The Destruction of the World = Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

Authorized Version = (with=20 references & notes)

In The New Pearl = Harbor:=20 Disturbing Questions about the Bush = Administration=20 and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of = facts and=20 reports that cast doubt on the official = story=20 about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission = Report:=20 Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I = discussed the=20 way these various facts and reports were = treated=20 by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by = distorting or=20 simply omitting them. I have also taken = this=20 big-picture approach, with its cumulative=20 argument, in my previous essays and = lectures on=20 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This = approach,=20 which shows every aspect of the official = story to=20 be problematic, provides the most = effective=20 challenge to the official story.

But this way of = presenting the=20 evidence has one great limitation, = especially when=20 used in lectures and essays: It means that = the=20 treatment of every particular issue must = be quite=20 brief, hence superficial. People can = thereby be=20 led to suspect that a more thorough = treatment of=20 any particular issue might show the = official story=20 to be plausible after all.

In the present essay, I = focus on=20 one question: why the Twin Towers and = building 7=20 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One = advantage=20 of this focus, besides the fact that it = allows us=20 to go into considerable detail, is that = the=20 destruction of the World Trade Center = provides one=20 of the best windows into the truth about = 9/11.=20 Another advantage of this focus is that it = will=20 allow us to look at revelations contained = in the=20 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded = by the=20 New York Fire Department shortly after = 9/11 but=20 released to the public only in August of = 2005.

I will begin with the = question of=20 why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise = the same=20 question about building 7.

1. The Collapse = of the=20 Twin Towers

Shortly after 9/11, = President=20 Bush advised people not to tolerate = =93outrageous=20 conspiracy theories about the attacks of = 11=20 September=94 (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip = Zelikow, who=20 directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, = has=20 likewise warned against =93outrageous = conspiracy=20 theories=94 (Hansen, 2005). What do these = men mean=20 by this expression? They cannot mean that = we=20 should reject all conspiracy theories = about 9/11,=20 because the government=92s own account is = a=20 conspiracy theory, with the conspirators = all being=20 members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that = we should=20 reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes = an=20 outrageous theory from a non-outrageous = one? This=20 is one of the central questions in the = philosophy=20 of science. When confronted by rival=20 theories---let=92s say Neo-Darwinian = Evolution and=20 Intelligent Design---scientists and = philosophers=20 of science ask which theory is better and = why. The=20 mark of a good theory is that it can = explain, in a=20 coherent way, all or at least most of the = relevant=20 facts and is not contradicted by any of = them. A=20 bad theory is one that is contradicted by = some of=20 the relevant facts. An outrageous theory = would be=20 one that is contradicted by virtually all = the=20 relevant facts.

With this definition in = mind, let=20 us look at the official theory about the = Twin=20 Towers, which says that they collapsed = because of=20 the combined effect of the impact of the = airplanes=20 and the resulting fires. The report put = out by=20 FEMA said: =93The structural damage = sustained by=20 each tower from the impact, combined with = the=20 ensuing fires, resulted in the total = collapse of=20 each building=94 (FEMA, 2002).[3] This = theory=20 clearly belongs in the category of = outrageous=20 theories, because is it is contradicted by = virtually all the relevant facts. Although = this=20 statement may seem extreme, I will explain = why it=20 is not.

No Prior = Collapse Induced=20 by Fire

The official theory is = rendered=20 implausible by two major problems. The = first is=20 the simple fact that fire has = never---prior to or=20 after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise=20 buildings to collapse. Defenders of the = official=20 story seldom if ever mention this simple = fact.=20 Indeed, the supposedly definitive report = put out=20 by NIST---the National Institute for = Standards and=20 Technology (2005)---even implies that = fire-induced=20 collapses of large steel-frame buildings = are=20 normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from = being=20 normal, however, such collapses have never = occurred, except for the alleged cases of=20 9/11.

Defenders of the = official theory,=20 of course, say that the collapses were = caused not=20 simply by the fire but the fire combined = with the=20 damage caused by the airliners. The = towers,=20 however, were designed to withstand the = impact of=20 airliners about the same size as Boeing = 767s.[5]=20 Hyman Brown, the construction manager of = the Twin=20 Towers, said: =93They were over-designed = to=20 withstand almost anything, including = hurricanes, .=20 . . bombings and an airplane hitting = [them]=94=20 (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an = MIT=20 professor of materials engineering who = supports=20 the official theory, says that the impact = of the=20 airplanes would not have been significant, = because=20 =93the number of columns lost on the = initial impact=20 was not large and the loads were shifted = to=20 remaining columns in this highly redundant = structure=94 (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. = 8-11).=20 Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing = how the=20 impact of the planes contributed to the = collapse,=20 focuses primarily on the claim that the = planes=20 dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from = the=20 steel.[6]

The official theory of = the=20 collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire = theory,=20 so it cannot be emphasized too much that = fire has=20 never caused large steel-frame buildings = to=20 collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or = after=20 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 = except=20 allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of = course, that=20 there is a first time for everything, and = that a=20 truly extraordinary fire might induce a = collapse.=20 Let us examine this idea. What would count = as an=20 extraordinary fire? Given the properties = of steel,=20 a fire would need to be very hot, very = big, and=20 very long-lasting. But the fires in the = towers did=20 not have even one of these = characteristics, let=20 alone all three.

There have been claims, = to be=20 sure, that the fires were very hot. Some=20 television specials claimed that the = towers=20 collapsed because the fire was hot enough = to melt=20 the steel. For example, an early BBC News = special=20 quoted Hyman Brown as saying: =93steel = melts, and=20 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted = the=20 steel.=94 Another man, presented as a = structural=20 engineer, said: =93It was the fire that = killed the=20 buildings. There=92s nothing on earth that = could=20 survive those temperatures with that = amount of=20 fuel burning. . . . The columns would have = melted=94=20 (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, = are=20 absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt = until it=20 reaches almost 2800=B0 Fahrenheit.[8] And = yet open=20 fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as=20 kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can = at most=20 rise to 1700=B0F, which is almost 1100 = degrees below=20 the melting point of steel.[9] We can,=20 accordingly, dismiss the claim that the = towers=20 collapsed because their steel columns=20 melted.[10]

Most defenders of the = official=20 theory, in fact, do not make this absurd = claim.=20 They say merely that the fire heated the = steel up=20 to the point where it lost so much of its = strength=20 that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas = Eagar,=20 saying that steel loses 80 percent of its = strength=20 when it is heated to 1,300=B0F, argues = that this is=20 what happened. But for even this claim to=20 plausible, the fires would have still had = to be=20 pretty hot.

But they were not. = Claims have=20 been made, as we have seen, about the jet = fuel.=20 But much of it burned up very quickly in = the=20 enormous fireballs produced when the = planes hit=20 the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 = minutes,[12] after which the flames died = down.=20 Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after = they=20 were struck show few flames and lots of = black=20 smoke, a sign that the fires were = oxygen-starved.=20 Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says = that the=20 fires were =93probably only about 1,200 or = 1,300=B0F=94=20 (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to = believe,=20 moreover, that the fires were not even = that hot.=20 As photographs show, the fires did not = break=20 windows or even spread much beyond their = points of=20 origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This = photographic=20 evidence is supported by scientific = studies=20 carried out by NIST, which found that of = the 16=20 perimeter columns examined, =93only three = columns=20 had evidence that the steel reached = temperatures=20 above 250=B0C [482=B0F],=94 and no = evidence that any of=20 the core columns had reached even those=20 temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that = it =93did not=20 generalize these results, since the = examined=20 columns represented only 3 percent of the=20 perimeter columns and 1 percent of the = core=20 columns from the fire floors=94. That only = such a=20 tiny percent of the columns was available = was due,=20 of course, to the fact that government = officials=20 had most of the steel immediately sold and = shipped=20 off. In any case, NIST=92s findings on the = basis of=20 this tiny percent of the columns are not=20 irrelevant: They mean that any = speculations that=20 some of the core columns reached much = higher=20 temperatures would be just that---pure = speculation=20 not backed up by any empirical = evidence.

Moreover, even if the = fire had=20 reached 1,300=B0F, as Eagar supposes, that = does not=20 mean that any of the steel would have = reached that=20 temperature. Steel is an excellent = conductor of=20 heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar = of=20 steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to = the=20 other parts and to any other pieces of = steel to=20 which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have = heated up some=20 of the steel columns to anywhere close to = their=20 own temperature, they would have needed to = be very=20 big, relative to the size of the buildings = and the=20 amount of steel in them. The towers, of = course,=20 were huge and had an enormous amount of = steel. A=20 small, localized fire of 1,300=B0F would = never have=20 heated any of the steel columns even close = to that=20 temperature, because the heat would have = been=20 quickly dispersed throughout the = building.

Some defenders of the = official=20 story have claimed that the fires were = indeed very=20 big, turning the buildings into = =93towering=20 infernos.=94 But all the evidence counts = against=20 this claim, especially with regard to the = south=20 tower, which collapsed first. This tower = was=20 struck between floors 78 and 84, so that = region is=20 where the fire would have been the = biggest. And=20 yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that = when he got=20 down to the 80th floor: "You could see = through the=20 wall and the cracks and see flames . . . = just=20 licking up, not a roaring inferno, just = quiet=20 flames licking up and smoke sort of eking = through=20 the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire = chiefs=20 who had reached the 78th floor found only = =93two=20 isolated pockets of fire.=94[15]

The north tower, to be = sure, did=20 have fires that were big enough and hot = enough to=20 cause many people to jump to their deaths. = But as=20 anyone with a fireplace grate or a = pot-belly stove=20 knows, fire that will not harm steel or = even iron=20 will burn human flesh. Also in many cases = it may=20 have been more the smoke than the heat = that led=20 people to jump.

In any case, the fires, = to weaken=20 the steel columns, would have needed to be = not=20 only very big and very hot but also very=20 long-lasting.[16] The public was told that = the=20 towers had such fires, with CNN saying = that =93very=20 intense=94 fires =93burned for a long = time.=94[17] But=20 they did not. The north tower collapsed an = hour=20 and 42 minutes after it was struck; the = south=20 tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

To see how ludicrous is = the claim=20 that the short-lived fires in the towers = could=20 have induced structural collapse, we can = compare=20 them with some other fires. In 1988, a = fire in the=20 First Interstate Bank Building in Los = Angeles=20 raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this=20 building=92s 62 floors, but there was no = significant=20 structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a = huge=20 fire in Philadelphia=92s One Meridian = Plaza lasted=20 for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the = building=92s 38=20 floors, but, said the FEMA report, = although=20 =93[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted = . . .=20 under severe fire exposures. . . , the = columns=20 continued to support their loads without = obvious=20 damage=94 (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in = 2004, a fire=20 in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, = completely gutting the building=92s top 20 = floors,=20 and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). = And yet=20 we are supposed to believe that a = 56-minute fire=20 caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the = towers,=20 moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, = Philadelphia,=20 and Caracas were hot enough to break = windows.

Another important = comparison is=20 afforded by a series of experiments run in = Great=20 Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind = of=20 damage could be done to steel-frame = buildings by=20 subjecting them to extremely hot, = all-consuming=20 fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, = having=20 reviewed those experiments, said: = =93Despite the=20 temperature of the steel beams reaching = 800-900=B0C=20 (1,500-1,700=B0F) in three of the tests. . = . , no=20 collapse was observed in any of the six=20 experiments=94 (1988, Appendix A).

These comparisons bring = out the=20 absurdity of NIST=92s claim that the = towers=20 collapsed because the planes knocked the=20 fireproofing off the steel columns. = Fireproofing=20 provides protection for only a few hours, = so the=20 steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and = Caracas=20 would have been directly exposed to raging = fires=20 for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel = did not=20 buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that = the steel=20 in the south tower buckled because it was = directly=20 exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

A claim made by some = defenders of=20 the official theory is to speculate that = there was=20 something about the Twin Towers that made = them=20 uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these=20 speculations are not backed up by any = evidence.=20 And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: = =93[A]lmost=20 all large buildings will be the location = for a=20 major fire in their useful life. No major=20 high-rise building has ever collapsed from = fire.=20 The WTC was the location for such a fire = in 1975;=20 however, the building survived with minor = damage=20 and was repaired and returned to = service=94 (Glover,=20 2002).

Multiple = Evidence of=20 Controlled Demolition

There is a reverse = truth to the=20 fact that, aside from the alleged cases of = 9/11,=20 fire has never caused large steel-frame = buildings=20 to collapse. This reverse truth is that = every=20 previous total collapse has been caused by = the=20 procedure known as =93controlled = demolition,=94 in=20 which explosives capable of cutting steel = have=20 been placed in crucial places throughout = the=20 building and then set off in a particular = order.=20 Just from knowing that the towers = collapsed,=20 therefore, the natural assumption would be = that=20 they were brought down by explosives.

This a priori = assumption is,=20 moreover, supported by an empirical = examination of=20 the particular nature of the collapses. = Here we=20 come to the second major problem with the = official=20 theory, namely, that the collapses had at = least=20 eleven features that would be expected if, = and=20 only if, explosives were used. I will = briefly=20 describe these eleven features.

Sudden Onset: In = controlled=20 demolition, the onset of the collapse is = sudden.=20 One moment, the building is perfectly = motionless;=20 the next moment, it suddenly begins to = collapse.=20 But steel, when heated, does not suddenly = buckle=20 or break. So in fire-induced = collapses---if we had=20 any examples of such---the onset would be = gradual.=20 Horizontal beams and trusses would begin = to sag;=20 vertical columns, if subjected to strong = forces,=20 would begin to bend. But as videos of the = towers=20 show,[19] there were no signs of bending = or=20 sagging, even on the floors just above the = damage=20 caused by the impact of the planes. The = buildings=20 were perfectly motionless up to the moment = they=20 began their collapse.

Straight Down: The most = important=20 thing in a controlled demolition of a tall = building close to other buildings is that = it come=20 straight down, into, or at least close to, = its own=20 footprint, so that it does not harm the = other=20 buildings. The whole art or science of = controlled=20 demolition is oriented primarily around = this goal.=20 As Mark Loizeaux, the president of = Controlled=20 Demolition, Inc., has explained, =93to = bring [a=20 building] down as we want, so . . . no = other=20 structure is harmed,=94 the demolition = must be=20 =93completely planned,=94 using =93the = right explosive=20 [and] the right pattern of laying the = charges=94=20 (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin = Towers had=20 fallen over, they would have caused an = enormous=20 amount of damage to buildings covering = many city=20 blocks. But the towers came straight down. = Accordingly, the official theory, by = implying that=20 fire produced collapses that perfectly = mimicked=20 the collapses that have otherwise been = produced=20 only by precisely placed explosives, = requires a=20 miracle.[21]

Almost Free-Fall Speed: = Buildings=20 brought down by controlled demolition = collapse at=20 almost free-fall speed. This can occur = because the=20 supports for the lower floors are = destroyed, so=20 that when the upper floors come down, they = encounter no resistance. The fact that the = collapses of the towers mimicked this = feature of=20 controlled demolition was mentioned = indirectly by=20 The 9/11 Commission Report, which said = that the=20 =93South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds=94 = (Kean and=20 Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors = of the=20 report evidently thought that the rapidity = of this=20 collapse did not conflict with the = official=20 theory, known as the =93pancake=94 theory. = According=20 to this theory, the floors above the = floors that=20 were weakened by the impact of the = airliner fell=20 on the floor below, which started a chain=20 reaction, so that the floors = =93pancaked=94 all the=20 way down.

