Part 2: The Twin Towers’ Explosive Destruction

The Explosive Evidence at the World Trade Center on 9/11

Download PDF

by Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

The official narrative suggests that the plane impacts and ensuing fires weakened the structure, resulting in a gravitational collapse. The best evidence, most of which once again, was destroyed before forensic investigators had a chance to perform a proper forensic investigation, or was omitted from the NIST report, supports a starkly different conclusion – pointing squarely to a very unique type of controlled demolition which we can readily discern with our own eyes:

Each of the Twin Towers exhibited a very explosive destruction – not a ‘pancake’ collapse as suggested by the official narrative.

We have even greater dispositive clarity from video, forensic, and eyewitness evidence for the explosive destruction of these towers than we did for Building 7:

Every American must face their conscience squarely when confronted with the gruesome evidence of the destruction of these two high-rises on 9/11 – especially considering the resulting death of at least 2,700 and more than a million people in the wars that followed, the $6.5 Trillion Global War on Terror, as well as the loss of many of our hard-fought precious civil liberties via the Patriot Act, etc.

We will find that the official theories, provided by NIST, of the destruction of the Twin Towers – whether known as “Crush-down / Crush-up”, “Column Failure”, “Pancaking Collapse”, “Gravitational Collapse”, “Natural collapse”, or “Heat-Induced Collapse” – are based on beliefs and are entirely without supporting evidence:

So, what exactly brought down the towers?

Having seen the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence for the explosive demolition of WTC Building 7, is it not incumbent upon us to seriously consider the theory of Controlled Demolition at the Twin Towers, and to examine the evidence?

We’ve discovered that typical controlled demolitions have at least 10 key characteristic features:

Each of these ten features are direct evidence of destruction with explosives. Fires do not cause any of these features, let alone all of them.

Any of these features appearing in the Twin Towers destruction determine that they are likely a controlled demolition. But if we have all of these features, then we can be certain that they are indeed a controlled demolition.

Office Fires Don’t Collapse “Type-1” High-rises

As we’ve seen, office fires can cause structures to collapse asymmetrically, with gradual deformation, following the path of least resistance. This is why experts were completely puzzled by the Twin Towers’ collapse. No steel-framed fire-protected high-rise has ever been destroyed by fire – before or since 9/11 or, as we will see, on 9/11. There have been several dozen examples in recent history:

Do the Twin Towers share any of the features of Controlled Demolitions?

Feature #1: A sudden onset of destruction

Notice, in all of the videos, that there is no “jolt” during the descent of the North Tower. Initially, it is standing still, and then, all of a sudden, it falls in a uniform downward motion – with no hesitation – even when the top structure is supposed to be impacting the building section below.

(It’s the same with the South Tower.)

This matters because for NIST’s theory to be true the upper section of the building must plow down through 60 to 80,000 tons of cold, hard, intact structural steel of the larger and much stronger building section below. Yet, it falls as if that massive resistance wasn’t even there.

Feature #2: Sequentially patterned explosions and flashes of light – heard and seen by witnesses.

Sequentially patterned explosions and flashes of light are indeed heard and seen by witnesses immediately before the collapse, as well as during the Towers’ destruction.

The Oral Histories of the World Trade Center first responders were recorded by Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen within a month after 9/11 to preserve their testimonies before individual memories faded or became “reshaped by collective memory.”

The City of New York withheld hundreds of these key testimonies from witnesses of explosions in the Towers from the American people for four years until the New York Court of Appeals forced their release in August of 2005.

The New York Times published 12,000 pages of the testimonies, and we quickly understood why the City was withholding them.

9/11 researcher Professor Graeme McQueen read all 12,000 of the testimonies and discovered that 156 of the first responders were witnesses to the sounds of explosions, several also seeing flashes of light – and many immediately BEFORE the towers fell. Quite a few were blown off their feet by the explosions.

Here are just a few of the surprising, even shocking, testimonies:

This three-minute compilation of video testimony to explosions from citizens, first responders, and even the FBI, complements the above documented statements.

