Speaker 1: The following presentation is Del Marvis Studio's production.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Fact Hunter Radio Network.
Speaker 3: Here is your host s, George Hobbs.
Speaker 4: Welcome back truth seekers from around the world. It's time
for another edition of our classic audio series, and tonight's
audio comes from architects and engineers for nine to eleven Truth.
In their documentary nine to eleven Explosive evidence experts speak out.
So in this documentary, you're going to be hearing from
structural engineers, high rise architects, physicists, chemist, firefighters, controlled demolition experts,
and these folks are stepping up. They're putting their names,
their faces, and their reputations on the line. So they're
not going to be debating the planes no plane theory,
you know, C four Thermite, nuke, Israel, neo cons Saudi
this and that this is the most basic of arguments
that these three buildings one, two, and seven were brought
down by demolition and by proving that to at least
getting that part over to people who turn a blind
eye to nine to eleven Truth. Once you get that
across to them, they have thousands of people, these licensed professionals,
master's degree who understand what they're doing. Say there's no
way the official story holds up. Then we can get
people to understand what we do, demand the reopening of
the case, and get to the bottom of the actual truth.
Who was truly behind one of the greatest crimes on
American soil. So again you're going to hear the true
stories of what these structures really do under stress. You'll
hear words like free fall, acceleration, symmetrical collapse, right, total
failure of critical support, terms that aren't supposed to show
up unless very specific external forces are at work. So
this is a really good two hours of information and
a lot of people telling you the official story of
World Trade Center one, two and seven. It's impossible for
it to have happened that way. So, without any further ado,
our classic audio today from the architects and engineers for
nine to eleven Truth, nine to eleven, explosive evidence. The
experts speak out.
Speaker 5: Tribute Lights in the New York Skyline, an annual memorial
to the lives lost on nine to eleven. Yet there's
still more light that needs to shine, revealing truths that
their family members deserved to know. September eleventh, two thousand
and one, A day that changed history. Four planes went
silent and off course. Two of those planes crashed into
the World Trade Center twin towers. Several columns were severed,
and the jet fuel ignited fires that spread over several floors.
About an hour later, millions watched in shock as both
towers were suddenly and rapidly destroyed, almost three thousand people
for whom truth and justice may have yet to be served.
Hi Imrichard Gage, AIA licensed architect of over twenty years
and member of the American Institute of Architects, a founder
of Architects and Engineers for nine to eleven Truth, a
nonprofit organization of well over one thousand technical and building professionals.
According to official government reports, the fires weakened the structural
steel framing of both twin towers, leading to sudden, progressive
and total collapses unknown to most people. A third steel
frame high rise, World Trade Center seven, was also destroyed.
Critical questions have been raised by more than fifteen hundred
architects and engineers about the official exis explanations for the
destruction of all three of these buildings, along with more
than ten thousand other concerned individuals. These professionals collectively comprising
more than twenty five thousand years of experience have signed
our petition. They're calling for a new investigation into the
destruction of these three World Trade Center high rises. This
call is based on evidence that reveals a very different
destruction scenario than reported by government engineers. This includes abundant scientific,
forensic data an eyewitness testimony that was omitted from the
official reports. You'll be seeing this evidence and hearing from
dozens of these technical experts, including many who are among
the top in their respective fields. We at a nine
to eleven truth are inspired by President Obama's affirmation to
the American people in his inaugural address. How do we
accomplish this? We've done our best to fulfill the President's
vision by using the scientific method, examining the evidence from
the World Trade Center, and developing unbiased conclusions from unbiased
experts in their fields. Listen to the President provide his
account of the pervasive political abuse of science, and.
Speaker 6: We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and
scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.
Speaker 5: As coherent sets of scientific facts are brought into focus
by the experts, the data and the witnesses. In this film,
you will come to a much greater understanding of the
events of nine to eleven and will be in a
position to draw your own informed conclusions. Also, psychologists, therapists
and count uncilors, along with theologian David Ray Griffin, who
have a deep understanding of the personal issues associated with
nine to eleven, will explain why it is so difficult
for us to come to terms with the reality of
these events and learn how we can help ourselves and
others with this difficult yet vital responsibility. Of course, the
ones still most affected by the events of that tragic
day are the family members of the victims lost on
nine to eleven. Several have asked to appear in this documentary.