But if that is what = happened, the=20 lower floors, with all their steel and = concrete,=20 would have provided resistance. The upper = floors=20 could not have fallen through them at the = same=20 speed as they would fall through air. = However, the=20 videos of the collapses show that the = rubble=20 falling inside the building=92s profile = falls at the=20 same speed as the rubble outside[23] = (Jones,=20 2006). As architect and physicist Dave = Heller=20 (2005) explains:

the floors could not = have been=20 pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. = The=20 floors must all have been falling = simultaneously=20 to reach the ground in such a short amount = of=20 time. But how?. . . In [the method known = as=20 controlled demolition], each floor of a = building=20 is destroyed at just the moment the floor = above is=20 about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall=20 simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. = (Garlic=20 and Glass 6)

Total Collapse: The = official=20 theory is even more decisively ruled out = by the=20 fact that the collapses were total: These=20 110-story buildings collapsed into piles = of rubble=20 only a few stories high. How was that = possible?=20 The core of each tower contained 47 = massive steel=20 box columns.[24] According to the pancake = theory,=20 the horizontal steel supports broke free = from the=20 vertical columns. But if that is what had=20 happened, the 47 core columns would have = still=20 been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up = with a=20 bold solution to this problem. It simply = denied=20 the existence of the 47 core columns, = saying: =93The=20 interior core of the buildings was a = hollow steel=20 shaft, in which elevators and stairwells = were=20 grouped=94 (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 = note 1).=20 Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main = problem=20 is removed.

The NIST Report handled = this most=20 difficult problem by claiming that when = the floors=20 collapsed, they pulled on the columns, = causing the=20 perimeter columns to become unstable. This = instability then increased the gravity = load on the=20 core columns, which had been weakened by=20 tremendously hot fires in the core, which, = NIST=20 claims, reached 1832=B0F, and this = combination of=20 factors somehow produced =93global = collapse=94 (NIST,=20 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two = problems.=20 First, NIST=92s claim about tremendously = hot fires=20 in the core is completely unsupported by = evidence.=20 As we saw earlier, its own studies found = no=20 evidence that any of the core columns had = reached=20 temperatures of even 482=B0F (250=B0C), so = its theory=20 involves a purely speculative addition of = over=20 1350=B0F.[25] Second, even if this = sequence of=20 events had occurred, NIST provides no = explanation=20 as to why it would have produced = global=97-that is,=20 total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts = that=20 =93column failure=94 occurred in the core = as well as=20 the perimeter columns. But this remains a = bare=20 assertion. There is no plausible = explanation of=20 why the columns would have broken or even = buckled,=20 so as to produce global collapse at = virtually=20 free-fall speed, even if they had reached = such=20 temperatures.[26]

Sliced Steel: In = controlled=20 demolitions of steel-frame buildings, = explosives=20 are used to slice the steel columns and = beams into=20 pieces. A representative from Controlled=20 Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of = the=20 commonly used high explosives, that it = slices=20 steel like a "razor blade through a = tomato." The=20 steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it = is=20 sliced into manageable lengths. As = Controlled=20 Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: = =93Our=20 DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel = components=20 into pieces matching the lifting capacity = of the=20 available equipment.=94[27]

The collapses of the = Twin Towers,=20 it seems, somehow managed to mimic this = feature of=20 controlled demolitions as well. Jim = Hoffman=20 (2004), after studying various photos of = the=20 collapse site, said that much of the steel = seemed=20 to be =93chopped up into . . . sections = that could=20 be easily loaded onto the equipment that = was=20 cleaning up Ground Zero.=94[28]

Pulverization of = Concrete and=20 Other Materials: Another feature of = controlled=20 demolition is the production of a lot of = dust,=20 because explosives powerful enough to = slice steel=20 will pulverize concrete and most other=20 non-metallic substances into tiny = particles. And,=20 Hoffman (2003) reports, =93nearly all of = the=20 non-metallic constituents of the towers = were=20 pulverized into fine power.=94[29] That = observation=20 was also made by Colonel John O=92Dowd of = the U.S.=20 Army Corps of Engineers. =93At the World = Trade=20 Center sites,=94 he told the History = Channel, =93it=20 seemed like everything was pulverized=94 = (History=20 Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a = problem for=20 the official theory, according to which = the only=20 energy available was the gravitational = energy.=20 This energy would have been sufficient to = break=20 most of the concrete into fairly small = pieces. But=20 it would not have been anywhere close to = the=20 amount of energy needed to turn the = concrete and=20 virtually all the non-metallic contents of = the=20 buildings into tiny particles of dust.

Dust Clouds: Yet = another common=20 feature of controlled demolitions is the=20 production of dust clouds, which result = when=20 explosions eject the dust from the = building with=20 great energy. And, as one can see by = comparing=20 videos on the Web, the collapses of the = towers=20 produced clouds that are very similar to = those=20 produced by controlled demolitions of = other=20 structures, such as Seattle=92s Kingdome. = The only=20 difference is that the clouds produced = during the=20 collapses of the towers were = proportionally much=20 bigger.[30]

The question of the = source of the=20 needed energy again arises. Hoffman = (2003),=20 focusing on the expansion of the North = Tower=92s=20 dust cloud, calculates that the energy = required=20 simply for this expansion---ignoring the = energy=20 needed to slice the steel and pulverize = the=20 concrete and other materials---exceeded by = at=20 least 10 times the gravitational energy=20 available.

The official account, = therefore,=20 involves a huge violation of the laws of=20 physics---a violation that becomes even = more=20 enormous once we factor in the energy = required to=20 pulverize the concrete (let alone the = energy=20 required to break the steel).

Besides the sheer = quantity of=20 energy needed, another problem with the = official=20 theory is that gravitational energy is = wholly=20 unsuited to explain the production of = these dust=20 clouds. This is most obviously the case in = the=20 first few seconds. In Hoffman=92s words: = =93You can=20 see thick clouds of pulverized concrete = being=20 ejected within the first two seconds. = That=92s when=20 the relative motion of the top of the = tower to the=20 intact portion was only a few feet per=20 second.=94[31] Jeff King (2003), in the = same vein,=20 says: =93[A great amount of] very fine = concrete dust=20 is ejected from the top of the building = very early=20 in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs = [would=20 have been] bumping into each other at = [only] 20 or=20 30 mph.=94

The importance of = King=92s point=20 can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with = the=20 claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST=92s lead = investigator,=20 that although the clouds of dust created = during=20 the collapses of the Twin Towers may = create the=20 impression of a controlled demolition, = =93it is the=20 floor pancaking that leads to that = perception"=20 (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking,=20 according to the official theory being = defended by=20 Sunder, began at the floor beneath the = holes=20 created by the impact of the airliners. As = King=20 points out, this theory cannot handle the = fact, as=20 revealed by the photographs and videos, = that dust=20 clouds were created far above the impact=20 zones.

Horizontal Ejections: = Another=20 common feature of controlled demolition is = the=20 horizontal ejection of other materials, = besides=20 dust, from those areas of the building in = which=20 explosives are set off. In the case of the = Twin=20 Towers, photos and videos reveal that = =93[h]eavy=20 pieces of steel were ejected in all = directions for=20 distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum = cladding=20 was blown up to 700 feet away from the = towers=94=20 (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But = gravitational=20 energy is, of course, vertical, so it = cannot even=20 begin to explain these horizontal = ejections.

Demolition Rings: Still = another=20 common feature of collapses induced by = explosions=20 are demolition rings, in which series of = small=20 explosions run rapidly around a building. = This=20 feature was also manifested by the = collapses of=20 the towers.[32]

Sounds Produced by = Explosions:=20 The use of explosives to induce collapses=20 produces, of course, sounds caused by the=20 explosions. Like all the previous features = except=20 the slicing of the steel columns inside = the=20 building, this one could be observed by = witnesses.=20 And, as we will see below, there is = abundant=20 testimony to the existence of such sounds = before=20 and during the collapses of the = towers.

Molten Steel: An = eleventh feature=20 that would be expected only if explosives = were=20 used to slice the steel columns would be = molten=20 steel, and its existence at the WTC site = was=20 indeed reported by several witnesses, = including=20 the two main figures involved in the clean = up,=20 Peter Tully, president of Tully = Construction, and=20 Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled = Demolition,=20 Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools = of=20 =93literally molten steel=94 at the site. = Loizeaux=20 said that several weeks after 9/11, when = the=20 rubble was being removed, =93hot spots of = molten=20 steel=94 were found =93at the bottoms of = the elevator=20 shafts of the main towers, down seven = [basement]=20 levels=94 (both statements quoted in = Bollyn,=20 2004).[33]

Also, Leslie Robertson, = the chief=20 structural engineer for the Twin Towers, = said: =93As=20 of 21 days after the attack, the fires = were still=20 burning and molten steel was still = running=94=20 (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist = Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" = O'Toole, a=20 Bronx firefighter who worked for many = months on=20 the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote:=20 "Underground fires raged for months. = O'Toole=20 remembers in February seeing a crane lift = a steel=20 beam vertically from deep within the = catacombs of=20 Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the = molten=20 steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg = Fuchek, vice=20 president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., = which=20 supplied some of the computer equipment = used to=20 identify human remains at the site, = described the=20 working conditions as "hellish," partly = because=20 for six months, the ground temperature = varied=20 between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 = degrees=20 or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes = when a=20 worker would pull a steel beam from the = wreckage,=20 the end of the beam would be dripping = molten=20 steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more = witnesses=20 spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of = great=20 significance, since it would be hard to = imagine=20 what, other than high explosives, could = have=20 caused some of the steel to melt.

The importance of the = nature of=20 the collapses, as summarized in these 11 = features,=20 is shown by the fact that attempts to = defend the=20 official theory typically ignore most of = them. For=20 example, an article in Popular Mechanics = (2005),=20 seeking to debunk what it calls some of = the most=20 prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by=20 =93conspiracy theorists,=94 completely = ignores the=20 suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and = totality of=20 the collapses and also fails to mention = the=20 testimonies about molten steel, demolition = rings,=20 and the sounds of explosions.[35]

2. Testimonies about = Explosions and Related Phenomena in the = 9/11 Oral=20 Histories

Most of these 11 = features---all=20 but the slicing of the core columns and = the molten=20 steel in the basements---are features = that, if=20 they occurred before or during the = collapses of=20 the towers, could have been observed by = people in=20 the area. And, in fact, testimonies about = some of=20 these phenomena have been available, since = shortly=20 after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire = fighters,[37]=20 police officers,[38] people who worked in = the=20 towers,[39] and one prominent explosives = expert,=20 Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day = after=20 viewing the videotapes, that the collapses = not=20 only resembled those produced by = controlled=20 implosions but must, in fact, have been = caused by=20 =93some explosive devices inside the = buildings=94=20 because they were =93too methodical=94 to = have been=20 chance results of the airplane strikes=20 (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these = testimonies=20 were very impressive. There were, however, = only a=20 few of them and they were scattered here = and=20 there. No big body of testimony was = readily=20 accessible.

But this situation has=20 dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, = the New=20 York Fire Department recorded over 500 = oral=20 histories, in which firefighters and = emergency=20 medical workers recounted their = experiences of=20 that day. [Emergency Medical Services had = become a=20 division within the Fire Department(Dwyer, = 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg=92s = administration,=20 however, refused to release them. But then = the New=20 York Times, joined by several families of = 9/11=20 victims, filed suit and, after a long = process, the=20 New York Court of Appeals ordered the city = to=20 release the bulk of these oral histories, = which it=20 did in August 2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The = Times=20 then made them publicly available (NYT,=20 2005).[43]

These oral histories = contain many=20 dozens of testimonies that speak of = explosions and=20 related phenomena characteristic of = controlled=20 demolition. I will give some examples.

Explosions

Several individuals = reported that=20 they witnessed an explosion just before = one of the=20 towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John = Sudnik=20 said: =93we heard . . . what sounded like = a loud=20 explosion and looked up and I saw tower = two start=20 coming down=94 (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported = multiple=20 explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski = said: "I=20 heard three explosions, and then . . . = tower two=20 started to come down=94 (NYT, Darnowski, = p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas = Turilli said,=20 =93it almost sounded like bombs going off, = like=20 boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" = (NYT,=20 Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that = he and=20 other firefighters =93heard explosions = coming from .=20 . . the south tower. . . . There were = about ten=20 explosions. . . . We then realized the = building=20 started to come down=94 (NYT, Carlsen, pp. = 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph = Meola said,=20 =93it looked like the building was blowing = out on=20 all four sides. We actually heard the = pops" (NYT,=20 Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera = also=20 mentioned =93pops.=94 Asked how he knew = that the south=20 tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging = noise. At first=20 I thought it was---do you ever see = professional=20 demolition where they set the charges on = certain=20 floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, = pop,=20 pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, = Rivera,=20 p. 9)

Collapse Beginning = below the=20 Strike Zone and Fire According to the = official=20 account, the =93pancaking=94 began when = the floors=20 above the hole caused by the airplane fell = on the=20 floors below. Some witnesses reported, = however,=20 that the collapse of the south tower began = somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that = =93the=20 building popped, lower than the fire. . . = . I was=20 going oh, my god, there is a secondary = device=20 because the way the building popped. I = thought it=20 was an explosion=94 (NYT, Burke, pp. = 8-9).

Firefighter Edward = Cachia said:=20 =93It actually gave at a lower floor, not = the floor=20 where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally = had=20 thought there was like an internal = detonation,=20 explosives, because it went in succession, = boom,=20 boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came = down=94=20 (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these = observations is reinforced by the fact = that the=20 authors of the NIST Report, after having = released=20 a draft to the public, felt the need to = add the=20 following statement to the Executive = Summary:

NIST found no = corroborating=20 evidence for alternative hypotheses = suggesting=20 that the WTC towers were brought down by=20 controlled demolition using explosives = planted=20 prior to September 11, 2001. . . . = Instead, photos=20 and videos from several angles clearly = showed that=20 the collapse initiated at the fire and = impact=20 floors and that the collapse progressed = from the=20 initiating floors downward.

Firefighters Burke and = Cachia=20 presumably now need to ask themselves: = What are=20 you going to believe, your own eyes or an = official=20 government report?