How many of these more than 156 witnesses of explosions were included in the official NIST Report on the Twin Towers?

Zero.

• Yet, NIST claims to have interviewed 116 of the first responders.
• How did they miss every one of these 156 witnesses?

36 TV Anchors and Other MSM Reported “Explosions” to have occurred at, and to have been the cause of, the Twin Towers’ and WTC7’s collapses on 9/11.

There were about 40 Television reporters who covered the attack at the WTC on the day of 9/11 itself. The article by Ted Walter and the late Professor Graeme MacQueen documents that the official Government narrative and popular belief that the Twin Towers collapsed only as the result of plane impacts and ensuing fires is a completely false and intentionally revisionist narrative repeated almost word for word by MSM spokespersons starting the next day.

The vast majority of reporters on the ground on 9/11 who personally witnessed and reported the events first-hand referenced multiple explosions immediately preceding the collapses and also as being the cause of the collapse. But most people have no idea – or no recollection – of this because the stories put out by the MSM changed abruptly the next day when the local TV anchors and national mainstream media outlets started repeating a very different narrative.

Fire Marshall, John Coyle [00:01:00] and Firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding.

“I thought it was exploding actually. That is what I thought for hours afterward. Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.“

“And at that point, a debate began to rage about whether to continue rescue operations in the other still-standing Tower [One], because the perception was that the building [WTC2] looked like it had been taken out with charges“. So, they were going to abandon rescue efforts in the second still remaining Tower [WTC1].

The 5-minute video, 36 Reporters Describe the Twin Towers’ Explosive Destruction condenses the reporting to the bare bones statements.

Incredibly, NIST officially claimed that there were NO witnesses to explosions at Ground Zero…. and yet half of these reporters were eye and ear-witnesses at the scene.

McQueen and Walter tracked three categories of on-the-ground reporting that day:

1. 21 eyewitness reports of having personally perceived explosions before and/or during the destruction of the Towers and WTC7.
2. 22 narrative reports containing references to the destructions at the WTC as explosion-based events.
3. 3 were source-based reports by the media, which is very interesting because they were from:
   1. the NY Fire Department,
   2. the NY Police Department
   3. the FBI

The three most important government agencies involved in the response to the attacks were quoted as having said that “they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Towers“. Initially the FBI even called it their “working theory“.

Beginning Sept. 12^th just four reports were regarding the collapses with three of the four describing them as being the result of the plane impacts and ensuing fires, however the actual individual accounts being reported on added little or no support for that theory:

Two of the people quoted had been more than 12 blocks from Ground Zero.

The third had actually also stated, “the entire building just collapsed as if a demolition team had set it off – like when you see the demolitions in these old buildings.”

And the fourth, Ron Insana, who had been quite close to the South Tower, vividly described seeing the building exploding and hearing a loud noise he associated with an implosion.

So three of the four appeared to either be expressing uninformed opinions, or were parroting someone else’s narrative about the cause of the buildings’ collapses.

Unlike the 156 first responders who provided official accounts within weeks after the events, it was the job of on-the-scene reporters to accurately and fully communicate their perceptions and interpretations of what they had just seen and heard happen.

And when their reporting on 9/11 is compiled into a single record, which is what the authors of this important article did, we are left with a rich and largely unfiltered collective account of what really took place at Ground Zero – not what the official narrative wants you to believe happened.

When considered alongside the Fire Dept. of New York oral histories, these clear and forthright reporters’ statements constitute compelling corroborative evidence that explosives were in fact used to destroy the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The explosives hypothesis was not only prevalent among reporters, at least on Sept. 11^th itself, but was clearly the dominant initial media hypothesis.

All of the 21 instances of eyewitness media reporting on 9/11 itself contain spontaneous descriptions of explosions, which are compellingly supported by the overwhelming scientific evidence, that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

The Seismic Evidence

Many of the 156 first responders who formally reported witnessing explosions stated that the ground shook – quite violently – before the Towers fell.

And there is yet another very important witness that we need to summon: The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory:

Both FEMA and NIST, government agencies, relied on the seismic readings reported by experts at Columbia University who operate highly accurate seismographic equipment.