Although our focus will be primarily technical, we are deeply
moved and honored to give them the opportunity to speak
directly to you. Now, let's hear from the AE nine
to eleven truth professional petition signers who will share with
you what conclusions they came to. Among these experts are
high rise architects and engineers in the fields of structural design,
material science, chemistry, fire protection, metallurgy, as well as physicists
explosives experts, and demolition technicians. Joining them will be firefighters
and nine to eleven victims family members who support our
call for a new World Trade Center investigation. Now, let's
hear from the AE nine to eleven truth professional petition
signers who will share with you what conclusions they came to.
Among these experts are high rise architects and engineers in
the fields of structural design, material science, chemistry, fire protection, metallurgy,
as well as physicists, explosives experts, and demolition technicians. Joining
them will be firefighters who support our call for a
new World Trade Center investigation.
Speaker 7: I don't want to be involved in conspiracy theories. You know,
there are lots of them that can go on. We
can speculate on that forever. What we really need.
Speaker 8: To know.
Speaker 9: Is how.
Speaker 7: How those buildings came down.
Speaker 10: My name is Joel Miller, and I have a Bachelor
of Architecture degree from Temple University in Philadelphia. And while
I was there in Philadelphia, I worked for two firms
on a couple of high rise buildings, the thirteen story
Federal Detention Center for Ewing Cole Cherry and Broad. I
spent about two years on that project.
Speaker 11: And then a year on a.
Speaker 10: High rise dormitory about fifteen stories for MGA partners. If
we are to believe that fire brought down three buildings
on the same day on nine to eleven, that's very
troubling for all of us in the design professions, architects, engineers,
even physicists. I'm incredulous that this could have happened and
very troubled by the implications of this possibility. There are
thousands of high rise buildings in the United States and
more being built every day in this country and abroad.
As architects and engineers, we have a responsibility to protect
people that are our users of buildings.
Speaker 5: The New World Trade Center Building seven looms above the
site of its original Building seven was a forty seven
story high rise not hit by an airplane, yet it
was the third modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse rapidly
and symmetrically on nine to eleven. It was a football
field away from the North tower and sustained minor damage
from the falling debris Building sevens, but this collapse was
blamed on normal office fires.
Speaker 12: I'm commalobate. I have a messa's degree in Civil and
structural engineering, from the University of California at Berkeley. I've
been a practicing engineer for the last thirty years. Building seven,
to me is really what gives it away, because that's
a classic case of control demolition.
Speaker 13: My name is Stephen Dustowal. I'm a licensed professional structural
engineer with thirty seven years of experience in the structural field.
I have twenty five years of experience as owner and
principle of my own structural engineering firm here in Las Vegas.
I have focused on nuclear power plant design, large commercial
and industrial buildings. I first became aware of the problems
with the official account of the collapse when I saw
a DVD online from What Texan Engineers Final eleven Truth.
They pointed out various problems with their official story and
the ones that caught my attention or the rapid failure
of the connections in order for the building to come
down at the rate.
Speaker 9: That it did.
Speaker 14: My name is Casey Pfeiffer. I am a registered professional
structural engineer in San Diego, California. I have a Bachelor
of Science degree in Civil engineering at the University of
Notre Dame. I have been practicing engineering for fifteen years
and currently I am the principal of Pacific Coast Structural
Engineering in San Diego, California. A friend of mine gave
me a blueprint for nine to Elemon Truth DVD to review,
and from that the evidence that I saw was so
compelling that I it became obvious that the official story
was not correct.
Speaker 15: I'm William Brice. I worked for one of the nation's
largest design build construction firms on commercial and industrial and
institutional projects in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore areas.