Flashes and = Demolition=20 Rings

Some of the witnesses = spoke of=20 flashes and of phenomena suggestive of = demolition=20 rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen = Gregory=20 said: =93I thought . . . before . . . No. = 2 came=20 down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . = I . . .=20 saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the = lower level=20 of the building. You know like when they = demolish=20 a building?=94 (NYT, Gregory, pp. = 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore = said:=20 =93Somewhere around the middle . . . there = was this=20 orange and red flash coming out. Initially = it was=20 just one flash. Then this flash just kept = popping=20 all the way around the building and that = building=20 had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each = popping=20 sound it was initially an orange and then = a red=20 flash came out of the building and then it = would=20 just go all around the building on both = sides as=20 far as I could see. These popping sounds = and the=20 explosions were getting bigger, going both = up and=20 down and then all around the building" = (NYT,=20 Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard = Banaciski=20 said: =93[T]here was just an explosion. It = seemed=20 like on television [when] they blow up = these=20 buildings. It seemed like it was going all = the way=20 around like a belt, all these = explosions=94 (NYT,=20 Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner = Thomas=20 Fitzpatrick said: =93It looked like = sparkling around=20 one specific layer of the building. . . . = My=20 initial reaction was that this was exactly = the way=20 it looks when they show you those = implosions on=20 TV" (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

Horizontal = Ejections

A few witnesses spoke = of=20 horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers = said:=20 =93There was what appeared to be . . . an = explosion.=20 It appeared at the very top, = simultaneously from=20 all four sides, materials shot out = horizontally.=20 And then there seemed to be a momentary = delay=20 before you could see the beginning of the=20 collapse=94 (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is = important,=20 because the official theory holds that the = ejections were produced by the floors = collapsing.=20 So listen to firefighter James Curran, who = said:=20 =93I looked back and . . . I heard like = every floor=20 went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from = the=20 pressure everything was getting blown out = of the=20 floors before it actually collapsed" (NYT, = Curran,=20 pp. 10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian = Dixon said,=20 =93the lowest floor of fire in the south = tower=20 actually looked like someone had planted=20 explosives around it because . . . = everything blew=20 out on the one floor" (NYT, Dixon, p. = 15).[44]

Synchronized=20 Explosions

Some witnesses said = that the=20 explosions seemed to be synchronized. For = example,=20 firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, =93there = was an=20 explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept = watching. Floor after floor after floor. = One floor=20 under another after another . . . [I]t = looked like=20 a synchronized deliberate kind of thing" = (NYT,=20 Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

Why Does the Public Not = Know of=20 These Reports? If all these firefighters = and=20 medical workers witnessed all these = phenomena=20 suggestive of controlled demolition, it = might be=20 wondered why the public does not know = this. Part=20 of the answer is provided by Auxiliary = Lieutenant=20 Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that = =93there were=20 definitely bombs in those buildings,=94 = Isaac added=20 that =93many other firemen know there were = bombs in=20 the buildings, but they=92re afraid for = their jobs=20 to admit it because the =91higher-ups=92 = forbid=20 discussion of this fact=94 (Lavello, = n.d.). Another=20 part of the answer is that when a few = people, like=20 Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken = out, the=20 mainstream press has failed to report = their=20 statements.

3. = Implications

The official theory = about the=20 collapse of the towers, I have suggested, = is=20 rendered extremely implausible by two main = facts.=20 First, aside from the alleged exception of = 9/11,=20 steel-frame high-rise buildings have never = been=20 caused to collapse by fire; all such = collapses=20 have all been produced by carefully placed = explosives. Second, the collapses of the = Twin=20 Towers manifested at least 11 = characteristic=20 features of controlled demolitions. The=20 probability that any of these features = would occur=20 in the absence of explosives is extremely = low. The=20 probability that all 11 of them would = occur is=20 essentially zero.[46]

We can say, therefore, = that the=20 official theory about the towers is = disproved=20 about as thoroughly as such a theory = possibly=20 could be, whereas all the evidence can be=20 explained by the alternative theory, = according to=20 which the towers were brought down by = explosives.=20 The official theory is, accordingly, an = outrageous=20 theory, whereas the alternative theory is, = from a=20 scientific point of view, the only = reasonable=20 theory available.[47]

4. Other Suspicious=20 Facts

Moreover, although we = have=20 already considered sufficient evidence for = the=20 theory that the towers were brought down = by=20 explosives, there is still more.

Removal of the Steel: = For one=20 thing, the steel from the buildings was = quickly=20 removed before it could be properly = examined,[48]=20 with virtually all of it being sold to = scrap=20 dealers, who put most of it on ships to = Asia.[49]=20 Generally, removing any evidence from the = scene of=20 a crime is a federal offense. But in this = case,=20 federal officials facilitated the = removal.[50]

This removal evoked = protest. On=20 Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times = said: =93The=20 decision to rapidly recycle the steel = columns,=20 beams and trusses from the WTC in the days = immediately after 9/11 means definitive = answers=20 may never be known.=94[51] The next week, = Fire=20 Engineering magazine said: =93We are = literally=20 treating the steel removed from the site = like=20 garbage, not like crucial fire scene = evidence=20 (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . = . The=20 destruction and removal of evidence must = stop=20 immediately=94 (Manning, 2002).

However, Mayor = Bloomberg,=20 defending the decision to dispose of the = steel,=20 said: "If you want to take a look at the=20 construction methods and the design, = that's in=20 this day and age what computers do.[52] = Just=20 looking at a piece of metal generally = doesn't tell=20 you anything."[53] But that is not true. = An=20 examination of the steel could have = revealed=20 whether it had been cut by explosives.

This removal of an = unprecedented=20 amount of material from a crime scene = suggests=20 that an unprecedented crime was being = covered=20 up.[54]

Evidence that this = cover-up was=20 continued by NIST is provided by its = treatment of=20 a provocative finding reported by FEMA, = which was=20 that some of the specimens of steel were = =93rapidly=20 corroded by sulfidation=94 (FEMA 2002, = Appendix C).=20 This report is significant, because = sulfidation is=20 an effect of explosives. FEMA = appropriately called=20 for further investigation of this finding, = which=20 the New York Times called =93perhaps the = deepest=20 mystery uncovered in the investigation=94=20 (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related = problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by = Dr.=20 Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire = Protection=20 Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic = Institute, is=20 that =93[f]ire and the structural damage . = . . would=20 not explain steel members in the debris = pile that=20 appear to have been partly evaporated=94 = (Glanz,=20 2001). But the NIST report, in its section = headed=20 =93Learning from the Recovered Steel,=94 = fails even to=20 mention either evaporation or = sulfidation.[55] Why=20 would the NIST scientists apparently share = Mayor=20 Bloomberg=92s disdain for empirical = studies of=20 recovered steel?

North Tower Antenna = Drop: Another=20 problem noted by FEMA is that videos show = that, in=20 the words of the FEMA Report, =93the = transmission=20 tower on top of the [north tower] began to = move=20 downward and laterally slightly before = movement=20 was evident at the exterior wall. This = suggests=20 that collapse began with one or more = failures in=20 the central core area of the building=94 = (FEMA 2002,=20 ch. 2).[56] This drop was also mentioned = in a New=20 York Times story by James Glanz and Eric = Lipton,=20 which said: =93Videos of the north tower's = collapse=20 appear to show that its television antenna = began=20 to drop a fraction of a second before the = rest of=20 the building. The observations suggest = that the=20 building's steel core somehow gave way = first=94=20 (Glanz and Lipton, 2002). In the = supposedly=20 definitive NIST Report, however, we find = no=20 mention of this fact. This is another = convenient=20 omission, since the most plausible, and = perhaps=20 only possible, explanation would be that = the core=20 columns were cut by explosives---an = explanation=20 that would fit with the testimony of = several=20 witnesses.

South Tower Tipping and = Disintegration: If the north tower=92s = antenna drop=20 was anomalous (from the perspective of the = official theory), the south tower=92s = collapse=20 contained an even stranger anomaly. The = uppermost=20 floors---above the level struck by the=20 airplane---began tipping toward the corner = most=20 damaged by the impact. According to=20 conservation-of-momentum laws, this block = of=20 approximately 34 floors should have fallen = to the=20 ground far outside the building=92s = footprint.=20 =93However,=94 observe Paul and Hoffman, = =93as the top=20 then began to fall, the rotation = decelerated. Then=20 it reversed direction [even though the] = law of=20 conservation of angular momentum states = that a=20 solid object in rotation will continue to = rotate=20 at the same speed unless acted on by a = torque=94=20 (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).

And then, in the words = of Steven=20 Jones, a physics professor at BYU, =93this = block=20 turned mostly to powder in mid-air!=94 = This=20 disintegration stopped the tipping and = allowed the=20 uppermost floors to fall straight down = into, or at=20 least close to, the building=92s = footprint. As Jones=20 notes, this extremely strange behavior was = one of=20 many things that NIST was able to ignore = by virtue=20 of the fact that its analysis, in its own = words,=20 =93does not actually include the = structural behavior=20 of the tower after the conditions for = collapse=20 initiation were reached=94 (NIST 2005, p. = 80, n.=20 12). This is convenient because it means = that NIST=20 did not have to answer Jones=92s question: = =93How can=20 we understand this strange behavior, = without=20 explosives?=94 (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, = however, not=20 strange to experts in controlled = demolition. Mark=20 Loizeaux, the head of Controlled = Demolition, Inc.,=20 has said:

[B]y differentially = controlling=20 the velocity of failure in different parts = of the=20 structure, you can make it walk, you can = make it=20 spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll = have=20 structures start facing north and end up = going to=20 the north-west. (Else, 2004)

Once again, something = that is=20 inexplicable in terms of the official = theory=20 becomes a matter of course if the theory = of=20 controlled demolition is adopted.

WTC Security: The = suggestion that=20 explosives might have been used raises the = question of how anyone wanting to place = explosives=20 in the towers could have gotten through = the=20 security checks. This question brings us = to a=20 possibly relevant fact about a = company---now=20 called Stratesec but then called = Securacom---that=20 was in charge of security for the World = Trade=20 Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which = Securacom=20 installed a new security system, Marvin = Bush, the=20 president=92s brother, was one of the = company=92s=20 directors. And from 1999 until January of = 2002,=20 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO = (Burns,=20 2003).[57] One would think these facts = should have=20 made the evening news---or at least The = 9/11=20 Commission Report.

These facts, in any = case, may be=20 relevant to some reports given by people = who had=20 worked in the World Trade Center. Some of = them=20 reportedly said that although in the weeks = before=20 9/11 there had been a security alert that = mandated=20 the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert = was=20 lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and = Gardiner,=20 2001).

Also, a man named Scott = Forbes,=20 who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the = company for=20 which Kristen Breitweiser=92s husband = worked---has=20 written:

On the weekend of = [September 8-9,=20 2001], there was a =93power down=94 = condition in . . .=20 the south tower. This power down condition = meant=20 there was no electrical supply for = approximately=20 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The = reason given=20 by the WTC for the power down was that = cabling in=20 the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of = course=20 without power there were no security = cameras, no=20 security locks on doors [while] many, many = =93engineers=94 [were] coming in and out = of the=20 tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben = Fountain,=20 who was a financial analyst with = Fireman=92s Fund in=20 the south tower, was quoted in People = Magazine as=20 saying that during the weeks before 9/11, = the=20 towers were evacuated =93a number of = times=94 (People=20 Magazine, 2001).

Foreknowledge of the = Collapse:=20 One more possibly relevant fact is that = then Mayor=20 Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about = his=20 temporary emergency command center at 75 = Barkley=20 Street, said:

We were operating out = of there=20 when we were told that the World Trade = Center was=20 gonna collapse, and it did collapse before = we=20 could get out of the building.[59]

This is an amazing = statement.=20 Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down = a=20 steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who = reached the=20 78th floor of the south tower certainly = did not=20 believe it was going to collapse. Even the = 9/11=20 Commission reported that to its knowledge, = =93none=20 of the [fire] chiefs present believed that = a total=20 collapse of either tower was possible=94 = (Kean and=20 Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would = anyone have=20 told Giuliani that at least one of the = towers was=20 about to collapse?

The most reasonable = answer,=20 especially in light of the new evidence, = is that=20 someone knew that explosives had been set = in the=20 south tower and were about to be = discharged. It is=20 even possible that the explosives were = going to be=20 discharged earlier than originally planned = because=20 the fires in the south tower were dying = down more=20 quickly than expected, because so much of = the=20 plane=92s jet fuel had burned up in the = fireball=20 outside the building.[60] This could = explain why=20 although the south tower was struck = second,=20 suffered less structural damage, and had = smaller=20 fires, it collapsed first---after only 56 = minutes.=20 That is, if the official story was going = to be=20 that the fire caused the collapse, the = building=20 had to be brought down before the fire = went=20 completely out.[61]

We now learn from the = oral=20 histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not = the only=20 one who was told that a collapse was = coming. At=20 least four of the testimonies indicate = that=20 shortly before the collapse of the south = tower,=20 the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) = had=20 predicted the collapse of at least one = tower.[62]=20 The director of OEM reported directly to=20 Giuliani.[63] So although Giuliani said = that he=20 and others =93were told=94 that the towers = were going=20 to collapse, it was his own people who = were doing=20 the telling.

As New York Times = reporter Jim=20 Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission = had=20 access to the oral histories.[64] It = should have=20 discussed these facts, but it did not.

The neglect of most of = the=20 relevant facts about the collapses, = manifested by=20 The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued = by the=20 NIST Report, which said, amazingly:

The focus of the = Investigation=20 was on the sequence of events from the = instant of=20 aircraft impact to the initiation of = collapse for=20 each tower. For brevity in this report, = this=20 sequence is referred to as the "probable = collapse=20 sequence," although it does not actually = include=20 the structural behavior of the tower after = the=20 conditions for collapse initiation were = reached. .=20 . . [Our simulation treats only] the = structural=20 deterioration of each tower from the time = of=20 aircraft impact to the time at which the = building=20 . . . was poised for collapse (80n, = 140).

Steven Jones comments,=20 appropriately:

What about the = subsequent=20 complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse = of the=20 buildings? . . . What about the antenna = dropping=20 first in the North Tower? What about the = molten=20 metal observed in the basement areas . . . = ? Never=20 mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all = any=20 data after the buildings were =93poised = for=20 collapse.=94 Well, some of us want to look = at all=20 the data, without computer simulations = that are=20 =93adjusted=94 to make them fit the = desired outcome.=20 (Jones, 2006)

Summary: When we add = these five=20 additional suspicious facts to the eleven = features=20 that that the collapses of the Twin Towers = had in=20 common with controlled demolitions, we = have a=20 total of sixteen facts about the collapses = of=20 these buildings that, while being = inexplicable in=20 terms of the official theory, are fully=20 understandable on the theory that the = destruction=20 of the towers was an inside job.