We’ll first look at the seismic signals generated near the time of the two plane impacts, one at each tower, keeping in mind the Question:

Could these violent events that shook underground that morning, represented by those two seismic signals, have been caused by something other than the plane impacts? And if so, by what?

NIST assumed that the planes were the cause of the seismic signals around the time of the impacts, which was a reasonable speculation. But it turns out to have been just that – a speculation.

We need to look closer: There was .9 Richter Scale event near the time of the first plane impact at the North Tower, and a .7 Richter Scale event near the time of the second plane impact at the South Tower:

Looking carefully at the precise timing, we find that the .9 magnitude signal from the North Tower occurred at 8:46 am and 26 seconds,

but the actual plane impact didn’t happen for another 14 to 15 seconds!

What?! Obviously, a later plane impact can’t cause an earlier signal! So, what is really occurring here?

NIST assumed that the .9 seismic signal from WTC1 was from the plane impact. However, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) radar data was relied upon by the 9/11 Commission, as that data is always correct to within one second. NIST ignored this fact. They stated that they instead examined the available videos and decided that the plane must have hit 10 seconds earlier than it is recorded to have struck. But that fudged analysis still had the plane 4 seconds later than the seismic signal.

So what did NIST do then? They went back to Columbia University and pressured the scientists to ‘correct’ their original data by changing the actual recorded time of the signal back an additional three seconds! We call this “reverse engineering.”

Regarding the reading near the time of the second plane at the South Tower, the seismic station recorded a .7 signal on the Richter Scale. It occurred at 9:02:54 am, and, in this case, the plane didn’t actually hit the building for another 17 seconds!

So, what did NIST do this time? Once again, they assumed that the NTSB radar data – which, again, is always accurate to one second and was relied on by the 9/11 Commission – was somehow inaccurate, once again on 9/11, and so they ignored it.

NIST’s “solution” to this second discrepancy was, yet again, to review the available videos and conclude that the plane had hit the South Tower 12 seconds before it was recorded doing so.

But they were still short of the actual time of the seismic signal by five seconds. So, what did they do? Yet again, they pressured Columbia University to move its original data for the impact ‘back in time’ three seconds. Not surprisingly, we are not able to access that private report either.

So, what other explanation could there be for the source of the two originally accurate seismic signals recorded by Lamont Observatory near the time of the plane impacts?

There were at least 15 ear and eyewitnesses to massive explosions going off in the basement levels of WTC1, including William Rodriguez, the building’s janitor hailed as a hero of 9/11 at the White House by the Bush Administration who gives us the answer:

“… like I said, on that day, there was an explosion in the basement, and this is prior to the building got hit by the plane – and then the plane hit.”

Female witness:

“The bomb hit the lobby first; in a couple of seconds, then the first plane hit.”

Rodriguez, who was in Basement level B1, was interviewed about that basement explosion in the North Tower on numerous occasions:

“I was there with my supervisor…. and 14 other people, and we heard at 8:46 an explosion that went BOOM!!, very loud, pushed us upwards. [demonstrating the explosion was in the basement level(s) below him] The walls cracked. The false ceiling fell, the sprinkler system got activated…. the mechanical room was located right below us [in B2 or B3]…. I’ve worked in the building for 20 years and I know the difference between an explosion coming from the bottom and one coming from the top…. Now, when I went to verbalize it, we hear ‘Bah!’ This is 6 or 7 seconds after the initial explosion. And it was an impact [of the plane] all the way on the top of the building – and then an explosion [from the plane].”

And then a person comes running into the [Basement B1 level] office saying, ‘Explosion! Explosion!’ His hands extended, burnt [over] 33% of his body – all the skin hanging from under his armpits, peeled off, all the way to the top of the fingertips, and missing pieces of his face. This guy was Philipe David, and [when] I went to pick up the phone [to call for help] and [then] ‘Bah!!’, another explosion, and the building shakes SO much…. it oscillated so much that the walls started cracking, and everybody started running.”