As a professor, taught engineering, materials, structure's lab, and other
building related courses at Vermont Technical College to architectural engineering
students for twenty years. I watched Building seven fall at
an accelerating rate in six and a half seconds. This
was a massive, forty seven story structure. The only way
that a building can accelerate as it collapses is by
having pre engineered, precisely timed, and precisely placed explosives, in
other words, controlled demolition.
Speaker 16: My name is David Opete. I have a Master's of
Science degree in civil engineering. I am a licensed structural engineer.
I design new structures and retrofit existing structures from concrete
or masonry or structural steel. In my professional opinion and
my experience, for World Trade Center seven and two collapse
straight down upon itself as a video in the case,
as everything that we've witnessed, the supports at the center,
essentially all had to be taken out at once. I
certainly believe that it had to have been controlled demolition,
control charges, explosives, something of that type, because it was
a sudden failure.
Speaker 17: I'm doctor Bob Bowman, Lieutenant colonel, United States Air Force
retired flew one hundred and one combat missions in Vietnam,
directed all the Star Wars programs under President's Ford and Carter.
My PhD is in Aeronautics and nuclear engineering from cal Tech.
I did postdoctoral wook at the von Carmen Institute in Brussels,
Belgium in finite element analysis. I taught at five universities
and colleges, serving as department head and assistant dean. The
Coudi graph for me me was when I found out
that Building seven had collapsed later that day, and what
I saw Building seven come down to me Building seven,
the fact that it looks like a perfect controlled demolition
of an intact building with no visible fires, I mean,
that's what I call a smoking gun.
Speaker 7: My name is Robert McCoy. I'm an architect, a Bachelor
of Architecture from the University of California in Berkeley in
nineteen sixty three, been licensed in California since about nineteen
sixty four. From about nineteen sixty five until about nineteen
eighty five, my most might experience has been in a
high rise, multi story steel buildings. This would have us
to believe that these were was a typical office fires,
scattered office fires, if you will, that brought this building down.
Since the mid sixties, I've tried to follow high rise
fires because they're something we've worry a lot about as
we designed these buildings, and I'm not aware of any
high rise building that have come down as a result
of fires. I can't remember even a partial collapse in
any of these buildings that I've watched over the years.
Speaker 18: I'm Steve Barrish, a founder and president of Barish Architects
and Associates, Inc. A thirty three year old architecture, planning,
and engineering firm. We have offices in San Luis Obispo
and Pasadena, California. I hold a Bachelor of Architecture degree
from the University of Arizona and a Master of Architecture
and have been designed from Rice University in Houston, Texas.
Spent three years in London as the first PhD student
at the Architectural Association. One of the things that really
interested me is how quickly the Tower seven fell. It
fell within seven seconds approximately from top to bottom. This
building was built in the mid eighties apparently, and met
all the known codes at the time. Buildings just don't
behave like that.
Speaker 5: We're here in Sydney with Jan Utsen, son of the
grave Jorn Utsen, who designed.
Speaker 19: The Sydney Opera House.
Speaker 5: What are the features of the collapse of World Trade
Center seven that caused you to be disturbed?
Speaker 9: It looked like it was a demolition more than anything else.
Speaker 19: My name is Les Young. I'm a licensed architect in
both New York State and in California. I've been involved
in many large projects, including overseeing several high rise buildings
ranging in size from fourteen stories to forty over the
course of twenty years. I'm mainly called in to help
with very large, difficult projects. When I watched Building seven collapse,
it basically left no doubt in my mind that something
was wrong. Building seven had not been hit by a plane.
To me, it was obvious that there was some controlled
demolition and some explosions involved.
Speaker 5: Was the structural steel from World Trade Center seven preserved, documented,
analyzed according to standard procedures for investigating engineering failures.
Speaker 20: It was really clear from the beginning that there was
this great move to as quickly as possible, get rid
of all of the rubble and move it off.
Speaker 21: Because what they did immediately after nine to eleven was
they started removing the steel that the debris from Tower
seven and all the towers. Immediately they sent it off
to China to be recycled.
Speaker 10: Four hundred truckloads per day of material were taken away
from the World Trade Center site and sent to China
for recycling.