5. The Collapse of = Building=20 7

As we have seen, the = 9/11=20 Commission simply ignored the facts = discussed=20 above. Still another matter not discussed = by the=20 Commission was the collapse of building 7. = And yet=20 the official story about it is, if = anything, even=20 more problematic than the official story = about the=20 towers=97as suggested by the title of a = New York=20 Times story, =93Engineers Are Baffled over = the=20 Collapse of 7 WTC=94 (Glanz, = 2001).[65]

Even More Difficult = to=20 Explain

The collapse of = building 7 is=20 even more difficult to explain than the = collapse=20 of the towers in part because it was not = struck by=20 an airliner, so none of the theories about = how the=20 impacts of the airliners contributed to = the=20 collapses of the towers can be employed in = relation to it.

Also, all the = photographic=20 evidence suggests that the fires in this = building=20 were small, not very hot, and limited to a = few=20 floors. Photographs of the north side of = the=20 building show fires only on the 7th and = 12th=20 floors of this 47-floor building. So if = the south=20 side, which faced the towers, had fires on = many=20 other floors, as defenders of the official = account=20 claim, they were not big enough to be seen = from=20 the other side of the building.[66]

It would not be = surprising, of=20 course, if the fires in this building were = even=20 smaller than those in the towers, because = there=20 was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. = Some=20 defenders of the official story have = claimed, to=20 be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in = this=20 building somehow caught fire and created a = towering inferno. But if building 7 had = become=20 engulfed in flames, why did none of the = many=20 photographers and TV camera crews on the = scene=20 capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty = of=20 explaining the collapse of building = 7=97-assuming=20 that it is not permissible to mention = controlled=20 demolition---has been recognized by the = official=20 bodies. The report prepared under FEMA=92s = supervision came up with a scenario = employing the=20 diesel fuel, then admitted that this = scenario had=20 =93only a low probability of = occurrence.=94[67] Even=20 that statement is generous, because the=20 probability that some version of the = official=20 story of building 7 is true is the same as = it is=20 for the towers, essentially zero, because = it would=20 violate several laws of physics. In any = case, the=20 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this = admission=20 by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not = even=20 mentioning the fact that this building=20 collapsed.

This was one of the = Commission=92s=20 most amazing omissions. According to the = official=20 theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary = to the=20 universal conviction prior to 9/11, that = large=20 steel-frame buildings could collapse from = fire=20 alone, even without having been hit by an=20 airplane. This demonstration should have = meant=20 that building codes and insurance premiums = for all=20 steel-frame buildings in the world needed = to be=20 changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in = preparing=20 its 571-page report, did not devote a = single=20 sentence to this historic event.

Even More Similar to = Controlled Implosions

Yet another reason why = the=20 collapse of building 7 is especially = problematic=20 is that it was even more like the = best-known type=20 of conventional demolition=97-namely, an = implosion,=20 which begins at the bottom (whereas the = collapse=20 of each tower originated high up, near the = region=20 struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid = has=20 written:

Building 7 collapsed at = its=20 bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . = . . The=20 result was a very tiny pile of rubble, = with the=20 outside of the building collapsing on top = of the=20 pile.[68]

Implosion World.com, a = website=20 about the demolition industry, states that = an=20 implosion is =93by far the trickiest type = of=20 explosive project, and there are only a = handful of=20 blasting companies in the world that = possess=20 enough experience . . . to perform these = true=20 building implosions."[69] Can anyone = really=20 believe that fire would have just happened = to=20 produce the kind of collapse that can be = reliably=20 produced by only a few demolition = companies in the=20 world? The building had 24 core columns = and 57=20 perimeter columns. To hold that fire = caused this=20 building to collapse straight down would = mean=20 believing that the fire caused all 81 = columns to=20 fail at exactly the same time. To accept = the=20 official story is, in other words, to = accept a=20 miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees,=20 saying:

The likelihood of=20 near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to = random=20 fires (the "official" theory)---requiring = as it=20 does near-simultaneous failure of many = support=20 columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude = that the=20 evidence for the 9/11 use of = pre-positioned=20 explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and = 2) is=20 truly compelling.[70]

Much More Extensive=20 Foreknowledge

Another reason why the = collapse=20 of building 7 creates special problems = involves=20 foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of = only a=20 few people with advance knowledge that the = Twin=20 Towers were going to collapse, and the = information=20 we have would be consistent with the = supposition=20 that this knowledge was acquired only a = few=20 minutes before the south tower collapsed. = People=20 can imagine, therefore, that someone saw = something=20 suggesting that the building was going to=20 collapse. But the foreknowledge of = building 7=92s=20 collapse was more widespread and of longer = duration. This has been known for a long = time, at=20 least by people who read firefighters=92=20 magazines.[71] But now the oral histories = have=20 provided a fuller picture.

Widespread = Notification: At least=20 25 of the firefighters and medical workers = reported that, at some time that day, they = learned=20 that building 7 was going to collapse.=20 Firefighters who had been fighting the = fires in=20 the building said they were ordered to = leave the=20 building, after which a collapse zone was=20 established. As medical worker Decosta = Wright put=20 it: =93they measured out how far the = building was=20 going to come, so we knew exactly where we = could=20 stand,=94 which was =935 blocks away=94 = (NYT, Wright,=20 pp. 11-12).

Early Warning: As to = exactly when=20 the expectation of the collapse began = circulating,=20 the testimonies differ. But most of the = evidence=20 suggests that the expectation of collapse = was=20 communicated 4 or 5 hours in = advance.[72]

The Alleged Reason for = the=20 Expectation: But why would this = expectation have=20 arisen? The fires in building 7 were, = according to=20 all the photographic evidence, few and = small. So=20 why would the decision-makers in the = department=20 have decided to pull firefighters out of = building=20 7 and have them simply stand around = waiting for it=20 to collapse?

The chiefs gave a = twofold=20 explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank = Fellini=20 said: =93When [the north tower] fell, it = ripped=20 steel out from between the third and sixth = floors=20 across the facade on Vesey Street. We were = concerned that the fires on several floors = and the=20 missing steel would result in the building = collapsing=94 (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).

There are at least two = problems=20 with each part of this explanation. One = problem=20 with the accounts of the structural damage = is that=20 they vary greatly. According to = Fellini=92s=20 testimony, there was a four-floor hole = between the=20 third and sixth floors. In the telling of = Captain=20 Chris Boyle, however, the hole was =9320 = stories=20 tall=94 (2002). It would appear that Shyam = Sunder,=20 the lead investigator for NIST, settled on = somewhat of a compromise between these two = views,=20 telling Popular Mechanics that, =93On = about a third=20 of the face to the center and to the=20 bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 = percent=20 of the depth of the building was scooped = out=94=20 (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts = of the=20 problem on the building=92s south side are = not,=20 moreover, limited to the issue of the size = of the=20 hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter = Hayden, the=20 problem was not a hole at all but a = =93bulge,=94 and=20 it was =93between floors 10 and 13" = (Hayden,=20 2002).

The second problem with = these=20 accounts of the damage is if there was a = hole that=20 was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole = (or a=20 budge) that was 4 floors high, why was = this fact=20 not captured on film by any of the = photographers=20 or videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the = claims about=20 the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. = Chief=20 Daniel Nigro spoke of =93very heavy fire = on many=20 floors=94 (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According = to Harry=20 Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the = building=20 came down it was completely involved in = fire, all=20 forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, = 2002, p.=20 160). That obvious exaggeration was also = stated by=20 a firefighter who said: =93[Building 7] = was fully=20 engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames = going=20 straight through from one side of the = building to=20 the other=94 (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

Several of the = testimonies,=20 however, did not support the official = line. For=20 example, medical technician Decosta Wright = said:=20 =93I think the fourth floor was on fire. . = . . [W]e=20 were like, are you guys going to put that = fire=20 out?=94 (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas = McCarthy=20 said: =93[T]hey were waiting for 7 World = Trade to=20 come down. . . . They had . . . fire on = three=20 separate floors . . . , just burning = merrily. It=20 was pretty amazing, you know, it's the = afternoon=20 in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is = burning,=20 and they said =91we know=92=94 (NYT, = McCarthy, pp.=20 10-11).

The second problem with = the=20 official account here is that if there was = =93very=20 heavy fire on many floors,=94 why is this = fact not=20 captured on any film? The photograph that = we have=20 of the north side of the building supports = Chief=20 McCarthy=92s view that there was fire on = three=20 floors. Even if there were fires on = additional=20 floors on the south side of the building, = there is=20 no photographic support for the claim that = =93the=20 flames [on these additional floors went] = straight=20 through from one side of the building to = the=20 other.=94

Moreover, even if the=20 department=92s official story about the = collapse of=20 building 7 were not contradicted by = physical=20 evidence and some of the oral histories, = it would=20 not explain why the building collapsed, = because no=20 amount of fire and structural damage, = unless=20 caused by explosives, had ever caused the = total=20 collapse of a large steel-frame = building.[73] And=20 it certainly would not explain the = particular=20 nature of the collapse---that the building = imploded and fell straight down rather = than=20 falling over in some direction, as = purportedly=20 expected by those who gave the order to = create a=20 large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John = Norman,=20 for example, said: =93We expected it to = fall to the=20 south=94 (Norman 2002). Nor would the=20 damage-plus-fire theory explain this = building=92s=20 collapse at virtually free-fall speed or = the=20 creation of an enormous amount of = dust=97additional=20 features of the collapses that are = typically=20 ignored by defenders of the official = account.

The great difficulty = presented to=20 the official theory about the WTC by the = collapse=20 of building 7 is illustrated by a recent = book, 102=20 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to = Survive=20 Inside the Twin Towers, one of the authors = of=20 which is New York Times reporter Jim = Dwyer, who=20 wrote the stories in the Times about the = release=20 of the 9/11 oral histories. With regard to = the=20 Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, = Kevin Flynn,=20 support the theory put out by NIST, = according to=20 which the towers collapsed because the = airplanes=20 knocked the fire-proofing off the steel = columns,=20 making them vulnerable to the =93intense = heat=94 of=20 the ensuing fires.[74] When they come to = building=20 7, however, Dwyer and Flynn do not ask why = it=20 collapsed, given the fact that it was not = hit by a=20 plane. They simply say: =93The = firefighters had=20 decided to let the fire there burn itself = out=94=20 (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 258). But that, = of=20 course, is not what happened. Rather, = shortly=20 after 5:20 that day, building 7 suddenly=20 collapsed, in essentially the same way as = did the=20 Twin Towers.

Should this fact not = have led=20 Dryer and Flynn to question NIST=92s = theory that the=20 Twin Towers collapsed because their = fireproofing=20 had been knocked loose? I would especially = think=20 that Dwyer, who reported on the release of = the=20 9/11 oral histories, should re-assess = NIST=92s=20 theory in light of the abundant evidence = of=20 explosions in the towers provided in those = testimonies.[75]

Another Explanation: = There is, in=20 any case, only one theory that explains = both the=20 nature and the expectation of the collapse = of=20 building 7: Explosives had been set, and = someone=20 who knew this spread the word to the fire=20 chiefs.

Amazingly enough, a = version of=20 this theory was publicly stated by an = insider,=20 Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. = In a PBS=20 documentary aired in September of 2002,=20 Silverstein, discussing building 7, = said:

I remember getting a = call from=20 the, er, fire department commander, = telling me=20 that they were not sure they were gonna be = able to=20 contain the fire, and I said, =93We've had = such=20 terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest = thing to=20 do is pull it.=94[76] And they made that = decision to=20 pull and we watched the building collapse. = (PBS,=20 2002) [77]

It is very puzzling, to = be sure,=20 that Silverstein, who was ready to receive = billions of dollars in insurance payments = for=20 building 7 and the rest of the World Trade = Center=20 complex, on the assumption that they had = been=20 destroyed by acts of terrorism, would have = made=20 such a statement in public, especially = with TV=20 cameras running. But his assertion that = building 7=20 was brought down by explosives, whatever = the=20 motive behind it, explains why and how it=20 collapsed.

We still, however, have = the=20 question of why the fire department came = to expect=20 the building to collapse. It would be = interesting,=20 of course, if that information came from = the same=20 agency, the Office of Emergency = Management, that=20 had earlier informed the department that = one of=20 the towers was going to collapse. And we = have it=20 on good authority that it did. Captain = Michael=20 Currid, the president of the Uniformed = Fire=20 Officers Association, said that some time = after=20 the collapse of the Twin Towers, = =93Someone from the=20 city's Office of Emergency Management=94 = told him=20 that building 7 was =93basically a lost = cause and we=20 should not lose anyone else trying to save = it,"=20 after which the firefighters in the = building were=20 told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp.=20 175-76).[78]

But that answer, = assuming it to=20 be correct, leaves us with more questions, = beginning with: Who in the Office of = Emergency=20 Management knew in advance that the towers = and=20 building 7 were going to collapse? How did = they=20 know this? And so on. These questions = could be=20 answered only by a real investigation, = which has=20 yet to begin.

6. = Conclusion

It is, in any case, = already=20 possible to know, beyond a reasonable = doubt, one=20 very important thing: the destruction of = the World=20 Trade Center was an inside job, = orchestrated by=20 domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists = could not=20 have gotten access to the buildings to = plant the=20 explosives. They probably would not have = had the=20 courtesy to make sure that the buildings = collapsed=20 straight down, rather than falling over = onto=20 surrounding buildings. And they could not = have=20 orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick = disposal=20 of the steel to the FEMA Report to The = 9/11=20 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All = of these=20 things could have been orchestrated only = by forces=20 within our own government.

The evidence for this = conclusion=20 has thus far been largely ignored by the=20 mainstream press, perhaps under the guise = of=20 obeying President Bush=92s advice not to = tolerate=20 =93outrageous conspiracy theories.=94 We = have seen,=20 however, that it is the Bush = administration=92s=20 conspiracy theory that is the outrageous = one,=20 because it is violently contradicted by = numerous=20 facts, including some basic laws of = physics.

There is, of course, = another=20 reason why the mainstream press has not = pointed=20 out these contradictions. As a recent = letter to=20 the Los Angeles Times said:

The number of = contradictions in=20 the official version of . . . 9/11 is so=20 overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot = be=20 believed. Yet . . . the official version = cannot be=20 abandoned because the implication of = rejecting it=20 is far too disturbing: that we are subject = to a=20 government conspiracy of =91X-Files=92 = proportions and=20 insidiousness.[79]

The implications are = indeed=20 disturbing. Many people who know or at = least=20 suspect the truth about 9/11 probably = believe that=20 revealing it would be so disturbing to the = American psyche, the American form of = government,=20 and global stability that it is better to = pretend=20 to believe the official version. I would = suggest,=20 however, that any merit this argument may = have had=20 earlier has been overcome by more recent = events=20 and realizations. Far more devastating to = the=20 American psyche, the American form of = government,=20 and the world as a whole will be the = continued=20 rule of those who brought us 9/11, because = the=20 values reflected in that horrendous event = have=20 been reflected in the Bush = administration=92s lies=20 to justify the attack on Iraq, its = disregard for=20 environmental science and the Bill of = Rights, its=20 criminal negligence both before and after = Katrina,=20 and now its apparent plan not only to = weaponize=20 space but also to authorize the use of = nuclear=20 weapons in a preemptive strike.

