this is a very high percentage of witnesses, especially when we consider…[that Interviewees] were typically not asked about explosions, and, in most cases, were not even asked about the collapses of the towers. What testimony we have was vol- unteered, and it therefore represents not the maximum number of witnesses to explosions but the minimum number. Conclusion In this chapter we examined five areas of evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their destruction. Table 4 above presents each area of evidence and shows how researchers supporting each of the competing hypotheses have accounted for this evidence. We found that NIST, because it decided to stop its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, performed “little analysis” of the buildings’ structural behavior during the process of their destruction, thus delib- erately ignoring any evidence that could be derived from it. As a result, NIST’s final report provides virtually no explanation for the evidence examined above. The very limited explanations NIST does pro- vide come mainly from its FAQs webpage, and are speculative rather than based upon scientific analy- sis. On the other hand, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their destruction. ■ 24 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H This chapter provides an overview of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction. The features that will be examined include WTC 7’s free fall, its dismemberment and compact debris pile, and eyewitness accounts of its destruction. In addition, anticipation by local authorities of WTC 7’s eventual collapse will be examined. In the last chapter, we examined the evidence re- garding the structural behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during their destruction and found that the hy- pothesis of controlled demolition much more read- ily, simply, and completely explains the available evidence than does the hypothesis of fire-induced failure. This was illustrated in part by the fact that NIST ignored and provided virtually no explanation in its final report for the behavior of WTC 1 and WTC 2 after the point of collapse initiation. We will now examine the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction and, in the same manner, evaluate whether it is more consistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition. Whereas NIST’s approach to WTC 1 and WTC 2 was to stop its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, NIST went beyond the point of collapse initiation with WTC 7. Yet, as we will see below, NIST still ignored a large amount of the relevant evidence, even going as far as attempting to deny the most important evidence: WTC 7’s sudden and symmetrical free fall. Sudden and Symmetrical Free Fall Today, NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 fell at a rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to The Destruction of WTC 7 4 25 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N slow down.1 David Chandler, a physics teacher who has studied the behavior of WTC 7 extensively, explains the significance of free fall in the article titled Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11: Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and op- posite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down…. Applying this to WTC 7, he explains: [F]ree fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buck- ling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the under- lying structure that would have slowed the fall…. Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible…. Chandler and others therefore interpret WTC 7’s free fall as evidence of controlled demolition. How does NIST explain the occurrence of free fall according to its hypothesis of fire-induced failure? To answer that question satisfactorily, we must first examine NIST’s initial attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall. NIST’s Denial of Free Fall On August 21, 2008 — six years to the day after NIST’s World Trade Center investigation was first announced — NIST released its draft report on WTC 7 for public comment. In it, NIST described the collapse time of WTC 7 as being 40 percent longer than the time it would take to collapse in free fall: The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds]…. Thus, the actual time for the up- per 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time…. NIST repeated this claim in its Questions and An- swers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (WTC 7 FAQs), stating unequivocally, “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.” NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, repeated it again at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, when asked the following ques- tion, which had been submitted by David Chandler: Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, eas- ily measurable quantity be set aside? Dr. Sunder responded by articulating the meaning of free fall in the clearest terms possible, but denied that is what happened in the case of WTC 7: [A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. What the analysis shows…is that same time it took for the structural model to come down…is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. NIST’s Alleged 5.4-Second Collapse Time The reason for the discrepancy between Chandler’s measurement and NIST’s measurement is contained in Dr. Sunder’s statement above, where he explains that NIST’s computer model showed a collapse time of 5.4 seconds. As Chandler comments in Part 1 of the video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall: Don’t you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds [NIST] measured for the collapse time just hap- pens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model? That kind of precision is incredibly WTC 7 is shown falling symmetrically into its own footprint. It accelerated at free fall for 2.25 seconds of its descent. 28 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H These eyewitness accounts are corrob- orated by MSNBC video footage of re- porter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC 7, and says, “Oh my god…. This is it.” About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video Sound Evidence for Explosions: There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: “The whole time you’re hearing ‘thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.’”