Speaker 22: All of a sudden, they had a big incentive to
a recycled steel for some reason.
Speaker 23: Quickly and rapidly they were destroying the structural steel.
Speaker 22: The steel was hauled away and melted down before it
could be analyzed.
Speaker 23: It was already being carted away and destroyed. When the
FEMA investigators got there about a month after September eleventh.
Speaker 20: It was being melted down. It was being cut up
into pieces so that no real thorough investigation could happen,
and that's that in itself is a crime, and that
kind of thing needs to be investigated.
Speaker 23: If the steel was picked up and carted away before
anybody got a good look at it, and the destruction
of evidence was a criminal act in itself, it would
have answered a lot of questions that we can't answer
because we don't have the structural steel to examine.
Speaker 24: There were laws violated in the destruction of that evidence,
and for the American Society Civil Engineers to ignore those
events is extremely disturbing and is a violation, in my opinion,
of their professional code of ethics.
Speaker 22: It was contrary to the way all investigations are done.
If an airplane crashes, they see it off the entire
area and nobody touches anything. They move it to a
secure location and they reconstruct an aircraft.
Speaker 3: Normally, when you have a structural failure, you carefully go
through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every
beam as it collapsed and every column where it is
in the ground, and you pick them up very carefully
and you look at each element. We were unable to
do that in the case of Tower seven.
Speaker 25: Aside from this one small piece that was found to
have in a granule mounting. Incredibly, none of the steel,
none of the other steel from World Trade Center seven,
was saved for analysis.
Speaker 9: This is disconcerting.
Speaker 25: Considering World Trade Center seven would have been the first
steel framed high rise building in history through a stensibly
collapse through the fire.
Speaker 26: See, the government has destroyed much of the evidence, but
there's still some evidents available in photographs of the evidence.
Speaker 27: My name is Lynn Marglus. I've been doing science every
day since I was about sixteen years old. I teach
at the University of Massachusetts. I have a PhD in genetics.
I reconstruct the past natural history from clues taken to
be representational, and that's exactly what we're doing with reconstructing
of why the buildings were destroyed in nine to eleven.
In the historical science, that's what must be done. In
nineteen ninety nine, I was a recipient of the President's
Medal of Science from Clinton and I received the Da
Vinci Award, that is the membership in the Da Vinci Society.
You can't do science when you are deprived of the
evidence and when your hypothesis is the least valid instead
of the most likely, when the most likely hypothesis in
the case of Building seven wasn't even mentioned. This is
not science, so the claim is that it's something else.
It's trying to prove preconceived ideas.
Speaker 5: Was a proper investigation performed that might have revealed the
use of acceleerate or explosives in Waltroit Center seven's destruction.
Speaker 28: My name is Stephen Jones, a physicist. I received my
PhD in physics from Vanderbilt University in nineteen seventy eight,
so I've been at this for over thirty years, studying
various subjects.
Speaker 9: I have published over.
Speaker 28: Fifty peer reviewed papers in my career. NIST concedes that
they found no evidence for explosives, So then we asked them,
well did you look, and they said no, we did
not look for explosives or residues of explosives.
Speaker 23: I'm Ron Brookman, licensed structural engineer in California, and I
received my master's degree in structural engineering from University of California,
Davis in nineteen eighty six. I've been practicing structural engineering
ever since then. NIST never did a proper evaluation of
the collapse site and the debris World Trade Center seven.
I would have expected they would have tested for explosives
also because of the nature of the collapse and the
unprecedented nature of steel framed high rise building collapsing in
such a fashion.
Speaker 24: My name is Roland Agel. I'm a civil engineer registered
in the state of California. I've been practicing in California
since nineteen sixty seven. I'm a graduate of the University
of California, and my practice has included, among other things,
design and testing of structures that were designed to withstand blasts, specifically,
for instance, the lodge facilities for the mint Man missile system.
I was a Greenberry for six years during the sixties.
I was trained in the use of demolitions blew a
lot of things up. One of the things that we
did was go out and attack structures, analyze them as
to where their weak points were, learn how to place
explosives at points that would cause them to fail, and
then actually demolish them and analyze our results. So the
method of how to attack a structure and cause it
to fail with explosives was one of the things that
I learned through my military training.