In light of this = situation and=20 the facts discussed in this essay---as = well as=20 dozens of more problems in the official = account of=20 9/11 discussed in my books---I call on the = New=20 York Times to take the lead in finally = exposing to=20 the American people and the world the = truth about=20 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story = will, of=20 course, involve enormous risks. But if = there is=20 any news organization with the power, the=20 prestige, and the credibility to break = this story,=20 it is the Times. It performed yeoman = service in=20 getting the 9/11 oral histories released. = But now=20 the welfare of our republic and perhaps = even the=20 survival of our civilization depend on = getting the=20 truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on = the=20 Times to rise to the occasion. =20

ENDNOTES

[1] Both lectures are also = available=20 on DVDs edited by Ken Jenkins=20 (kenjenkins@aol.com). See also Griffin, = 2005c.

[2] Bush=92s more complete = statement=20 was: =93We must speak the truth about = terror. Let us=20 never tolerate outrageous conspiracy = theories=20 concerning the attacks of 11 = September---malicious=20 lies that attempt to shift the blame away = from the=20 terrorists themselves, away from the = guilty.=94=20 Excellent advice.

[3] This report was = carried out by=20 the American Society of Civil Engineers = (ASCE) on=20 behalf of the Federal Emergency Management = Agency=20 (FEMA). The public was exposed to this = theory=20 early on, with CNN saying shortly after = 9/11: =93The=20 collapse, when it came, was caused by = fire. . . .=20 The fire weakened that portion of the = structure=20 which remained after the impact. . . to = the point=20 where it could no longer sustain the = load=94 (CNN,=20 September 24, 2001).

[4] NIST describes the = collapses of=20 the towers as instances of =93progressive = collapse,=94=20 which happens when "a building or portion = of a=20 building collapses due to disproportionate = spread=20 of an initial local failure" (NIST Report, = p.=20 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that = the total=20 collapses of the three WTC buildings were = specific=20 instances of a general category with other = instances. NIST even claims that the = collapses=20 were =93inevitable.=94

[5] The chief structural = engineer,=20 Leslie Robertson, said that the Twin = Towers were=20 designed to withstand the impact of a = Boeing 707,=20 at that time (1966) the largest airliner. = See =93The=20 Fall of the World Trade Center,=94 BBC 2, = March 7,=20 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.sht= ml=20 ). For a comparison of the 707 and the = 767, see=20 =93Boeing 707-767 Comparison,=94 What = Really Happened=20 = (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html).=20 Also relevant is the fact that in 1945, a = B-25=20 bomber struck the Empire State Building at = the=20 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. = But=20 there was never the slightest indication = that this=20 accident would cause the building to = collapse (see=20 Glover, 2002).

[6] The NIST Report (2005, = pp. xliii=20 and 171) says: =93the towers withstood the = impacts=20 and would have remained standing were it = not for=20 the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) = and the=20 subsequent multifloor fires.=94

[7] Supported by these = authorities,=20 the show went on to claim that =93as fires = raged in=20 the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the = steel=20 cores in each building would have = eventually=20 reached 800=B0C [1472=B0F]---hot enough to = start=20 buckling and collapsing.=94

[8]In Griffin, 2004, pp. = 12-13, I=20 cite Professor Thomas Eagar=92s = acknowledgment of=20 this fact.

[9] Given the fact that = the claim=20 that the fires in the towers melted its = steel is=20 about as absurd, from a scientific point = of view,=20 as a claim could be, it is amazing to see = that=20 some scientific journals seemed eager to = rush into=20 print with this claim. On the day after = 9/11, for=20 example, New Scientist published an = article that=20 said: =93Each tower [after it was struck] = remained=20 upright for nearly an hour. Eventually = raging=20 fires melted the supporting steel = struts=94 (Samuel=20 and Carrington, 2001). The article=92s = title,=20 =93Design Choice for Towers Saved = Lives=94, reflects=20 the equally absurd claim---attributed to = =93John=20 Hooper, principal engineer in the company = that=20 provided engineering advice when the World = Trade=20 Center was designed=94---that =93[m]ost = buildings=20 would have come down immediately.=94

[10] Stating this obvious = point=20 could, however, be costly to employees of=20 companies with close ties to the = government. On=20 November 11, 2004, Kevin Ryan, the Site = Manager of=20 the Environmental Health Laboratories, = which is a=20 division of Underwriters Laboratories, = wrote an=20 e-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy = Chief of=20 the Metallurgy Division, Material Science = and=20 Engineering Laboratory, at the National = Institute=20 of Standards and Technology (NIST). In = this=20 letter, Ryan stated: =93We know that the = steel=20 components were certified to ASTM E119. = The time=20 temperature curves for this standard = require the=20 samples to be exposed to temperatures = around=20 2000=B0F for several hours. And as we all = agree, the=20 steel applied met those specifications.=20 Additionally, I think we can all agree = that even=20 un-fireproofed steel will not melt until = reaching=20 red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000=B0F. = Why Dr.=20 Brown would imply that 2000=B0F would melt = the=20 high-grade steel used in those buildings = makes no=20 sense at all.=94 After Ryan allowed his = letter to=20 become public, he was fired. His letter is = available at http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php=20 .

[11] One well-known = attempt to=20 defend the official account has tried to = use the=20 absurdity of the steel-melting claim = against those=20 who reject the official account. In its = March=20 issue of 2005, Popular Mechanics magazine=20 published a piece entitled =939/11: = Debunking the=20 Myths=94=20 = (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3D1&am= p;c=3Dy).=20 This article sets out to debunk what it = alleges to=20 be =9316 of the most prevalent claims made = by=20 conspiracy theorists.=94 One of these = =93poisonous=20 claims,=94 according to Popular Mechanics, = results=20 from the fact that that these = =93conspiracy=20 theorists=94 have created a straw-man=20 argument---pretending that the official = theory=20 claims that the buildings came down = because their=20 steel melted---which the conspiracy = theorists=20 could then knock down. Popular Mechanics = =93refutes=94=20 this straw-man argument by instructing us = that=20 =93[j]et fuel burns at 800=B0 to 1500=B0F, = not hot=20 enough to melt steel (2750=B0F). However, = experts=20 agree that for the towers to collapse, = their steel=20 frames didn't need to melt, they just had = to lose=20 some of their structural strength.=94 As = we have=20 seen, however, the idea that the towers = collapsed=20 because their steel melted was put into = the public=20 consciousness by some early defenders of = the=20 official theory. For critics of this = theory to=20 show the absurdity of this claim is not,=20 therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea = that=20 the official theory is based on this = absurd claim=20 is, in any case, not one of =93the most = prevalent=20 claims=94 of those who reject the official = theory.

[12] Even Shyam Sunder, = the lead=20 investigator for the NIST study, said: = =93The jet=20 fuel probably burned out in less than 10 = minutes=94=20 (Field, 2004). The NIST Report itself says = (p.=20 179): =93The initial jet fuel fires = themselves=20 lasted at most a few minutes.=94

[13] The NIST Report = (2005, p. 68),=20 trying to argue that steel is very = vulnerable=20 unless it is protected by insulation, = says: =93Bare=20 structural steel components can heat = quickly when=20 exposed to a fire of even moderate = intensity.=20 Therefore, some sort of thermal = protection, or=20 insulation, is necessary=94. As Hoffman = (2005)=20 points out, however: =93These statements = are=20 meaningless, because they ignore the = effect of=20 steel=92s thermal conductivity, which = draws away=20 heat, and the considerable thermal mass of = the=20 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower.=94 = Also, I can=20 only wonder if the authors of the NIST = Report=20 reflected on the implications of their = theory for=20 the iron or steel grating in their = fireplaces. Do=20 they spray on new fireproofing after = enjoying a=20 blazing hot fire for a few hours?

[14]Quoted in =93WTC 2: = There Was No=20 Inferno,=94 What Really Happened=20 = (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html).

[15] Quoted in =93Tape = Sheds Light on=20 WTC Rescuers,=94 CNN, August 4, 2002 (http://a= rchives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/wtc.firefighters/=20 ). The voices of the firefighters = reportedly=20 =93showed no panic, no sense that events = were racing=20 beyond their control.=94 (Dwyer and = Fessenden,=20 2002)

[16] As Eric Hufschmid = (2002, p. 33)=20 says: =93A fire will not affect steel = unless the=20 steel is exposed to it for a long . . . = period of=20 time=94.

[17] CNN, September 24, = 2001.

[18] Kevin Ryan, in his = letter to=20 Frank Gayle (see note 10, above), wrote in = criticism of NIST=92s preliminary report: = =93This=20 story just does not add up. If steel from = those=20 buildings did soften or melt, I=92m sure = we can all=20 agree that this was certainly not due to = jet fuel=20 fires of any kind, let alone the briefly = burning=20 fires in those towers. . . . Please do = what you=20 can to quickly eliminate the confusion = regarding=20 the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or = melt=20 structural steel.=94

[19] See, for example, = Eric=20 Hufschmid=92s =93Painful Deceptions=94 = (available at=20 www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman=92s = website=20 (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); = and Jeff=20 King=92s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.ht= ml-.html=20 ), especially =93The World Trade Center = Collapse:=20 How Strong is the Evidence for a = Controlled=20 Demolition?=94

[20] Incredibly, after = explaining=20 how precisely explosives must be set to = ensure=20 that a building comes straight down, = Loizeaux said=20 that upon seeing the fires in the Twin = Towers, he=20 knew that the towers were =93going to = pancake down,=20 almost vertically. It was the only way = they could=20 fail. It was inevitable.=94 Given the fact = that fire=20 had never before caused steel-frame = buildings to=20 collapse, let alone in a way that = perfectly=20 mimicked controlled demolition, = Loizeaux=92s=20 statement is a cause for wonder. His = company,=20 incidentally, was hired to remove the = steel from=20 the WTC site after 9/11.

[21] The fire theory is = rendered=20 even more unlikely if the first two=20 characteristics are taken together. For = fire to=20 have induced a collapse that began = suddenly and=20 was entirely symmetrical, so that it went = straight=20 down, the fires would have needed to cause = all the=20 crucial parts of the building to fail=20 simultaneously, even though the fires were = not=20 spread evenly throughout the buildings. As = Jim=20 Hoffman has written: =93All 287 columns = would have=20 to have weakened to the point of collapse = at the=20 same instant=94 (=93The Twin Towers = Demolition,=94 9-11=20 Research.wtc7.net, n.d., http://911r= esearch.wtc7.net/talks/towers/slides.html=20 ).

[22] That statement is = probably a=20 slight exaggeration, as the videos, = according to=20 most students, seem to suggest that the = collapses=20 took somewhere between 11 and 16 seconds. = But this=20 would still be close to free-fall speed = through=20 the air.

[23] As physicist Steven = Jones puts=20 it, =93the Towers fall very rapidly to the = ground,=20 with the upper part falling nearly as = rapidly as=20 ejected debris which provide free-fall = references=20 . . . . Where is the delay that must be = expected=20 due to conservation of momentum---one of = the=20 foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as=20 upper-falling floors strike lower = floors---and=20 intact steel support columns---the fall = must be=20 significantly impeded by the impacted = mass. . . .=20 [B]ut this is not the case. . . . How do = the upper=20 floors fall so quickly, then, and still = conserve=20 momentum in the collapsing buildings? The=20 contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and = 9/11=20 Commission reports where conservation of = momentum=20 and the fall times were not analyzed=94 = (Jones,=20 2006; until then available at=20 = http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html).

[24] Each box column, = besides being=20 at least 36 by 16 inches, had walls that = were at=20 least 4 inches thick at the base, then = tapered off=20 in the upper floors, which had less weight = to=20 support. Pictures of columns can be seen = on page=20 23 of Hufschmid, 2002. The reason for the=20 qualification =93at least=94 in these = statements is=20 that Jim Hoffman has recently concluded = that some=20 of them were even bigger. With reference = to his=20 article =93The Core Structures: The = Structural=20 System of the Twin Towers,=94 9-11=20 Research.wtc7.net, n.d.=20 = [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html],=20 he has written (e-mail letter of October = 26,=20 2005): =93Previously I've been saying that = the core=20 columns had outside dimensions of 36" X = 16", but I=20 now think that at least 1/3 of them had = dimensions=20 of 54" X 22", based on early articles in = the=20 Engineering News Record and photographs I = took of=20 close-up construction photos on display at = the=20 Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan. . . . = Also,=20 according to the illustration in the = Engineering=20 News Record, the thickness of the steel at = the=20 bases was 5", not 4".=94

[25] And, as Hoffman = (2005) says,=20 NIST=92s claim about these tremendously = hot fires in=20 the core is especially absurd given the = fact that=20 the core =93had very little fuel; was far = from any=20 source of fresh air; had huge steel = columns to=20 wick away the heat; [and] does not show = evidence=20 of fires in any of the photographs or = videos.=94 All=20 the evidence, in other words, suggests = that none=20 of the core columns would have (from the = fire)=20 reached the highest temperatures reached = by some=20 of the perimeter columns.

[26] NIST rests its theory = largely=20 on the idea that collapse began with the = failure=20 of the trusses. Being much smaller and = also less=20 interconnected, trusses would have been = much=20 easier to heat up, so it is not surprising = that=20 the NIST Report focuses on them. To try to = make=20 its theory work, however, NIST claims that = the=20 trusses became hotter than their own = evidence=20 supports. That is, although NIST found no = evidence=20 that any of the steel had gotten hotter = than=20 1112=B0F (600=B0C), it claims that some of = the steel=20 trusses were heated up to 1,292=B0F = (700=B0C) (2005,=20 pp. 96, 176-77). A supposedly scientific = argument=20 cannot arbitrarily add 180=B0F just = because it=20 happens to need it. In any case, besides = the fact=20 that this figure is entirely unsupported = by any=20 evidence, NIST=92s theory finally depends = on the=20 claim that the core columns failed as =93a = result of=20 both splice connection failures and = fracture of=20 the columns themselves,=94 because they = were=20 =93weakened significantly by . . . thermal = effects=94=20 (2005, pp. 88, 180). But there is no = explanation=20 of how these massive columns would have = been=20 caused to =93fracture,=94 even if the = temperatures had=20 gotten to those heights. As a study issued = in the=20 UK put it: =93Thermal expansion and the = response of=20 the whole frame to this effect has not = been=20 described [by NIST] as yet=94 (Lane and = Lamont,=20 2005).

[27] The RDX quotation is = in Tom=20 Held, 'Hoan Bridge Blast Set Back to = Friday,'=20 www.jsonline.com (Milwaukee Journal = Sentinel),=20 Updated Dec. 19, 2000 (http:= //www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec00/hoan20121900a.asp=20 ). The DREXS quotation is in Hufschmid=92s = video,=20 =93Painful Deceptions=94 = (www.EricHufschmid.Net).