…. When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall…. The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall. In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye- witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.7 It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed oc- curred before the collapse of WTC 1.8 Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction About an hour after the destruction of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM, the authorities at the World Trade Center began anticipating the collapse of WTC 7 with a high degree of confidence and precision. Their anticipa- tion was so strong that the media widely reported on WTC 7’s imminent collapse, with some news outlets even reporting the collapse before it occurred. A selection of accounts showing this widespread anticipation is presented in Appendix B on page 46. The official hypothesis would have us believe that the authorities’ anticipation was “evidence-based,” a prediction made on the basis of assessing the damage and fires in WTC 7. However, when examined closely, the high degree of confidence and precision suggests that it was instead knowledge-based. In other words, someone at the scene had foreknowl- edge that WTC 7 was going to be brought down and began warning others in order to avoid casualties and to create the cover story of a fire-induced failure. Thus, the warnings were couched as an evidence-based prediction that the building would collapse due to structural damage and fire. The view that the anticipation was knowledge-based rather than evidence-based is strongly supported by the following facts: ■■ NIST’s probable collapse sequence consists of an unprecedented and undetectable series of structural failures that could not be predicted on the basis of observing structural damage (which NIST later claimed did not contribute to the collapse) and fires. If we assume NIST’s hypothesis to be true, there would be no reason to anticipate a total collapse, even within the seconds before it occurred. Based on NIST’s scenario, the event that the authorities predicted had an infinitesimal probability of occurring until just seconds before it did. At that point, an extremely improbable chain of events unfolded and made their prediction correct. Such a scenario is not plausible. ■■ A number of buildings in the vicinity were on fire and sustained much greater damage from the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Yet authorities seized on WTC 7 as the one building that was certain to go down and established a safety zone around it. ■■ The FEMA Building Performance Study concluded that the best hypothesis it could come up with had “only a low probability of occurrence.” How were the authorities able to predict such a low-probability event? ■■ Engineers were “stunned by what happened to 7 World Trade Center” and unable to explain it. Even as late as March 2006, NIST’s MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield hears a loud sound from several blocks north of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my god…. This is it.” 29 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N lead investigator told New York Magazine, “I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” How were the authorities able to predict an event that engineers would be unable to explain even four and half years later? ■■ A CNN video captured both the sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and an emergency worker’s warning that WTC 7 was “about to blow up” just seconds before its destruction: [Sound of explosion]. Unidentified voice: “You hear that?” Voice of emergency worker #1: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down….” Voice of emergency worker #2: “Build- ing is about to blow up, move it back…. Here we are looking back, there’s a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down.”9 ■■ There are at least four accounts showing that a controlled demolition was being considered or planned. (See Appendix B on page 46.) Conclusion In this chapter we examined three areas of evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction, as well as the anticipation by local authorities of WTC 7’s eventual collapse. Table 5 above presents each area of evidence and shows how researchers supporting the competing hypoth- eses have accounted for this evidence. First, we found that NIST attempted to deny the most important evidence regarding WTC 7’s destruction: its sudden and symmetrical free fall. NIST later acknowledged that WTC 7 entered free fall, but it obscured the significance of free fall and provided no explanation for how it was accomplished. We then saw that NIST provided no explanation for WTC 7’s structural dismemberment and compact debris pile, and that it denied the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions. Finally, we saw that NIST provided a hypothesis of fire-induced failure that is incompatible with the high degree of confidence and precision with which the destruction of WTC 7 was anticipated. On the other hand — as with WTC 1 and WTC 2 — the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction. It also explains the high degree of confidence and precision with which WTC 7’s de- struction was anticipated. ■ WTC 7 before and after its collapse. Based on NIST’s probable collapse sequence, there would be no reason to predict a total collapse until seconds before it occurred. Table 5: How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Regarding the Structural Behavior of WTC 7 NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION Sudden Symmetrical Free Fall Attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall. Then acknowledge it but obscure its significance and provide no explanation. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives were used to remove all of the columns simultaneously. Structural Dismemberment into a Compact Debris Pile Terminate computer model shortly after collapse initiation and provide no explanation for observed phenomena. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives dismembered the structure and deposited it into a compact debris pile. Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions Deny the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of explosives. Foreknowledge of Destruction Provide a hypothesis that is incompatible with the high degree of confidence and precision with which the destruction of WTC 7 was anticipated. Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to be brought down. 30 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H This chapter provides an overview of evidence showing the occurrence of high- temperature thermitic reactions in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The evidence that will be examined includes molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, molten metal in the debris of all three buildings, sulfidated steel in WTC 7, and iron spherules and nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust. In the last two chapters, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 during their destruction. We will now turn to evidence showing the occurrence of high-tem- perature chemical reactions before and during the destruction of the buildings. As in previous chapters, we will evaluate whether this evidence is more con- sistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition. To guide our evaluation of the competing hypoth- eses, we will apply the third principle discussed earlier — “None of the relevant evidence should be ignored” — to the investigation of high-temperature chemical reactions. “Chapter 23: Explosions” of NFPA 921, which is the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations, states: “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria as well as any other significant data.” On the potential use of exotic accelerants, including thermite, NFPA 921 advises: “Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted steel or concrete.” As we will see below, NIST did not follow NFPA 921. Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions in much the same way it handled the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions 5 Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips. 33 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N ■■ NIST’s next claim is simply false. It is impossible for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach temperatures close to the 1,482°C (2,700°F) required to melt steel, particularly in an oxygen-starved debris pile. ■■ Finally, with the expression “Any molten metal in the wreckage,” NIST neither confirmed nor denied the existence of molten metal. In an investigation that followed NFPA 921, NIST would have sought to establish whether molten metal was present and, if so, what its source was. However, outright denial would be the approach used by NIST investigator John Gross. In a talk at the University of Texas in October 2006, he responded to a question about the presence of molten metal with the following answer: First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who has said so, nobody who’s produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yards. So I don’t know that that’s so. Steel melts at around 2,600°F. I think it’s probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a fire.5 Sulfidated Steel in WTC 7 In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote: Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]…suggests that sulfur released during the fires—no one knows from where—may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.6 The WPI professors, who were “shocked” by the “Swiss cheese appearance”7 of the steel, reported their anal- ysis in Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation: The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified…. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed….” A simple explanation for the source of sulfur, as well as the high-temperature corrosion and erosion, is “thermate,” which is produced when sulfur is added to thermite. In Revisiting 9/11—Applying the Scien- tific Method, Dr. Steven Jones explains: When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the steel melt at a much lower temperature, so instead of melting at about 1,538°C it melts at approximately 988°C, and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel…. The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. How did NIST respond to FEMA’s recommendation? First, NIST ignored it — thus ignoring what the The New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mys- tery uncovered in the investigation.” Second, NIST claimed that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, providing the following an- swer in its WTC 7 FAQs: Once [debris] was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distin- guishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics. Third, when asked at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, whether NIST had tested “any WTC 7 debris for explosive or incendiary chemical residues,” NIST lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder replied: The eroded, sulfidated steel from WTC 7 at the scrapyard before it was cut off and taken for testing. John Gross, who represented NIST on the FEMA Building Performance Study, poses next to the eroded, sulfidated steel. NIST would later claim that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, and John Gross would deny the existence of molten metal. 