Speaker 20: Well.
Speaker 24: The American Society of Civil Engineers was brought into this
investigation early on. They did a very superficial investigation of
the site. They issued a report without any significant forensic examination,
and there were laws violated in the destruction of that evidence,
and for the American Society of Civil Engineers to ignore
those events is extremely disturbing and is a violation, in
my opinion, of their professional code of ethics.
Speaker 9: I'm Tunny's EMBODI.
Speaker 25: I'm a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area with over
twenty years of experience in the airspace industry where I
design structures for aircraft and spacecraft and support equipment. Either
this or FEMA followed standard protocol for fire and explosion investigations,
or just fire investigations for that matter. National Fire Protection
Association GOD number nine twenty one calls for saving the
evidence and being prepared to justify why you wouldn't. It
also calls for testing for accelerants and explosives when high
order damage is evolved.
Speaker 9: This did not do this.
Speaker 25: This is often responsible for generating information which the NFPA
guides are written from. It makes one wonder why the
NFPA standard would not be followed in this case. This
does not answer this question publicly.
Speaker 21: There's national standards that need to be followed. And when
I started looking into that, I went into the investigation manual.
And so it's called the NFPA nine to twenty one,
and it's the Fire and Explosion it's the guide for
Fire and Explosions investigations. And so what it is, it's
a national standard. So if an investigator from New York
has to come out to the West Coast to help
with something, they can fit right in, seamlessly into the
system and know where what the role is and what
they need to be doing. And so I went and
I got the manual from two thousand and one, and
I went back and I looked at the footage from
the original days in t Lonon. There were all kinds
of firefighters and civilians that were reporting explosions.
Speaker 29: Okay, all right, we'll call you if you want to
call you.
Speaker 30: I want you if your fil and it coming down.
Speaker 21: Just the fact that there were explosions means they need
to be investigated. Terrorists used explosives in ninety three. We
had witnesses to explosions, we have audio reporting on explosions.
We have overwhelming evidence that there were some explosive events.
The manual gets into thermite and if it says if
you have melted steel or concrete, which we had on
nine to eleven, and there's videos of it, people can
see it, we should test for it. It says when
you have melted steel or concrete, you test for thermite.
So the fact that they're not testing for it is crazy.
We had three thousand, you know, Americans murdered, and we
had the first three high rise and steel collapses. We
have all these reports of explosions, we have the vans
pulled over, we have the history of terrorists using explosives.
It's absolutely ridiculous that, I mean, there's no excuse for it.
It's criminal, in my opinion, it's absolutely criminal that they
refuse to follow the national standards, and the national standards
say that they should be testing that for explosives. One
of the other big issues we have the firefighters that
are members of the firefighters in eleven truth is that
just the blatant destruction of evidence. It's it's we're not
talking about a little bit of evidence. They destroyed all
the steel, all the basically the bones of the building
that would have told us how this first high rise
steel structure in history that hadn't been struck by an airplane.
All it had was a few fires on several floors
and it only been burning for a few hours. We've
had other high rises burn much longer. This was the
way we could have learned from this was analyzing that,
looking at the steel and seeing how this collapsed and
how it failed and which steel members did what. Well,
we can't do that because what they did immediately after
nine to eleven was they started removing the steel the
debris from Tower seven and all the towers immediately. Why
were they destroying this? I mean they sent it off
to China to be recycled, so they never had any
physical evidence to do the investigation. The national standards are
very clear. We have preservation of evidence, we have spoilation
of evidence. There's all kinds of basically standards that you
don't destroy evidence. So that's what we're calling for. We're
calling for an investigation into the investigators why they destroyed this.
We're calling for a reinvestigation that follows national standards. And
the big thing is everybody says this is in the past,
leave it in the past, and that's not true. We
have ground zero workers dying today, they're getting cancers and
several don't have medical insurance then, and why most of
them are being taken care of by the department. But
there were so many thousands of volunteers and members of
other departments that showed up and they were there for
months afterwards, and they don't have the medical coverage, they
can't make their house payments. They're sick and dying, and
we as a country are ignoring them. I mean, we've
promised we'd never forget, but it looks to me like
most people have forgotten and they want us to forget.