[28] In that statement, = Hoffman said=20 that most of the sections seemed to be no = more=20 than 30-feet long. He later revised this, = saying=20 that, judging from an aerial image taken = 12 days=20 after the attacks, most of the pieces = seemed to be=20 between 24 and 48 feet long, with only a = few over=20 50 feet. He also noted that =93the lengths = of the=20 pieces bears little resemblance to the = lengths of=20 the steel parts known to have gone into = the=20 construction,=94 which means that one = could not=20 reasonably infer that the pieces simply = broke at=20 their joints (e-mail letter, September 27, = 2005).

[29] The available = evidence, says=20 Hoffman (2003), suggests that the dust = particles=20 were very small indeed---on the order of = 10=20 microns.

[30] Hoffman (=93The Twin = Towers=20 Demolition=94) says that the clouds = expanded to five=20 times the diameter of the towers in the = first ten=20 seconds. The Demolition of the Kingdome = can be=20 viewed at the website of Controlled = Demolition,=20 Inc.=20 = (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=3D7&reqIte= mId=3D20030317140323).=20 The demolition of the Reading Grain = Facility can=20 be seen at ImplosionWorld.com=20 = (http://implosionworld.com/reading.html).

[31]Jim Hoffman, =93The = Twin Towers=20 Demolition.=94

[32]For visual evidence of = this and=20 the preceding characteristics (except = sliced=20 steel), see Hufschmid=92s Painful = Questions;=20 Hufschmid=92s video =93Painful = Deceptions=94 (available=20 at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman=92s = website=20 (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); = and Jeff=20 King=92s website=20 = (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html= ),=20 especially =93The World Trade Center = Collapse: How=20 Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled=20 Demolition?=94

[33] Bollyn says (e-mail = letter of=20 October 27, 2005) that these statements = were made=20 to him personally during telephone = interviews with=20 Tully and Loizeaux, probably in the summer = of=20 2002. Bollyn added that although he is not = positive about the date of the telephone=20 interviews, he is always =93very precise = about=20 quotes=94=20 = (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html= ).

[34]Professor Allison Geyh = (2001) of=20 Johns Hopkins, who was part of a team of = public=20 health investigators who visited the site = shortly=20 after 9/11, wrote: "In some pockets now = being=20 uncovered they are finding molten = steel=94. Dr.=20 Keith Eaton, who somewhat later toured the = site=20 with an engineer, said that he was shown = slides of=20 =93molten metal, which was still red hot = weeks after=20 the event=94 (Structural Engineer, 2002, = p. 6). Herb=20 Trimpe (2002), an Episcopalian deacon who = served=20 as a chaplain at Ground Zero, said: "[I]t = was=20 actually warmer on site. The fires burned, = up to=20 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a = while. . .=20 . I talked to many contractors and they = said . . .=20 beams had just totally had been melted = because of=20 the heat."

[35] This article in = Popular=20 Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly = bad.=20 Besides the problems pointed out here and = in note=20 11, above, and note 39, below, the article = makes=20 this amazing claim: =93In the decade = before 9/11,=20 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane = over=20 North America: golfer Payne Stewart's = Learjet, in=20 October 1999.=94 In reality, as genuine = 9/11=20 researchers know, the FAA reported in a = news=20 release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had = scrambled=20 fighters 67 times between September 2000 = and June=20 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, = 2001)=20 reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 = times=20 in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer = that NORAD=20 had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in = the=20 decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular = Mechanics could be true only if in all of = these=20 cases, except for the Payne Stewart = incident, the=20 fighters were called back to base before = they=20 actually intercepted the aircraft in = question.=20 This is a most unlikely possibility, = especially in=20 light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, = a NORAD=20 spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston = Globe a=20 few days after 9/11 that =93[NORAD=92S] = fighters=20 routinely intercept aircraft=94 (Johnson, = 2001).

As to why Popular = Mechanics would=20 have published such a bad article, one = clue is=20 perhaps provided by the fact that the = article=92s=20 =93senior researcher=94 was 25-year old = Benjamin=20 Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the = new head=20 of the Department of Homeland Security = (see=20 Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is = that this=20 article was published shortly after a coup = at this=20 Hearst-owned magazine, in which the=20 editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, = 2005b).=20 Young Chertoff=92s debunking article has = itself been=20 effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11=20 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, = =93Popular=20 Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,=94 = Global Outlook=20 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was = based on=20 Hoffman, =93Popular Mechanics=92 Deceptive = Smear=20 Against 9/11 Truth,=94 911Review.com, = February 15,=20 2005 = [http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]),=20 and Peter Meyer, =93Reply to Popular = Mechanics re=20 9/11,=94=20 = http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm.=20 To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and = Meyer,=20 while agreeing on many points, take = different=20 approaches in response to some of the = issues=20 raised. But both articles demonstrate that = Popular=20 Mechanics owes its readers an apology for=20 publishing such a massively flawed article = on such=20 an important subject.

[36] NBC=92s Pat Dawson = reported from=20 the WTC on the morning of 9/11 that he had = been=20 told by Albert Turi, the Fire = Department=92s Deputy=20 Assistant Chief of Safety, that =93another = explosion=20 . . . took place . . . an hour after the = first=20 crash . . . in one of the towers here. So=20 obviously . . . he thinks that there were = actually=20 devices that were planted in the = building=94 (Watson=20 and Perez, 2004). A Wall Street Journal = reporter=20 said: =93I heard this metallic roar, = looked up and=20 saw what I thought was just a peculiar = site of=20 individual floors, one after the other = exploding=20 outward. I thought to myself, =93My God, = they=92re=20 going to bring the building down.=94 And = they,=20 whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . = I saw=20 the explosions=94 (Shepard and Trost, = 2002). BBC=20 reporter Steve Evans said: =93I was at the = base of=20 the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . = There=20 was an explosion. . . . [T]he base of the = building=20 shook. . . . [T]hen when we were outside, = the=20 second explosion happened and then there = was a=20 series of explosions=94 (BBC, Sept. 11, = 2001; quoted=20 in Bollyn, 2002).

[37] In June of 2002, NBC = television=20 played a segment from tapes recorded on = 9/11 that=20 contained the following exchange involving = firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to = dispatch,=20 we've just had another explosion.

Official: Battalion 3 to = dispatch,=20 we've had additional explosion.

Dispatcher: Received = battalion=20 command. Additional explosion (=93911 = Tapes Tell=20 Horror Of 9/11,=94 Part 2, "Tapes Released = For First=20 Time", NBC, June 17, 2002=20 [www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html = ]).

Firefighter Louie = Cacchioli reported=20 that upon entering the north tower=92s = lobby, he saw=20 elevator doors completely blown out and = people=20 being hit with debris. =93I remember = thinking . . .=20 how could this be happening so quickly if = a plane=20 hit way above?=94 When he reached the 24th = floor, he=20 encountered heavy dust and smoke, which he = found=20 puzzling in light of the fact that the = plane had=20 struck the building over 50 stories = higher.=20 Shortly thereafter, he and another fireman = =93heard=20 this huge explosion that sounded like a = bomb. It=20 was such a loud noise, it knocked off the = lights=20 and stalled the elevator.=94 After they = pried=20 themselves out of the elevator, he = reported,=20 =93another huge explosion like the first = one hits.=20 This one hits about two minutes later . . = . [and]=20 I=92m thinking, =91Oh. My God, these = bastards put=20 bombs in here like they did in 1993!=92 . = . . Then=20 as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear = another=20 huge explosion like the other two. Then I = heard=20 bang, bang, bang---huge bangs=94 = (Szymanski, 2005a).=20 A briefer account of Cacchioli=92s = testimony was=20 made available in the Sept. 24, 2001, = issue of=20 People magazine, some of which is quoted = in=20 Griffin, 2004, Ch. 1, note 74.

[38] Terri Tobin, a = lieutenant with=20 the NYPD public information office, said = that=20 during or just after the collapse of the = south=20 tower, "all I heard were extremely loud=20 explosions. I thought we were being = bombed=94 (Fink=20 and Mathias, 2002, p. 82). A story in the = Guardian=20 said: =93In New York, police and fire = officials were=20 carrying out the first wave of evacuations = when=20 the first of the World Trade Centre towers = collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported = hearing=20 another explosion just before the = structure=20 crumbled. Police said that it looked = almost like a=20 =91planned implosion=92=94 (Borger, = Campbell, Porter,=20 and Millar, 2001).

[39] Teresa Veliz, who = worked for a=20 software development company, was on the = 47th=20 floor of the north tower when suddenly = =93the whole=20 building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] = the=20 building shook again, this time even more=20 violently." Veliz then made it downstairs = and=20 outside. During this period, she says: = =93There were=20 explosions going off everywhere. I was = convinced=20 that there were bombs planted all over the = place=20 and someone was sitting at a control panel = pushing=20 detonator buttons=94 (Murphy, 2002).

William Rodriguez worked = as a=20 janitor in the north tower. While he was = checking=20 in for work in the office on sub-level 1 = at 9:00=20 AM, he reports, he and the other 14 people = in the=20 office heard and felt a massive explosion = below=20 them. "When I heard the sound of the = explosion,=94=20 he says, =93the floor beneath my feet = vibrated, the=20 walls started cracking and everything = started=20 shaking. . . . Seconds [later], I hear = another=20 explosion from way above. . . . Although I = was=20 unaware at the time, this was the airplane = hitting=20 the tower.=94 Then co-worker Felipe David, = who had=20 been in front of a nearby freight = elevator, came=20 into the office with severe burns on his = face and=20 arms yelling "explosion! explosion! = explosion!"=20 According to Rodriguez: =93He was burned = terribly.=20 The skin was hanging off his hands and = arms. His=20 injuries couldn=92t have come from the = airplane=20 above, but only from a massive explosion = below=94=20 (Szymanski, 2005b).

Stationary engineer Mike = Pecoraro,=20 who was working in the north tower=92s = sixth=20 sub-basement, stated that after his = co-worker=20 reported seeing lights flicker, they = called=20 upstairs to find out what happened. They = were told=20 that there had been a loud explosion and = the whole=20 building seemed to shake. Pecoraro and = Chino then=20 went up to the C level, where there was a = small=20 machine shop, but it was gone. "There was = nothing=20 there but rubble,=94 said Pecoraro. "We're = talking=20 about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!=94 = They then=20 went to the parking garage, but found that = it,=20 too, was gone. "There were no walls.=94 = Then on the=20 B Level, they found that a = steel-and-concrete fire=20 door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was = wrinkled=20 up "like a piece of aluminum foil." = Finally, when=20 they went up to the ground floor: =93The = whole lobby=20 was soot and black, elevator doors were = missing.=20 The marble was missing off some of the = walls=94=20 (Chief Engineer, 2002).

One of the =93prevalent = claims=94 of=20 9/11 skeptics that Popular Mechanics tries = to=20 debunk (see note 11, above) is the claim = that=20 explosives were detonated in the lower = levels of=20 the tower. The magazine, however, = conveniently=20 ignores the testimonies of Veliz, = Rodriguez, and=20 Pecoraro.

[40] This expert is Van = Romero, vice=20 president for research at the New Mexico = Institute=20 of Mining and Technology. Romero had = previously=20 been the director of this institute=92s = Energetic=20 Materials Research and Testing Center, = which=20 studies the effects of explosions on=20 buildings.

[41] Romero, it is true, = changed his=20 public stance 10 days later, as announced = in=20 Fleck, 2001. But this is not a convincing=20 retraction. =93Subsequent conversations = with=20 structural engineers and more detailed = looks at=20 the tape,=94 according to this article, = led Romero=20 to conclude that =93the intense heat of = the jet fuel=20 fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel = structural=20 beams to the point that they gave way = under the=20 weight of the floors above.=94 But there = is no=20 indication as to what any structural = engineer=20 said, or what Romero saw in his =93more = detailed=20 looks at the tape,=94 that led him to = change his=20 earlier view that the collapses were = =93too=20 methodical=94 to have been produced by = anything=20 except explosives. There is no suggestion = as to=20 how weakened beams would have led to a = total=20 collapse that began suddenly and occurred = at=20 virtually free-fall speed. Romero has = subsequently=20 claimed that he did not change his stance. = Rather,=20 he claimed that he had been misquoted in = the first=20 story. =93I was misquoted in saying that I = thought=20 it was explosives that brought down the = building.=20 I only said that that's what it looked = like=94=20 (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But if that is = the=20 truth, it is strange that the second = story,=20 written by Fleck, did not say this but = instead=20 said that Romero had changed his mind. = Romero=20 clearly did change his mind---or, to be = more=20 precise, his public stance.

A clue to the reason for = this change=20 may be provided by another statement in = the=20 original article, which said that when the = Pentagon was struck, =93[Romero] and Denny = Peterson,=20 vice president for administration and = finance [at=20 New Mexico Tech], were en route to an = office=20 building near the Pentagon to discuss=20 defense-funded research programs at = Tech=94=20 (Uyttebrouck, 2001). Indeed, as pointed = out in a=20 later story on the New Mexico Tech website = (=93Tech=20 Receives $15 M for Anti-Terrorism = Program=94=20 = [http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/25sept03.html=20 ]), the December 2003 issue of Influence = magazine=20 named Romero one of =93six lobbyists who = made an=20 impact in 2003,=94 adding that =93[a] = major chunk of=20 [Romero=92s] job involves lobbying for = federal=20 government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal = year=20 was any indication, Romero was a = superstar,=94=20 having obtained about $56 million for New = Mexico=20 Tech in that year alone. In light of the = fact that=20 Romero gave no scientific reasons for his = change=20 of stance, it does not seem unwarranted to = infer=20 that the real reason was his realization, = perhaps=20 forced upon him by government officials, = that=20 unless he publicly retracted his initial=20 statements, his effectiveness in lobbying = the=20 federal government for funds would be = greatly=20 reduced. Romero, to be sure, denies this, = saying:=20 =93Conspiracy theorists came out saying = that the=20 government got to me. That is the farthest = thing=20 from the truth=94 (Popular Mechanics, = 2005). But=20 that, of course, is what we would expect = Romero to=20 say in either case. He could have avoided = the=20 charge only by giving a persuasive account = of how=20 the buildings could have come down, in the = manner=20 they did, without explosives.

[42] As Dwyer explained, = the oral=20 histories =93were originally gathered on = the order=20 of Thomas Von Essen, who was the city fire = commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he = wanted to=20 preserve those accounts before they became = reshaped by a collective memory.=94

[43] The 9/11 oral = histories are=20 available at a New York Times website=20 = (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC= /=20 met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). I am = heavily=20 indebted to Matthew Everett, who located = and=20 passed on to me virtually all the = statements I=20 have quoted from these oral histories.

[44] Like many others, = Dixon=20 indicated that he later came to accept the = official interpretation, adding: =93Then I = guess in=20 some sense of time we looked at it and = realized,=20 no, actually it just collapsed. That's = what blew=20 out the windows, not that there was an = explosion=20 there but that windows blew out.=94 I have = here,=20 however, focused on what the witnesses = said they=20 first experienced and thought, as distinct = from=20 any interpretation they may have later=20 accepted.