So, massive explosions in the WTC1 basement levels went off before the plane hit the building. Furthermore, this event matches the timing of the .9 Richter Scale seismic signal recorded by Lamont Observatory!

This shocking fact is corroborated by the seismic data analysis of Professor Andre Rousseau, an expert in applied geophysics and author of more than 50 published peer-reviewed papers in the field.

Translated, the above means that the seismic recording equipment at Lamont Observatory 20 miles away, in all likelihood, couldn’t even have detected the aircraft impacts.

The Bottom Line: The .9 and .7 Richter Scale seismic signals recorded before the plane impacts on both Towers could not have been from the impacts.

They had to have originated from something else.

Seismic signals – recorded near the time of the destruction of both the North and the South Towers

A seismic signal registering 2.1 on the Richter Scale occurred near the time of the South Tower’s destruction.

But that seismic signal couldn’t have originated from the heaviest debris from the Tower hitting the ground because that happened about five seconds after the signal. It couldn’t have caused a seismic signal that happened 5 seconds earlier.

And how was this 5-second discrepancy ‘solved’ by NIST? Yet again, this Government agency went back to Columbia University and pressured it to change its original data – to ‘move’ the time of the seismic signal ‘back’ in time by 3 seconds. And they don’t release the 2005 report that presumably justified the manipulation of the data to fit the assumption that only the Tower’s collapse could have been the source of the signal.

Clues in the Ignored Seismic Signals

It appears that Columbia University either failed to document, or documented and has not publicly reported, very well-defined primary and shear ground waves that occurred 4 seconds before the beginning of the North Tower’s collapse!

And what could account for that? To learn more, we look at the very relevant additional research of the late Professor Graeme MacQueen.

The North Tower Camera Corroboration of Seismic Evidence

MacQueen focused in on an unusual set of ‘eye’ witnesses – the tripod-mounted television cameras focused on the Towers after the first plane impact. These cameras were scattered around Lower Manhattan on 9/11 and captured exactly what happened. The TV images visibly shake due to vibrations from the ground. And this happens precisely when? 6 seconds and 10 seconds before the beginning of the collapse of the North Tower!

This timing fully corroborates the testimonies of the first responders – which were discussed in Feature #2 earlier.

Here’s the footage from the tripod-mounted camera that shakes six seconds before the beginning of the descent of the North Tower.

And here’s footage from another camera, mounted higher up on a roof, that recorded the building shaking beneath it ten seconds before the descent of the North Tower.

Did NIST report any of this critical North Tower evidence? No.

The South Tower Camera Corroboration of Seismic Evidence

Lamont Doherty Observatory recorded a 2.1 Richter seismic signal from the South Tower at 9:59:04. But the first debris didn’t strike the ground until 7 more seconds after that!

The first debris striking the ground therefore couldn’t possibly have been the source of this recorded seismic signal!

So, for the fourth time, NIST went back to Columbia University and pressured them to adjust their original data by ‘moving’ the seismic signal earlier by 3 seconds, without any publicly available justification.

What, in reality, could have been the actual source of this early seismic signal before the South Tower’s collapse?

The video from this New York One tripod-mounted camera shakes as well – 3 seconds before the beginning of the South Tower’s collapse.

Once again ‘The Camera Doesn’t Lie’, and yet another objective ‘eye’ witness on a tripod corroborates the first responders’ on-the-scene accounts of explosions before the South Tower’s collapse.

NIST’s assumption and official claim is that the seismic signals recorded near the times of collapses of both Towers were due to solid heavy debris hitting the ground. But, not only have we just disproved that, the vast majority of the debris wasn’t “solid” at all. As we’ve already seen, the concrete from the 110 floors had already been pulverized into an extremely fine powder, as was the gypsum board as well, so there couldn’t have been any seismic component from either of these at all.

Likewise, we’ve seen that the steel framing of the Towers was shattered into its individual column pieces, beams, and exterior wall units – peppering the ground and the seven-story underground basement levels of both Towers over 15 seconds. And, together, these building components represented two-thirds of the total weight of the building. So, none of it could have been the source of the 2.1 Richter Scale seismic signal recorded at 9:59:04 for the South Tower.