34 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H [T]here is reference often made to a piece of steel from Building 7…. But that piece of steel has been subsequently analyzed by Professor Barnett and by Professor Rick Sisson, who is also from [WPI]…and they reported in a BBC interview that aired on July 6 [2008] that there was no evidence that any residue in that…piece of steel had any relationship to an…incendiary device in the building. Besides contradicting NIST’s position that no identi- fiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, Dr. Sunder’s response raises the question: Why did NIST not ask to study that piece of steel if they knew it existed? Furthermore, why did NIST not perform experi- ments to verify the leading fire-based explanation for the source of sulfur, which was the buildings’ gypsum wallboard? Though NIST was not up to the task, a civil engi- neer named Jonathan Cole was. In his experiment documented in the video 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel, he used a wide flange beam packed with crushed gypsum board, crushed concrete, aluminum scraps, steel scraps, and diesel fuel, and he burned it for 24 hours, continually add- ing fuel such as brush, furniture, floor panels, and wood logs. At the end of his experiment he reported: The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel, and building materials did not cause any in- tergranular melting. So, if [these materials] did not cause the intergranular melting and sulfidation, then some uncommon substance that is not normally found in buildings must have caused it…. There is a reason why NIST…never conducted any experiments or found that source of sulfur in order to solve this deepest of mysteries. Perhaps NIST knew the most logical cause of the sulfidation of the steel is from some type of thermitic reaction…. Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the WTC Dust Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high tem- peratures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7. The RJ Lee Report Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust. An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed: Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, produc- ing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spheri- cal particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust. The 2003 version also reported that while iron par- ticles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust. Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report: The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of ex- tremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the min- eral wool. The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F). The USGS Report Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and pre- sented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.” 35 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N Steven Jones et al. Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other sci- entists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Tem- peratures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors: The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air. In addition to observing spherules of iron and sili- cates, their study discussed the presence of molyb- denum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F). Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quot- ing from the RJ Lee report): Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evapora- tion)…. These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed: [I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosili- cate is approximately 2,760°C. They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they con- trasted with the much lower maximum tempera- tures associated with the fires on September 11. The closest NIST has come to acknowledging the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC dust was in an email communication with an independent researcher following the release of NIST’s draft report on WTC 7. NIST replied to the researcher’s inquiry with a single sentence: “The NIST investigative team has not seen a coherent and credible hypothesis for how iron-rich spheres could be related to the collapse of WTC 7.”8 Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-lay- ered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level. A scanning electron microscopy image with EDS of an “iron-rich sphere” provided by USGS. A scanning electron microscopy image with EDS of vesicular alumino-silicate provided by RJ Lee. Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required PROCESS AND MATERIAL °C °F To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000 Reproduced from the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the WTC Destruction. 38 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H This chapter provides an overview of the analyses that NIST performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. The areas that will be examined include NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” in WTC 7 and the possible use of thermite, NIST’s estimates of fireproofing dislodgement in WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST’s testing of the steel temperatures, and NIST’s computer modeling. In the last three chapters, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 during their destruction, as well as evi- dence showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic reactions. We found consistently that NIST either denied the evidence, ignored it, or provided speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explained all of the evidence examined. In this final chapter, we will turn to evaluating the analyses that NIST performed to support its hypoth- esis of fire-induced failure. To guide our evaluation of NIST’s analyses, we will bring back the scientific principle discussed in Chapter 1: “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences…. [W]e properly assume, unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that each instance of a familiar occurrence was pro- duced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.” Because NIST’s hypothesis involves an unprece- dented cause to explain three instances of a familiar occurrence in one day, each of which exhibited near- ly all of the features of the same causal factor that brought about previous instances of that occurrence — namely, the procedure known as “controlled demolition” — the question we will ask is whether NIST’s Evidence for Fire-Induced Failure 6 NIST investigator John Gross poses next to a piece of eroded, sulfidated steel from WTC 7 in October 2001. 