[45] Some of the = testimonies also=20 mentioned the creation of a dust cloud = after the=20 explosions. One firefighter said: =93You = heard like=20 loud booms . . . and then we got covered = with=20 rubble and dust=94 (NYT, Viola, p. 3). = Another said:=20 =93That's when hell came down. It was like = a huge,=20 enormous explosion. . . . The wind rushed. = . . ,=20 all the dust. . . and everything went = dark=94 (NYT,=20 Rivera, p. 7). Lieutenant William Wall = said: =93[W]e=20 heard an explosion. We looked up and the = building=20 was coming down . . . . We ran a little = bit and=20 then we were overtaken by the cloud=94 = (NYT, Wall,=20 p. 9). Paramedic Louis Cook, having said = that=20 there was =93an incredible amount of dust = and=20 smoke,=94 added that there was, =93without = exaggerating, a foot and a half of dust on = my car=94=20 (NYT, Cook, pp. 8, 35).

[46] Even if we were = generous to a=20 fault and allowed that there might be as = high as a=20 1-in-10 chance (a chance much higher than=20 1-in-100, or 1-in-500) that any one of the = 11=20 features could occur without explosives, = the=20 chance that all 11 of them would occur = together=20 would be one in 100 billion. (This = calculation=20 with its very generous assumption of = 1-in-10 does=20 assume the 11 are independent of each = other. For=20 more completeness, if only 6 were = independent=20 while 5 were correlated to others, we = would still=20 have one chance in a million. Yet, if the = chance=20 were 1-in-100 and each is independent, we = would=20 have one chance in = ten-to-the-22nd-power.)

Were we to also add in the = probability that all these features would = occur in=20 three buildings on the same day, the = probability=20 would become so vanishingly small that it = would be=20 hardly distinguishable from zero.

On the other hand, if = explosives=20 were used in the buildings, there would be = a high=20 probability that all 11 features would = have=20 occurred in all three buildings. For this=20 argument, I am indebted to James Fetzer,=20 who---through his essay "'Conspiracy = Theories':=20 The Case of 9/11"---inspired it, and to = Paul=20 Zarembka, who helped with the final=20 formulation.

[47] A nice summary of the = argument=20 for this conclusion has been provided by = Nila=20 Sagadevan (e-mail communication of = November 8,=20 2005) in response to a person who asked: = =93Are you=20 saying all the floors simply fell down as = though=20 there were nothing supporting them?=94 = Stating that=20 this is precisely what he was saying, he = then=20 suggested the following = thought-experiment:

Imagine a massive steel = cable,=20 lowered from a tall crane, firmly secured = to the=20 middle of the uppermost (110th) floor of = one of=20 the towers.

Now, imagine that this = floor were=20 somehow decoupled from the rest of the = structure=20 beneath it.

Summon your personal genie = and have=20 him make all 109 floors and supporting = structures=20 beneath this now-supported slab magically=20 disappear.

What we now have is our = concrete=20 floor slab dangling 1,350 feet up in the = sky,=20 suspended by a cable from our imaginary = crane.

Now, have your genie cut = the=20 cable.

Your 110th floor would now = freefall=20 through the air and impact the ground in = about 9=20 seconds (which is about how long it took = for the=20 top floors of both towers to reach the=20 ground).

Now, imagine a variation = of this=20 scenario: We will not decouple the top = floor nor=20 dabble with a crane.

Instead, we shall ask our = genial=20 genie to magically =93soften=94 all the = supporting=20 columns of the lower 109 floors.

Wouldn=92t every one of = these floors=20 and their now-softened supporting = structures=20 immediately begin to buckle under the = weight of=20 the 110th floor?

Wouldn=92t this buckling = significantly=20 slow down the descent of the top floor by=20 continuing to offer a degree of resistance = to its=20 descent?

Wouldn=92t these = progressive viscous=20 =93arrests=94=97-the sagging steel aided = by ripping=20 rivets, shearing bolts and tearing = welds=97-slow=20 down the top floor=92s fall = significantly?

Wouldn=92t this cause the = top floor to=20 take a lot longer than 9 seconds to = eventually=20 reach the end of its descent and come to = rest atop=20 the crushed pile of floors beneath it?

But on September 11, 2001, = every=20 floor, of every tower, fell as though = nothing=20 existed below it but air.

For that to happen, every = supporting=20 (i.e., resisting) column beneath every = collapsing=20 floor would have had to have been taken = out of the=20 way.

Only well-placed = explosives can do=20 that.

This is what happens in a = controlled=20 demolition.

Sagadevan=92s point is not = significantly affected if we say that the = collapse=20 time was closer to 15 seconds, since that = is still=20 very close to free-fall speed through the = air.

[48]The official = investigators found=20 that they had less authority than the = clean-up=20 crews, a fact that led the Science = Committee of=20 the House of Representatives to report = that =93the=20 lack of authority of investigators to = impound=20 pieces of steel for examination before = they were=20 recycled led to the loss of important = pieces of=20 evidence=94=20 = (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf).

[49] =93Baosteel Will = Recycle World=20 Trade Center Debris,=94 Eastday.com, = January 24,=20 2002 (http://www.ch= ina.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm=20 ).

[50] This removal was, = moreover,=20 carried out with the utmost care, because = =93the=20 loads consisted of highly sensitive = material.=94=20 Each truck was equipped with a Vehicle = Location=20 Device, connected to GPS. =93The software = recorded=20 every trip and location, sending out = alerts if the=20 vehicle traveled off course, arrived late = at its=20 destination, or deviated from expectations = in any=20 other way. . . . One driver . . . took an = extended=20 lunch break of an hour and a half. . . . = [H]e was=20 dismissed=94 (Emigh, 2002).

[51] New York Times, = December 25,=20 2001. This protest was echoed by Professor = Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil = Engineering at the University of = California at=20 Berkeley, who said: =93Where there is a = car accident=20 and two people are killed, you keep the = car until=20 the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not = only do=20 you keep the plane, but you assemble all = the=20 pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it = together.=20 That=92s only for 200, 300 people, when = they die. In=20 this case, you had 3,000 people dead. You = had a=20 major . . . manmade structure. My wish was = that we=20 had spent whatever it takes. . . . Get all = this=20 steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of = recycling it.=20 . . . After all, this is a crime scene and = you=20 have to figure out exactly what = happened=93 (CBS=20 News, March 12, 2002).

[52] Bloomberg was thereby = recommending precisely what Bill Manning, = the=20 editor of Fire Engineering, had warned = against=20 when he wrote: "As things now stand . . . = , the=20 investigation into the World Trade Center = fire and=20 collapse will amount to paper-and=20 computer-generated hypotheticals=94 = (Manning, 2002).=20 What Bloomberg desired and Manning feared = is=20 exactly what we got with the NIST Report. = It is,=20 in fact, even worse. Physicist Steven = Jones, after=20 pointing out that there are =93zero = examples of=20 fire-caused high-rise collapses=94 and = that even=20 NIST=92s =93actual [computer] models fail = to=20 collapse,=94 asks: =93So how does the NIST = team=20 justify the WTC collapses?=94 He answers: = =93Easy,=20 NIST concocted computer-generated = hypotheticals=20 for very =91severe=92 cases,=94 and then = these cases=20 were further modified to get the desired = result.=20 The NIST Report, Jones adds, admits this, = saying=20 on page 142: =93The more severe case . . . = was used=20 for the global analysis of each tower. = Complete=20 sets of simulations were then performed = for [these=20 cases]. To the extent that the simulations = deviated from the photographic evidence or = eyewitness reports [e.g., complete = collapse=20 occurred], the investigators adjusted the = input=94=20 (Jones, 2006).

[53] =93Baosteel Will = Recycle World=20 Trade Center Debris.=94

[54] Bill Manning wrote: = =93The=20 structural damage from the planes and the=20 explosive ignition of jet fuel in = themselves were=20 not enough to bring down the towers. Fire=20 Engineering has good reason to believe = that the=20 =91official investigation=92 blessed by = FEMA . . . is=20 a half-baked farce that may already have = been=20 commandeered by political forces whose = primary=20 interests, to put it mildly, lie far = afield of=20 full disclosure. Except for the marginal = benefit=20 obtained from a three-day, visual = walk-through of=20 evidence sites conducted by ASCE = investigation=20 committee members---described by one close = source=20 as a =91tourist trip=92---no one's = checking the=20 evidence for anything=94 (Manning, = 2002).

[55] See the section = headed =93The=20 ASCE=92s Disclosures of Steel = Sulfidation=94 in=20 Hoffman, 2005.

[56] For visual evidence, = see=20 Hoffman, =93North Tower Collapse Video = Frames: Video=20 Evidence of the North Tower Collapse,=94 = 9-11=20 Research.wtc7.net, n.d. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.= html=20 ).

[57] Marvin Bush=92s role = in the=20 company is mentioned in Craig Unger, 2004, = p.=20 249.

[58]Forbes=92 statement is = posted at=20 www.apfn.org/apfn/patriot= ic.htm.

[59] For Giuliani=92s = complete=20 statement, see =93Who told Giuliani the = WTC Was=20 Going to Collapse on 9/11?=94, What Really = Happened,=20 n.d.=20 = (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html);=20 it can be heard at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul= =20 .

[60] As Hufschmid points = out,=20 =93photos show the spectacular flames = vanished=20 quickly, and then the fire . . . slowly=20 diminished=94 (2002, p. 38).

[61] =93If the . . . = intention was to=20 blame the collapse on the fires,=94 Peter = Meyer has=20 written, =93then the latest time at which = the towers=20 could be collapsed would be just as the = fires were=20 dying down. Since the fire in the South = Tower=20 resulted from the combustion of less fuel. = . . ,=20 the fire in the South Tower began to go = out=20 earlier. . . . Those controlling the = demolition=20 thus had to collapse the South Tower = before they=20 collapsed the North Tower=94 (Peter Meyer, = n.d.).

[62] Emergency Medical = Services=20 (EMS) Division Chief John Peruggia said = that he=20 was told that the =93north tower was in = danger of a=20 near imminent collapse.=94 Medical = technician=20 Richard Zarrillo, evidently a liaison = between the=20 OEM and EMS, said that he was told that = =93the=20 buildings are going to collapse.=94 Fire = Marshal=20 Stephen Mosiello and Deputy Assistant = Chief of=20 Safety Albert Turi also used the plural=20 (=93buildings=94) in reporting what they = heard from=20 Zarrillo. Turi reported that when Zarrillo = was=20 asked =93where are we getting these = reports?=94, his=20 reply was: =93you know, we=92re not sure, = OEM is just=20 reporting this=94 (NYT, Oral Histories of = Peruggia,=20 Zarrillo, Mosiello, and Turi).

[63] In =93A Brief History = of New York=20 City=92s Office of Emergency = Management,=94 we read:=20 =931996: By executive order, the Mayor's = Office of=20 Emergency Management is created. The = Director=20 reports directly to the Mayor, and serves = as the=20 local Director of Civil Defense=94 ( = http://w= ww.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/oem_history.html =20 ).

[64] =93The city . . . = initially=20 refused access to the records to = investigators=20 from . . . the 9/11 Commission=94 but = =93relented when=20 legal action was threatened=94 (Dwyer, = 2005b).

[65] Glanz (2001) wrote = that=20 =93[e]xperts said no building like it, a = modern,=20 steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever = collapsed=20 because of an uncontrolled fire.=94

[66]For photographs and = discussion,=20 see Hufschmid, 2002, pp. 62-65, and the = section=20 entitled =93The =91Raging=92 Fires at WTC = Tower Seven=94=20 in =93The World Trade Center Fires (Not So = Hot=20 Eh?),=94 Global Research, September 27, = 2004 (http= ://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=3D523=20 ).

[67]FEMA, 2002, Ch. 5, = Sect. 6.2,=20 =93Probable Collapse Sequence,=94 = discussed in=20 Griffin, 2004, p. 22.

[68] Hufschmid, 2002, p. = 64. The=20 collapse of building 7 also had all the = other=20 features of conventional demolitions, such = as=20 beginning suddenly and then going down at=20 virtually free-fall speed---which in this = case=20 meant under 7 seconds. This similarity to=20 conventional implosions was commented on = by Dan=20 Rather. Showing a video of the collapse of = building 7 on CBS that very evening, = Rather said=20 that it was =93reminiscent of those = pictures we've=20 all seen too much on television before = when a=20 building was deliberately destroyed by = well-placed=20 dynamite to knock it down=94 (CBS News, = September=20 11, 2001). Videos of the collapse of = building 7,=20 which have seldom appeared on mainstream=20 television, can be viewed at various = websites,=20 including www.geocities.com/ki= lltown/wtc7.html
and=20 www.whatreallyhappen= ed.com/wtc7.html.=20 Particularly good for this purpose is Eric = Hufschmid=92s DVD, =93Painful = Deceptions=94 (available=20 at www.EricHufschmid.Net).

[69] Implosion World.com ( = http://www.implosionworl= d.com/dyk2.html =20 ).

[70] Steven Jones, e-mail = letter,=20 October 10, 2005.

[71] See Norman, 2002, and = Firehouse=20 Magazine, 2002a and 2002b.

[72] Chief Frank Fellini = said that=20 the collapse zone was established =93five = or six=20 hours=94 before the building came down, = which would=20 have been around noon (NYT, Fellini, p. = 3). This=20 time fits with the testimony of a = firefighter who=20 said he =93heard reports all day long of 7 = World=20 Trade possibly coming down=94 and of = another who=20 said: =93We hung out for hours waiting for = seven to=20 come down=94 (NYT, Murray, p. 12, and = Massa, pp.=20 17-18).

[73] Even earthquakes, = which have=20 produced some partial collapses, have = never=20 produced total collapses.

[74] =93[F]ederal = investigators=20 concluded that it had been primarily the = impact of=20 the planes and, more specifically, the = extreme=20 fires that spread in their wake, that had = caused=20 the buildings to fall. . . . After the = planes hit,=20 . . . [m]uch of the spray-on fireproofing = in the=20 impact zone was dislodged, leaving the = structural=20 steel exposed and mortally vulnerable to = the=20 intense heat=94 (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. = 252).=20 These co-authors (p. 253) even endorse = NIST=92s=20 claim=97-which is totally unsupported = (Hoffman,=20 2005)--that the collapses became = =93inevitable.=94

[75] Dwyer, in fact, wrote = an=20 article entitled =93Vast Archive Yields = New View of=20 9/11,=94 New York Times, August 13, 2005 ( = http:/= /www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html?ex=3D= 1131339600&en=3De619ef623287178f&ei=3D5070
=20 ). But he did not mention the =93new = view=94 that=20 would be suggested by the testimonies = about=20 explosions.