Another major problem for NIST: Why did two identical buildings with nearly identical collapses produce seismic signals of a quite different magnitude – 2.1 for the South Tower but 2.3 for the North Tower. The Richter Scale is logarithmic – which means that, despite the readings appearing to be almost the same, the actual energy released from the ground shaking at the North Tower was 1.6 times greater than that at the South Tower. That’s almost an order of magnitude greater!

So, what could account for such a major difference between what happened at WTC 1 versus WTC 2? We’ve already seen that there were massive explosions in both Towers before the plane impact, as well as before the beginning of either Tower’s collapse. The only reasonable explanation is that, for whatever reason, there were either more, or stronger, explosives pre-set in Tower 1 than in Tower 2, or that some of the pre-placed explosives in Tower 2 didn’t detonate.

Geophysicist Andre Rousseau summarizes:

Feature #3: Straight-Down Symmetrical Progressive Collapse Outside the Towers’ Footprints

Let’s determine if we see a straight-down symmetrical progression of destruction – not inside of the footprint, like we saw in Building 7 (a classic implosion), but, in this case, far outside of the Towers’ footprints – extending to three times the size of the buildings. And why would this be important? Because only something uniquely and extremely explosive could account for it.

Let’s look first at the South Tower.

As recorded in the videos, the upper part of the building, above the floors hit by the plane, actually begins to fall over – tipping to 22 degrees.

But, despite all this asymmetry above, the destruction progresses symmetrically straight down – all the way to the ground.

Even though there was symmetrical damage from the plane impact, asymmetrical damage from the ensuing fires, and asymmetrical loading from the 30-story top section of building tipping over, we clearly see symmetrical destruction all the way down each face of the tower – just like the firefighter eyewitnesses described.

What, in the real world of physics, can cause such symmetrical destruction in the face of all this asymmetrical damage?

Let’s now look at the North Tower. Here’s a lower corner section. What are we looking at in this looped video? We see a series of explosions, dozens of them, right before our very eyes – going off on about every third floor.

You can see that same corner here, racing down almost as fast as the freely falling debris next to it. Notice also the “squibs” – isolated explosive ejections – which we’ll come back to later. NIST told us that this was just a gravitational collapse, but what are our eyes seeing?

The Top Section of WTC 1 Was Already Destroyed

The official narrative, inadequately supported by Zdenek Bazant of Chicago Northwestern University, claims that the top section of the building crushed the lower part, and then crushed itself.  However, Bazant’s theory cannot possibly be correct since the top part did not crush the lower section of the building below, as evidenced by the remaining “spire” of the North Tower, 6 seconds following the Tower’s collapse:

The videos of the North Tower’s “collapse” reveal that the “spire” of core columns remains intact following the destruction of the rest of the building. In addition, one can see that the beams hanging off these core columns have been severed.

Bazant’s Crush-Down Theory on the left ignores the “spire” of remaining core columns – standing for 6 seconds after the towers’ destruction, as shown on the right. (See Jon Cole’s “The Last 30 Seconds” video)

But how can that be true when the videos clearly show that the top part is being destroyed in the first 3 seconds of the collapse? We can see with our own eyes that the top section is “telescoping” in on itself:

If the top of the building (the green line) is almost halfway down, while the point of plane impact (the lower red line) has not moved, then the top section of the building cannot be crushing what is beneath it. No – it is being destroyed from within.

If a top section of the building had been crushing the lower section, then we would see it. But none of the photos or videos show a top section “riding” the lower structure down to the ground.

What we do see is a multitude of upward and outward arching pyroclastic-like streamers – a geometry like fireworks – large freely flying solid objects trailing thick white smoke clouds:

The resemblance is striking because both are the result of explosions.

Is the Tower collapsing? Or is it exploding?

Gravity operates only straight down. So, ask yourself sincerely, does this resemble anything like a gravitational collapse (the official NIST narrative)?