39 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N NIST has provided “extraordinary evidence” to sup- port its hypothesis. Hypothetical Blast Scenarios and Thermite Use The only substantive analysis that NIST performed regarding the hypothesis of controlled demolition was its consideration of “hypothetical blast sce- narios” for the destruction of WTC 7, carried out under a contract with Applied Research Associates beginning in August 2006. NIST’s analysis started with identifying a hypothet- ical blast event involving the minimum amount of explosive material re- quired to fail Column 79. It determined that to be a linear-shaped charge consisting of nine pounds of RDX. From there, it performed analyses to assess how much window breakage and noise would result — and whether it was feasible for someone to plant such explosives in the building. NIST concluded the following: ■■ [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage…. ■■ [T]he noise level at a distance of ½ mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB…. People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away…. ■■ Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection….1 NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” is a textbook example of straw man tactics, where an argument is constructed and then refuted to give the impression that an opponent’s argument has been defeated, when in fact the refuted argument is not the opponent’s. Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have seldom, if ever, argued that a high explosive such as RDX was used to destroy WTC 7. Rather, as the evidence examined in Chapter 5 strongly sug- gests, the leading hypothesis is that an explosive form of thermite called “nano-thermite” — possibly in combination with some form of explosives and other incendiaries — was used to destroy WTC 7. Using nano-thermite, instead of the more powerful RDX, would allow a perpetrator to demolish a build- ing while concealing the fact that he had planted explosives. Even though NIST was fully aware of nano-thermite technology2 and it knew that the leading hypothe- sis of controlled demolition involved some form of thermite, as evidenced by its FAQ (see below), it selected a “straw man” substance — RDX — for its hypothetical blast event. Thus, its analyses of the window breakage and noise associated with RDX are irrelevant. Furthermore, the evidence examined in Chapter 4 contradicts NIST’s claim that explosions were not observed by eyewitnesses or captured on video. Indeed, explosions were observed by eyewitnesses and captured on video. As one person at the scene recounted, “[I]t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.” Video evidence also contradicts NIST’s claim that window breakage did not occur. In partic- ular, a video that surfaced in 2008 clearly shows ver- tical sequences of explosions and window breakage on the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.3 In suggesting that “[o]ccupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed evidence of such ac- tivities [i.e., placing charges],” NIST also assumed that the planting of explosives would have happened without the knowledge of someone responsible for security at WTC 7. But proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have seldom suggested that the planting of explosives could have been accom- plished without the knowledge and complicity of someone in charge of security at WTC 7. This video, which surfaced in 2008, clearly shows vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage as WTC 7 begins to collapse. It can be viewed at http://AE911Truth.org/ downloads/video/WTC7-West.mp4 40 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H NIST’s analysis also assumed that a demolition of WTC 7 would have been executed in the manner of a typical commer- cial controlled demolition. But according to researcher Jim Hoffman, “[E]xplosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legiti- mate equipment…. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.” In fact, Hoffman argues, “Any such job would have been far simpler than the structural retrofit of the CitiCorp Tower” — a feat the owners successfully managed in 1978 without their tenants knowing about it, after learning that the building was likely to topple in a hurricane.4 Thermite Instead of Nano-Thermite NIST advanced a second straw man argument when it tackled the idea in both of its FAQ documents that thermite or thermate alone were used to destroy the buildings. NIST gave the following answer in response to the question of whether it tested the steel for residues of thermite: [Thermite] burns slowly relative to explosive materials…. 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius…. [M]any thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time…. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition. Once again, NIST constructed an easily refutable ar- gument that is not the argument actually advanced by proponents of the controlled demolition hypoth- esis. It is well known that thermite and thermate alone do not possess the explosiveness needed to account for a large amount of the evidence of explo- sions that NIST itself ignored (see Chapters 3 and 4). Had it been NIST’s genuine intention “to determine whether explosives could have been used to cause the collapse[s],” it would have tested the steel for explosives and thermite residues. Estimates of Fireproofing Dislodgement The fire protection in WTC 1 and WTC 2 consisted primarily of “sprayed fire-resistive material,” or SFRM. Some columns also had gypsum wallboard enclosures, and some had a combination of both. NIST’s probable collapse sequence depends heavily upon the dislodgement of these materials by the airplane impacts. In its final report on WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST concluded: The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by the aircraft impact.5 Yet NIST produced remarkably little evidence to support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures. Because such dislodgement would not have been visible from outside the buildings, the extent of dislodgement had to be estimated based on where NIST’s aircraft impact simulations predicted dam- age to wall partitions or furnishings. At the very end of its investigation, NIST finally performed physical testing “to provide evidence regarding the assump- tion that…the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.” This testing, contained in NIST’s “Debris Impact Study,” involved shooting 15 rounds from a shotgun at a flat steel plate and a metal bar coated with fireproofing inside a plywood box. Referring to that experiment, Kevin Ryan writes: [I]t’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings.... Nearly 100,000 blasts would have been needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides…. To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, A photograph of WTC trusses with fireproofing. 