[76] Silverstein=92s = statement has=20 been quoted in many places, including = Morgan and=20 Henshall (2005). A critique of this book = entitled=20 =939/11 Revealed? New Book Repeats False = Conspiracy=20 Theories,=94 put out by the U.S. State = Department=20 (ht= tp://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html=20 ), claims that =93[t]he property owner was = referring=20 to pulling a contingent of firefighters = out of the=20 building in order to save lives because it = appeared unstable.=94 But that is hardly a = plausible=20 interpretation, especially given the = following=20 sentence and the fact that elsewhere = during the=20 documentary (PBS, 2002), we hear the = expression=20 clearly used to mean =93bring the building = down.=94

[77] Silverstein=92s = statement can be=20 viewed=20 = (http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV)=20 or heard on audio file=20 = (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3). For a=20 discussion, see Baker, n.d.

[78] Currid, incidentally, = was=20 re-elected president in 2002 (http://www.uniondemocracy.com/UDR/34-NYC%20Public%20Employees.htm=20 ).

[79] Letter to the LA = Times=20 Magazine, September 18, 2005, by William = Yarchin=20 of Huntington Beach, California, in = response to an=20 interview with me in that magazine, = conducted by=20 Mark Ehrman, entitled =93Getting Agnostic = about=20 9/11,=94 published August 28, 2005.

=20

REFERENCES

Baker, Jeremy, n.d. =93PBS = Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC = 7,=94=20 Infowars.com (http://www.infowar= s.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm=20 ).

Barter, Sheila, 2001. = =93How the World=20 Trade Center Fell,=94 BBC News, September = 13 (http://new= s.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).

Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. = =93Some=20 Survivors Say =91Bombs Exploded Inside = WTC,=92=94=20 American Free Press, October 22 ( http://www.americanfreepress= .net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_ex= pl.html =20 ).

__________, 2002. =93New = York=20 Firefighters=92 Final Words Fuel Burning = Questions=20 About 9-11,=94 American Free Press, August = 9 ( http://americanfreepress.net/08_09_02/New_York_F= irefighters__/new_york_firefighters.html ).

_____, 2004. =93New = Seismic Data=20 Refutes Official Explanation,=94 American = Free=20 Press, updated April 12.

_____, 2005a. =939/11 and = Chertoff:=20 Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propaganda for PM,=94 = Rumor Mill=20 News, March 4 (ht= tp://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=3D66176=20 ).

_____, 2005b. =93The = Hidden Hand of=20 the C.I.A. and the 9/11 Propaganda of = Popular=20 Mechanics,=94 American Free Press, March = 19 (http://w= ww.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm=20 ).

Borger, Julian, Duncan = Campbell,=20 Charlie Porter, and Stuart Millar, 2001. = =93Special=20 Report: Terrorism in the US,=94 Guardian, = September=20 12=20 = (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,600839,00.html).

Brannigan, Francis L., = Glenn P.=20 Corbett, and Vincent Dunn, 2002. =93WTC=20 =92Investigation=92?: A Call to Action=94 = Fire=20 Engineering, January=20 = (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm=20 = ?Section=3DARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=3D133211&VERSION_NUM=3D1&p=3D25).=

Burns, Maggie, 2003. = =93Secrecy=20 Surrounds a Bush Brother=92s Role in 9/11 = Security,=94=20 American Reporter, 9/2021, January 20.

Bush, George W., 2001. = Address to=20 the General Assembly of the United = Nations,=20 November 10.

Chief Engineer, The, 2002. = =93We will=20 Not Forget: A Day of Terror=94=20 = (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=3D1029)

Dwyer, Jim, 2005a. =93Vast = Archive=20 Yields New View of 9/11,=94 New York = Times, August=20 13=20 = (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.ht= ml=20 ?pagewanted=3Dprint).

_____, 2005b. =93City to = Release=20 Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 = Today,=94 New=20 York Times, August 12.

Dwyer, Jim, and Ford = Fessenden,=20 2002. =93Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some = on 78th=20 Floor,=94 New York Times, August 4 (http://www.m= ishalov.com/wtc_lostvoicesfiredept.html=20 ).

Dwyer, Jim, and Kevin = Flynn, 2005.=20 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight = to=20 Survive Inside the Twin Towers, New York: = Times=20 Books.

Eagar, Thomas, 2002. = =93The Collapse:=20 An Engineer=92s Perspective,=94 which is = part of =93Why=20 the Towers Fell,=94 NOVA, April 30=20 = (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html).

Eagar, Thomas, and = Christopher=20 Musso, 2001. =93Why Did the World Trade = Center=20 Collapse? Science, Engineering, and = Speculation,=94=20 JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & = Materials Society, 53/12, pp. 8-11.

Else, Liz, 2004. = =93Baltimore=20 Blasters,=94 New Scientist 183/2457 (July = 24): p. 48=20 = (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp=20 ?rp=3D1&id=3Dmg18324575.700). The = reason for the=20 title is that the office of Controlled = Demolition,=20 Inc., is near Baltimore.

Emigh, Jacqueline, 2002. = =93GPS on the=20 Job in Massive World Trade Center = Clean-Up,=94 July=20 1 (http://= securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive=20 ).

FEMA (1988). =93Interstate = Bank=20 Building Fire, Los Angeles, California=94 = (=20 = http://www.lafire.com//famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/=20 FEMA-TecReport/FEMA-report.htm).

FEMA, 1991. =93High-Rise = Office=20 Building Fire One Meridian Plaza = Philadelphia,=20 Pennsylvania=94=20 = (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=3Dcache:CHrKDNvrjsEJ:www.interfire.org/re= s_file/pdf/=20 = Tr-049.pdf+High-Rise+Office+Building+Fire+One+Meridian+Plaza&hl=3Den&= amp;client=3Dsafari=20 ).

FEMA, 2002. World Trade = Center=20 Building Performance Study, May (http://www.fema.gov/li= brary/wtcstudy.shtm=20 ).

Field, Andy, 2004. =93A = Look Inside a=20 Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,=94 = Firehouse.com, February 7 (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?s= ectionId=3D46&id=3D25807=20 ).

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois = Mathias,=20 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of = September=20 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

Firehouse Magazine, = 2002a.=20 =93WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview = with Deputy=20 Chief Peter Hayden,=94 April (h= ttp://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html=20 ).

Firehouse Magazine, 2002b. = =93WTC:=20 This Is Their Story: Interview with = Captain Chris=20 Boyle,=94 August (ww= w.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html=20 ).

Fleck, John, 2001. = =93Fire, Not Extra=20 Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert = Says,=94=20 Albuquerque Journal, September 21 (h= ttp://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm=20 ).

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois = Mathias,=20 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of = September=20 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

Geyh, Allison, 2001. = Magazine of=20 Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late = Fall.

Glanz, James. 2001. = =93Engineers Are=20 Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel = Members=20 Have Been Partly Evaporated,=94 New York = Times,=20 November 29.

lanz, James, and Eric = Lipton, 2002.=20 =93Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to = Fire, Report=20 Says,=94 New York Times, March 29.

Glover, Norman, 2002. = =93Collapse=20 Lessons,=94 Fire Engineering, October (=20 = http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm=20 = ?Section=3DArchi&Subsection=3DDisplay&P=3D25&ARTICLE_ID=3D163= 411&KEYWORD=3Dnorman=20 %20glover ).

Griffin, David Ray, 2004. = The New=20 Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about = 9/11 and=20 the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: = Olive=20 Branch (Interlink).

___________, 2005a. The = 9/11=20 Commission Report: Omissions and = Distortions.=20 Northampton, MA: Olive Branch = (Interlink).

_________, 2005b. =939/11 = and the=20 American Empire: How Should Religious = People=20 Respond?=94 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7 (http://www.911itizenswatch.org/mod= ules.php?op=3Dmodload&name=3DNews&file=3Darticle&sid=3D535=20 ).

_____________, 2005c. = =939/11 and the=20 Mainstream Press,=94 9/11 Visibility = Project, July=20 29 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.p= hp=20 ).

_____, 2005d. "Truth and = Politics of=20 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The = 9/11=20 Commission Report,=94 Global Outlook, = Issue 10=20 (Spring-Summer), pp. 45-56. Available at=20 www.GlobalOutlook.ca.

Griffin, David Ray, and = Peter Dale=20 Scott, eds., 2006. 9/11 and the American = Empire:=20 Intellectuals Speak Out. Northampton, MA: = Olive=20 Branch (Interlink).

Hansen, Thomas, 2005. = "Outrageous=20 Conspiracy Theories: Report on a = Conversation with=20 Philip Zelikow," 9/11 Visibility Project, = June 7=20 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-07-outrageous= .php=20 ).

Heller, David, 2005. = "Taking a=20 Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse = of the=20 World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, = Issue 6,=20 November 24 (http://www.= garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm=20 ).

History Channel, The, = 2002. =93The=20 World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an = American=20 Icon,=94 September 8.

Hoffman, Jim, 2003. =93The = North=20 Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy=20 Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust = Cloud=20 Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade = Center,=94=20 Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October = 16 (http:/= /911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html=20 ).

_____, 2004. =93Your Eyes = Don=92t Lie:=20 Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade = Center=20 Collapses,=94 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html= =20 ).

_____, 2005. =93Building a = Better=20 Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up = of the=20 Crime of the Century,=94 911 Research, = August 21=20 = (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. = Painful=20 Questions: An Analysis of the September = 11th=20 Attack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software.

Johnson, Glen, 2001. = =93Otis Fighter=20 Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the = Attacks,=94=20 Boston Globe, September 15 (ht= tp://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=3Dprint=20 ).

Jones, Steven E., 2006. = "Why Indeed=20 Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In = Griffin and=20 Scott, eds., 2006.

Kean, Thomas H., and Lee = H.=20 Hamilton, 2004. The 9/11 Commission = Report: Final=20 Report of the National Commission on = Terrorist=20 Attacks upon the United States, Authorized = Edition, New York: W. W. Norton. (For the = sake of=20 convenience, Kean and Hamilton, who as = chair and=20 vice-chair of the Commission, = respectively, signed=20 the Preface, are listed as the Report=92s=20 authors.)

Killough-Miller, Joan, = 2002. =93The=20 =91Deep Mystery=92 of Melted Steel,=94 WPI = Transformations, Spring (ht= tp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html=20 ).

King, Jeff, 2003. =93The = WTC Collapse:=20 What the Videos Show,=94 Indymedia Webcast = News,=20 November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=3D73= 42&group=3Dwebcast=20 ).

Lane, B., and S. Lamont, = 2005. =93ARUP=20 Fire=92s Presentation regarding Tall = Buildings and=20 the Events of 9/11,=94 ARUP Fire, April = 2005 (http://www.arup= .com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf=20 ).

Lavello, Randy, n.d. = =93Bombs in the=20 Building,=94 Prison Planet.com=20 = (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).

Lin, Jennifer, 2002. = "Recovery=20 Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground = Zero,"=20 Knight Ridder, May 29 (http:= //www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm=20 ).

Manning, Bill, 2002. = =93Selling Out=20 the Investigation=94, Fire Engineering, = January=20 = (http://fe.pennet.com/Articles/ArticleDisplay.cfm=20 = ?Section=3DARCHI&ARTICLEID=3D133237&VERSION=20 NUM=3D1 ).

Meyer, Peter, n.d. =93Did = the Twin=20 Towers Collapse on Demand?=94, Section 3 = of =93The=20 World Trade Center Demolition and the = so-Called=20 War on Terrorism,=94 Serendipity=20 (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html).

Morgan, Rowland, and Ian = Henshall,=20 2005. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered = Questions. New=20 York: Carroll and Graf.

Murphy, Dean E., 2002. = September 11:=20 An Oral History. New York: Doubleday.

NYT (New York Times), = 2005. =93The=20 September 11 Records=94 (9/11 Oral = Histories) (=20 = http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/=20 = 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html=20 ).

Nieto, Robin, 2004. = =93Fire=20 Practically Destroys Venezuela=92s Tallest = Building,=94 Venezuelanalysis.com, October = 18.

NIST (National Institute = for=20 Standards and Technology), 2005. Final = Report of=20 the National Construction Safety Team on = the=20 Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers = (Draft), June.

Norman, John, 2002. = =93Search and=20 Rescue Operations,=94 Fire Engineering, = October.

Paul, Don, and Jim = Hoffman, 2004.=20 Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 = Crimes=20 in New York City. San Francisco:=20 Irresistible/Revolutionary.

People Magazine, 2001. = =93Hell On=20 Earth,=94 September 24.

Popular Mechanics, 2005. = =939/11:=20 Debunking the Myths,=94 March (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.h= tml?page=3D1&c=3Dy=20 ).

PBS, 2002. =93America = Rebuilds=94 (http://www.pbs.org/americareb= uilds=20 ).

Ryan, Kevin, 2004. E-mail = letter to=20 Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the = Metallurgy=20 Division, Material Science and Engineering = Laboratory, at the National Institute for=20 Standards and Technology=20 = (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).

Samuel, Eugenie, and = Damian=20 Carrington, 2001. =93Design Choice for = Towers Saved=20 Lives,=94 New Scientist, September 12 (http://www.ne= wscientist.com/article.ns?id=3Ddn1281=20 ).

Shepard, Alicia, and Cathy = Trost of=20 Newseum, 2002. Running Toward Danger: = Stories=20 Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword = by Tom=20 Brokaw. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & = Littlefield.

Smith, Dennis, 2002. = Report From=20 Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the = Rescuers at=20 the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin=20 Putnam.

Structural Engineer, The, = 2002.=20 September 3.

Szymanski, Greg, 2005a. = =93NY Fireman=20 Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission = 'Tried to=20 Twist My Words,=92=94 Arctic Beacon, July = 19 (h= ttp://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm=20 ).

_____, 2005b. =93WTC = Basement Blast=20 and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official = 9/11=20 Story' Sky High,=94 Arctic Beacon, June 24 = = (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).

Taylor, Curtis L., and = Sean=20 Gardiner, 2001. =93Heightened Security = Alert Had=20 Just Been Lifted,=94 New York Newsday, = September 12=20 = (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/=20 = ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,6794009.story).

Trimpe, Herb, 2002. "The = Chaplain's=20 Tale," Times-Herald Record=20 = (http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm).

Unger, Craig, 2004. House = of Bush,=20 House of Saud: The Secret Relationship = between the=20 World=92s Two Most Powerful Dynasties. New = York=20 & London: Scribner.

Uyttebrouck, Olivier, = 2001.=20 =93Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech = Expert=20 Says,=94 Albuquerque Journal, September 11 = = (http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal).

Walsh, Trudy, 2002. = "Handheld APP=20 Eased Recovery Tasks," Government Computer = News,=20 Vol. 21, No. 27a, September 11=20 = (http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html).

Watson, Paul Joseph, and = Dan Perez,=20 2004. Prison Planet.TV, May 5=20 = (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/050504bombsinwtc.htm).

Williams, James, 2001. = =93WTC a=20 Structural Success,=94 SEAU NEWS: The = Newsletter of=20 the Structural Engineers Association of = Utah,=20 October.