Feature #4: Isolated Explosive Ejections – “Squibs”

The videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers clearly show isolated explosive ejections, called “squibs in the controlled demolition industry. They are visibly shooting out of the face of the towers at explosive speeds:

They emerge forcefully from point-like sources, some with geometrical precision. And they occur between 20 and 40 stories below the floors that are on fire. They even occur more than 60 stories below the destruction zone.

Isolated explosive ejections this far below a collapse?!

Indeed, all the videos contain these tell-tale squibs though we’re told by NIST that this was just a gravitational collapse. But they are obviously explosions – highly-focalized pin-point ejections.

Here’s a looped video clip of the South Tower, where squibs are visibly being ejected even from above the point of the plane impact. Definitely take the time to watch this video:

The left side of the South Tower shows a dozen isolated explosive ejections, or squibs.

This top block is being destroyed from the inside out – which may also be why that block has tipped 22 degrees.

Feature #5: Near-Free Fall Acceleration

[Also refer to David Chandler’s physics report on this subject.]

It becomes quite important for our scientific inquiry to determine precisely how fast the World Trade Center Towers fell. Why? Because the steel structure of the towers would have provided an incredible resistance to collapse.

And yet, each of the towers was completely demolished in only a dozen seconds! And this happened identically in both towers!

The speed – or more accurately the acceleration – of the towers’ destruction has been accurately measured by physicists. It turns out to be two-thirds of freefall.

It’s getting faster and faster each second – not decelerating – not slowing down. And through what? Through the 80,000 tons of cold hard structural steel below.

Feature #6: Total Shattering of the Structural Steel Frame

Let’s see if we have evidence of the “shattering” of the structural steel system of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The professional guide that investigators use in order to definitively determine the cause of damage to – or destruction of – a building is The National Fire Protection Guide 921 for Fire and Explosion Investigation:

It clearly states that investigators need to look for evidence of explosions. The manual guides investigators to look for “signs of explosions” such as “shrapnel effects, high-order damage characterized by the shattering of the structure producing small, pulverized debris with the building completely demolished, or building debris thrown great distances.”

And that’s exactly what is seen at the Twin Towers – a complete dismemberment of the structural steel system – with the exception of these remaining shards of perimeter structure around the building.

The building is almost completely shattered, except for the few remaining “chards” of perimeter structure at the base in the aftermath.

The structural elements have even been dismembered, in most cases, to their original elements, such as this 37 ½’ long column, ready for loading and shipment

Most of the structural steel framing system was shattered down to its individual elements.

Feature #7: Lateral Ejection of the Structural Steel

The National Fire Protection Association 921 manual also recommends that investigators look for “blast pressure wave effects” (from explosives) including heavy freely-flying pieces of the structural steel. Do we also have this signature effect of explosives at the Twin Towers on 9/11?

In fact, FEMA officially documented an extremely wide symmetrical debris pattern of 1200 to 1400 foot diameter – around the footprint of both Towers – even destroying New York’s famous Winter Gardens – extending 600 feet from the North Tower!

And these freely flying structural steel sections landed well outside the entire World Trade Center superblock. In other words, the destruction of the Twin Towers wasn’t just an explosive event, it was a massively explosive event.

We see, right before us, that these 4-ton and 8-ton structural steel sections from the Towers were literally empaled in all of the buildings around them!

This is not the steel exoskeleton “peeling” like a banana. These are massive individual structural steel elements being violently ejected from the Towers in all directions.

After being ejected horizontally, gravity begins to take over and the angle of the trajectory shifts to about 45 degrees.

Why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds? It is evidence of having been exposed to extreme heat. But steel isn’t flammable. And NIST’s theory is mere office-fires.

The Answer: Aluminum Oxide ash is the other byproduct of thermitic reactions, besides molten iron. It is a thick white ash.

What could have been the source of this immense amount of force that laterally expelled 4-ton structural steel sections away from the Towers in all directions?

Feature #8: Pulverization of Concrete

Each tower had 110 floors. Each floor was an acre in size – and 4” and 8” thick – covering the metal decking over 3-foot-deep steel tube floor trusses. The 90,000 tons of concrete per tower is missing from the pile of the buildings’ destruction, so could it have crushed the building as NIST claims?