43 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N which is well before the end of the collapse — that it fails to replicate the observed structural behavior in two important ways. First, it fails to show the 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST finally acknowledged. Second, it shows large deformations of the building’s exterior structure that are not observed in the videos. NIST also had to manipulate its modeling signifi- cantly just to get the collapse to initiate. Specifically — in order to make the floor beams under Floor 13 expand and push the critical girder (A2001) off its seat and allegedly trigger a total collapse of the building — NIST took the following steps: 1. It ignored the fact that the fire in the northeast section of Floor 12 had burned out over an hour before it supposedly caused the beams under Floor 13 to expand. 2. It omitted shear studs on girder A2001 that would have prevented the girder from being pushed off its seat. 3. It inexplicably heated the floor beams but not the floor slab above them, thus causing the floor beams, but not the slab, to expand. This caused the shear studs connecting the floor beams and the slab to fail, which allowed the floor beams to move independently of the slab. 4. It ignored the fact that the floor beams could expand no more than 5 ¾ inches — less than the 6¼ inches required to push the girder off its seat — before shortening, caused by sagging, would overtake expansion. 5. It omitted web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange of the girder from folding (even if the beams had somehow expanded 61/4 inches).15 Had NIST modeled WTC 7 accurately, the mecha- nism that it claimed initiated the collapse would not have been feasible. Conclusion In this final chapter we examined four areas of anal- ysis that NIST performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. First, we found that NIST’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” and the possible use of thermite were textbook examples of straw man tactics. We then found that NIST provided remarkably little evidence to support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures. Next, we saw that, although NIST conceded that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to…have resulted in weakening of the steel structure,” it ignored the results of its testing and instead contin- ued to use temperatures of 600°C and higher in its models. As for NIST’s computer modeling, we found that it failed to replicate the observed structural behavior of the buildings and it required significant manipulation in order to achieve collapse initiation. Did NIST provide “extraordinary evidence” to support its hypothesis? The answer is “no.” NIST fell far short of providing extraordinary evidence — not for lack of trying or lack of resources or lack of expertise, but because there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fire-induced failure. ■ Above: The final frame from three different computer simulations showing WTC 7’s collapse from the north, northwest, and south, respectively. Below: The position of WTC 7 at zero, two seconds, and four seconds into its collapse, as seen from the northwest. NIST’s modeling stops after two seconds or less. Therefore, it cannot be fully compared to videos of WTC 7’s collapse. Nonetheless, we see that NIST’s computer modeling fails to show a period of free fall and inaccurately predicts large deformations that are not observed in the videos. This illustration from the NIST report shows the mechanism that NIST claims initiated the collapse of WTC 7: Floor beams (green) thermally expanded and pushed girder A2001 (blue) off of the seat connecting it to Column 79 (purple). 44 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H Appendix A: Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions Identification Michael Donovan, FDNY “I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.” James Duffy, FDNY Q. “When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?” A. “Oh, no. I didn’t know what it was when we were inside. I didn’t know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off.” Julio Marrero, FDNY “That’s when I just broke down and cried at Bellevue Hospital, because it was just so over- whelming. I just knew that what happened was horrific. It was a bombing.” Timothy Hoppey, FDNY “...that’s when we heard the rumble. I looked up, and it was just a black cloud directly overhead. At that point I was thinking it was a secondary explosion.” John Malley, FDNY “As we walked through those revolving doors, that’s when we felt the rumble. I felt the rum- bling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just blew past me.” William Reynolds, FDNY “After a while, and I don’t know how long it was, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake...” Q. “Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?” A. “It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane...” Q. “You’re talking about the north tower now; right?” A. “Before the north tower fell. He said,’No.’ I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they’re gonna blow up the other one.’” Thomas Turilli, FDNY “The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind...” Louie Cacchioli, Louie, FDNY “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.” T. Inman, PAPD (Port Authority Police Dept.) “As a roll call was being taken of the respond- ing Detectives, Tower #2 began to collapse. This occurred after a secondary explosion on the west side of the tower that appeared to take place in the area of the high 60’s. The area above the secondary explosion actually leaned to the west and then the collapse took place.” Power Frank Campagna, FDNY “That’s when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering.” Roy Chelsen, FDNY “All of a sudden we heard this huge explosion, and that’s when the tower started coming down.” Paul Curran, FDNY “With that, all a sudden the tower went com- pletely — a horrendous noise, a very, very tremendous explosion, and a very heavy wind came through the tower. The wind almost knocked you down.” Gary Gates, FDNY “I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.” Jerry Gombo, FDNY “...it felt sort of like an earthquake. The sky darkened and you heard this thunderous roar. It was like a volcano, if you will, not that I ever experienced a volcano, but I guess that’s the way I could describe it, and this cloud just coming down. The ground was shaking and this roar...” Edward Kennedy, FDNY “We took two steps, there was a tremendous boom, explosion, we both turned around, and the top of the building was coming down at us. With this I just turned to Richie and said run.” George Kozlowski, FDNY “As we were walking, we heard — we thought it was another plane coming. It was like a big shhhhh. A thousand times louder than that. It sounded like a missile coming and we just started booking. We took off like bats out of hell. We made it around the corner and that’s when the shit hit the fan right then and there. We heard that loud and then ba boom. I just — it was like an earthquake or whatever. A giant. giant explosion...Then this big gust came and I just went flying, maybe 30, 40 feet. Tumbling. I got up, got on my hands and knees because all of the white shit was all over me. I just kept crawling. My ears were like deaf, you know, when you hear a giant firecracker or something.” Julio Marrero, FDNY “...I heard a loud bang. We looked up, and we just saw the building starting to collapse. I looked over and started to scream at my partner, which he was inside the vehicle...I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten feet away from her and she couldn’t even hear me, because the building was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn’t even hear me.” Edward Martinez, FDNY “...I heard like a big explosion, a tremendous explosion, let me put it that way and rumbling sound. At that time I started seeing things coming down...” Keith Murphy, FDNY “I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don’t know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out...I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you. It sounded like nothing I had ever heard in my life, but it didn’t sound good. All of a sudden I could feel the floor started to shake and sway. We were being thrown like literally off our feet, side to side, getting banged around and then a tre- mendous wind started to happen. It probably lasted maybe 15 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds. It seemed like a hurricane force wind. It would blow you off your feet...” John Murray, FDNY “...we were standing there watching the north tower and not even paying attention to the south tower. Then you look up and it’s like holy shit, the building didn’t come down, it shot straight out over our heads, like straight across West Street. Holy shit, there is no fuck- ing way we are going to out run this thing.” Richard Smiouskas, FDNY “All of a sudden there was this groaning sound like a roar, grrrr. The ground started to shake....It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor. The windows started exploding in...I didn’t know exactly what was going on outside. I’m thinking maybe the building snapped in half. I’m thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I’m thinking it could have been a nuclear.” C. Krueger, PAPD “While searching the floor there was a tre- mendous explosion knocking me off my feet onto the floor, I was covered with debris…” 45 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N T. Marten, PAPD “Then I heard a tremendous explosion and I looked up and saw Building Two snap at the top and collapse into it self.” Pt. Middleton, PAPD “I was approximately one block away from Tower One when Tower Two appeared to explode at the roof top and several floors below. Then fire balls and debris shot out of the windows and rocketed into the skies and fall [fell?] below. As the Building began to disintegrate before your very eyes, there came an earth-shaking roar which grew louder and louder. Then all of a sudden a huge gigantic billing [billowing?] cloud filled with smoke, and ash. Pieces of cement particles and sec- tions of the building came raining down...As the ash and cement particles began to build up under the vehicle it became pitch black out and suddenly the oxygen left the air and an intense heat was felt.” Patty Sabga, Journalist, CNN Aaron Brown: “Patty, are you there?” Patty Sabga: “Yes, I’m here.” Aaron Brown: “Whaddya got?” Patty Sabga: “About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion...When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film...” Teresa Veliz, civilan “BOOM! The glass doors at the top of the es- calator shattered. I thought it was a bomb. But then a huge wind, with the force of a hurricane, swept across us. I don’t know what happened to the people standing in front of us, but I think they were blown away.” Pattern Richard Banaciski, FDNY “We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions... Edward Cachia, FDNY “As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” Frank Cruthers, FDNY “And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.” Karin Deshore, FDNY “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. Brian Dixon, FDNY “I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing — it actually looked — the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it be- cause the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. Thomas Fiztpatrick, FDNY “All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don’t think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” Christopher Fenyo, FDNY “About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building. We all turned and ran... [p. 5]...At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.” Stephen Gregory, FDNY I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.” Q. “Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?” A. “No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.” Daniel Rivera, FDNY “Then that’s when I kept