No – because it wasn’t there.

Had it been a ‘pancake-type’ collapse, as NIST claims, we’d see the ‘pancakes’ at the bottom – such as in the building collapse in Mexico below due to an earthquake.

But they aren’t there.

That’s what you get after a “pancaking” collapse – pancakes.

Yet all we see in the aftermath of the Towers’ destruction is a 6-story or 7-story pile of miscellaneous steel and other metal. We don’t see 110 floors. We don’t see 50 floors. We don’t see 20 floors. We don’t even see one acre-sized floor – not even a ¼ acre.

Where did all the concrete go?!

Here it is:

It’s getting pulverized – in mid-air – well before the building has even fallen enough to build up kinetic energy and smash onto the ground.

All of the videos and photos show these clouds of whitish pulverized concrete from the floors violently billowing out from the Towers:

It covered a three-square mile area, in a blanket of concrete powder 3” thick throughout Lower Manhattan:

The US Geological survey documented that the concrete was reduced to a fine powder about 100-micron-sized particles – like baby powder.

New York Governor Pataki stated on video:

“…. there’s very little concrete [remaining]. All you see is aluminum and steel…. from river to river; there was dust, powder; two, three inches thick. The concrete was just pulverized.”

Joe Casaliggi of the NY Fire Department states on video:

“You have two 110-story office buildings. You don’t find a desk. You don’t find a chair. You don’t find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad…. The building collapsed to dust.”

A very important question:

If 90,000 tons of concrete from the floors in each Tower was pulverized in mid-air, violently ejected, and strewn over a 3-sq. mile area, how could it have crushed the building as NIST claims?

It couldn’t.

We already noted in Feature #7 that the steel also couldn’t have crushed the building since it was also ejected laterally outside the footprint of the buildings by hundreds of feet.

The concrete in the floors comprised a third the weight of the Towers. The steel was another third of that weight. Together that’s about 65% of the weight of the buildings missing! It wasn’t there to crush the tower below!

So much for Zdeněk Bažant’s “crush down, crush up” theory. It was a complete deception.

The Pulverization of the People

So, what about the people, including the firefighters, who were in the towers when they were destroyed?

In April 2006, no less than 700 bone fragments, about a half-inch long, were found on top of the Deutsche Bank building. Many were from the firefighters who were killed while inside trying to save others (as indicated by the red triangular symbols in the FDNY’s Victim Tracking Database):

The firefighters didn’t arrive and enter the towers until after the plane impact. The people they were trying to save were already inside. So, the bone fragments found more than 300 feet away on top of the Deutsche Bank building were ejected from victims being dismembered by explosives inside the towers. In fact, according to the map above they were found as far as 800 feet away.

• There were 2,753 total victims at the WTC.
• Of these only 300 whole bodies were found – mostly “jumpers”.
• 21,900 pieces of other bodies were found.
• 6,000 of those were small enough to fit into a test tube.
• And 200 of those 6,000 small pieces came from a single person.
• To this day more than 1,100 victims of the WTC attacks remain completely unaccounted for – with not a shred of any of them found.
  • A third of the people essentially completely vaporized.

How could a mere gravitational collapse – the official story – cause such massive dismemberment and pulverization, forceful ejection, and even complete disappearance of the bodies?

If the official story of a gravitational collapse were true, we would also expect to have found almost all of the bodies, though very badly damaged, between the floors, in the pile after the collapse.

But we didn’t.

The NIST Report

NIST released their Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in September of 2005, along with its 42 detailed companion reports.

The Report was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act passed by Congress.

Under the Act, Congress tasked NIST to “Determine HOW and WHY World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 collapsed.”

Yet NIST tasked itself with a different objective, which they actually wrote out, but buried inside footnote 13 on page 82, which says:

“The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact only up until the initiation of collapse. This is the probable collapse sequence.” They then admit, “It doesn’t actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” (emphases added)

Hold on! NIST spent 4 years, $20M, and produced 10,000 pages, yet they have only half a page on the actual collapse? When the very first of four tasks given to them by Congress was to show the American people, and the world, “how and why the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”.

And what did they provide us in that half page? Let’s read:

“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance. The large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb. It came down essentially in free fall. The floors below were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

This is nothing but pure speculation. There’s no analysis with supporting calculations, which is what structural engineers do. NIST’s Shyam Sunder is a structural engineer, after all. This is just a pre-collapse report!

It should have been titled The Final Report on the “Initiation of Collapse.”

So, we submitted a Request for Correction in 2006, which you can do with government agencies that produce this level of “quality” in their work. NIST included in their response: “We were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse of the Twin Towers.”

We completely agree. Partial explanations, ignoring of real evidence, and no analysis whatsoever.

Even if there had been a naturally induced initiation of collapse – one not caused by detonation of pre-placed explosives and incendiaries – such an analysis could easily have been done, especially for $20 Million! It’s not rocket science: The top portion of the building exerts a known force on the portion of the building beneath it. That lower portion has a specific capacity to resist the driving force above.

Zdenek Bazant provided the correct simplified formula only two days after 9/11. That formula could have been used by NIST in their report – and the correct data could have been input into it. So, with two days’ worth of engineering work, NIST could have given us the truth – that:

• The downward motion should have been stopped by the cold hard intact steel of the building section beneath the plane-impacts. But something else, instead, caused the removal of the structure below.

Of course, we now know what that something else was. But NIST instead chose to participate in a cover-up. And it must be exposed.

Experts Agree

So, what do other experts say? Or at least those experts without financial or political obligations that might sway their objective opinion of what really brought these buildings down:

William Rice, structural engineer:

• “The prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself, crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a near free fall acceleration, as if the 80,000 or more tons of supporting structural steel framework underneath didn’t even exist.”(emphasis added)

David Scott, structural engineer:

• “Near free fall collapse violates laws of physics.” (emphasis added)

Scott Grainger, Fire Protection Engineer:

• “All three collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.” (emphasis added)

Mike Taylor, Executive Director, National Association of Demolition Contractors:

• “The collapse of the World Trade Center towers looked like a classic controlled demolition. They mirrored the strategy that was used by demolition experts.” (emphases added)

Andre Rousseau, Geophysics expert:

• “Even if the plane impacts and the fall of the debris from the towers on the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 20 miles North [at the seismic recording station]. Controlled demolition is confirmed and demonstrated.” (emphases added)

New Mexico Tech expert, Van Romero, Energetic Materials Research Testing Center:

• “Explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers. It’s too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with structures. After the planes hit the towers, there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” (emphases added)

Did he succumb to pressure to revoke this expert opinion? New Mexico Tech receives most of its funding from federal sources.

Matthys Levy, before he joined the FEMA team:

• “If you’ve seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously. That’s exactly what it looked like and that’s what happened.” (emphases added)

Ronald Hamburger, Structural Engineer:

• “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, I was very surprised.” (emphases added)
• This contributor to the FEMA and NIST reports was initially confident about what had happened, but then someone told him that it didn’t happen that way. So he changed his public position.
• Who talked to him?

What have we learned from the above evidence?

Was it the combination of fires and plane impact damage that brought down the towers?

Or was it explosions and, per the upcoming Part 3 Extreme Heat – generated by active thermitic materials?

In the destruction of the Twin Towers, we found all ten characteristic features of traditional controlled demolition – as well as many uncharacteristic features (i.e., the use of incendiaries, as discussed next in Part 3 of this report.)

Each of these features can only be accounted for by intentional destruction with pre-placed high-energy explosives and incendiaries. Fires do not cause ANY of these features – let alone ALL of them.

Together with the corroboration of additional circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony, we are confident that the compelling evidence contained herein is dispositive proof of controlled demolition as the means of destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

This is why we now have more than 3,600 architects and engineers who have signed the petition demanding a new unimpeachable investigation.

And there is yet another, directly related and even more important body of dispositive evidence behind their demand in Part 3 – The Twin Towers and Extreme Heat.