on walking close to the south tower and that’s when that building collapsed.” Q. “How did you know that it was coming down?” A. “That noise. It was a noise.” Q. “What did you hear? What did you see?” A. “It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s when I saw the building coming down.” Kenneth Rogers, FDNY “...we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” Pt. Middleton, PAPD “As I continued to wave them back periodically you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one...After approximately 15 minuets [minutes] suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the up- per floors. And another loud earth shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad street. As the building began to crumble...we were over taken by another huge cloud of dust...” John Bussey, Wall Street Journal “Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the neighborhood, the South Tower was weaken- ing structurally. Off the phone, and collecting my thoughts for the next report, I heard met- alic crashes and looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly syn- chronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces. It was the building apparently collapsing in on itself, pancaking to the earth.” Ross Milanytch, employee, Chase Manhattan Bank “It started exploding...It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all.” A full compilation of the 156 eyewitness ac- counts identified by Dr. Graeme MacQueen can be viewed at http://AE911Truth.org/down- loads/156eyewitnessaccounts.pdf. References Bazant, Zdenek and Le, Jia-Liang: “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth”: Journal of Engineering Mechanics (January 2011)  Chandler, David: NIST Finally Admits Free Fall video (February 2010) Chandler, David: North Tower Exploding video (February 2010) Chandler, David: Sound Evidence for Explosions video (July 2010) Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, (February 2010) Chandler, David: “Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11” (Reprinted by AE911Truth in April 2014)  Cole, Jonathan: 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel video (July 2010)  FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (May 2002) Fire Department of New York (FDNY): “World Trade Center Task Force Interviews,” The New York Times (October 2001 – January 2002) Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009) Harrit, Niels (et al.): “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal (April 2009)    Jones, Steven (et al.): “Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2008) Jones, Steven: “Revisiting 9/11/2001 — Applying the Scientific Method,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (May 2007) Jones, Steven: “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Completely?” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006) Legge, Frank and Szamboti, Anthony: “9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (December 2007) Lee, Richard J.: RJ Lee Group, Inc., WTC Dust Signature (May 2004)  MacQueen, Graeme: “Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Chapter Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012) MacQueen, Graeme: “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (2006)  National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (Current edition: 2014) NFPA Report: High-Rise Building Fires by John R. Hall, Jr. (September 2013) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): National Institute of Standards and Technology Final Plan: National Building Fire Safety Investment of the World Trade Center by Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder (August 2002) NIST: June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (WTC 1 & WTC 2) NIST: Draft Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation (WTC 1 & WTC 2 in April 2005; WTC 7 in August 2008) NIST: Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (WTC 1 & WTC 2 in September 2005; WTC 7 in November 2008) NIST: To NIST: Request for Correction from Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Frank Legge (April 2007) NIST: From NIST: Response to the Request for Correction (September 2007) NIST: To NIST: Appeal from James R. Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Steven Jones to NIST’s Response to the Request for Correction (October 2007) NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (NIST FAQs for WTC 1 & WTC 2: updated September 19, 2011) NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (NIST FAQs for WTC 7: updated June 27, 2012) NIST: WTC 7 Technical Briefing (August 26, 2008) NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October 2008) Ryan, Kevin: “High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 13, 2007) Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014) Szamboti, Anthony and MacQueen, Graeme: “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009) Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard: “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis,” International Journal of Protective Structures (June 2013) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust” by Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker (2005) Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is heavily indebted to David Chandler, James Gourley, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti, and many other researchers whose contributions have brought us so much closer to understanding what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001. 48 A R C H IT E C T S & E N G IN E E R S F O R 9 /1 1 T R U T H 49 B E Y O N D M IS IN F O R M A T IO N About Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the destruc- tion of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. As of the printing of Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, AE911Truth represents 2,353 verified architects and engineers — and counting — who have signed our petition calling upon the U.S. Congress to open a truly independent investigation into the World Trade Center destruction. To learn more about AE911Truth and sign our petition, visit AE911Truth.org. World Trade Center Building 7 fell symmetrically at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704 AE911Truth.org