And that's what we're here for, is to basically just
ask people to take another look into this, you know,
show some compassion and let's help you know, our brothers
and sisters out and really reinvestigate nine to eleven. I mean,
we have it's changed our world. It's you know, not
to mention that there were three hundred and forty three
brothers murdered. But we're at war over this. We've lost
a lot of our freedoms over this, and we don't
have the real story on what happened because there wasn't
a proper investigation done, as.
Speaker 5: Reported by the New York Times engineers were baffled by
the collapse of Building seven. Since no steel frame high
rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire, how are
we to understand this mysterious event.
Speaker 26: My name is Scott Granger. I'm a licensed fire protection engineer.
I'm licensed in thirteen states. I've been in private practice
for twenty five years. I've been a practicing engineer for
thirty nine years. Fifty percent of my practice is in
forensic engineering. Steel structural frame buildings, high rise buildings simply
do not collapse.
Speaker 11: Due to fire.
Speaker 26: There has never been, until nine to eleven, an experience
for a high rise building that was steel frame completely collapsed.
There have been fires burned longer in similar structures without
any collapse.
Speaker 19: In my previous career as a firefighter, normally you'd never
be afraid to go into a Type one building because
they're not combustible, and you would just charge at it
and put the fire out. Never in my training where
we ever taught that these type of buildings could just
collapse in on themselves. There's definitely much more going on
than just fire.
Speaker 31: The way in which steel framed buildings behave in fires
depends on their construction. In this test done by British
Steel in nineteen ninety five, a large amount of typical
office furniture was burned to see what would happen to
the heavy steel beams that supported the ceiling.
Speaker 3: When steel is bare, when it heats up, it gets weaker.
It's not that it melts in a fire. In fact,
the normal fires are not hot enough to melt steel.
Even if you were, for example, to use an unusual
fuel like kerosene, you cannot achieve temperatures hot enough to
melt steel. But what happens is it starts to lose
its strength, and as it loses its strength, it starts
to sag. It becomes softer and SAgs it can no
longer support below.
Speaker 31: This was the largest test of its kind ever conducted.
It showed how unprotected steel can be distorted even by
a normal office fire. But as is typical in steel buildings,
the structural beams only slowly and progressively warped and sagged.
There was no chance of a sudden collapse.
Speaker 3: In over twenty years, I have not seen until recently
a protected steel structure that has collapsed.
Speaker 9: In a fire.
Speaker 10: The World Trade Center seven building reminds me of the
Meridian Bank Building in some ways. In Philadelphia, the Meridian
Bank Building is a thirty eight story skyscraper that burned
for eighteen hours in nineteen nine. Suffered extensive damage from
the fire, but did not collapse.
Speaker 20: I am Dan Barnumia, a graduate architect from Rice University
with a Bachelor of Architecture degree. For the forty plus
years that I've been practicing architecture, I've designed a variety
of buildings, from small houses to high rise office buildings.
Some of the high rises that I've worked on are
one shell and two shell here in Houston, and I
was project manager for a twenty two story office building
in Akron, Ohio. I'm a fellow of the American Institute
of Architects. I've designed high rise buildings, and I know
what they do in fires because I've studied that. Later
in the day when World Trade Center seven collapsed, they
had already showed us pictures of a few fires in
that building. And I mean, they weren't even raging, And
how could that cause a building to collapse? As if
it were employe couldn't happen.
Speaker 2: My name is Jonathan Smullen's pe. I'm a professional structural
engineer in the Boulder, Denver area for the past twelve years,
and one of my specialties is forensic engineering, including evaluation
of structures post disaster. What happened to those columns to
all collapse at the same time. The explanation provided does
not match the evidence.
Speaker 9: That we have.
Speaker 32: My name is Michael Donnelly PE. I'm a structural engineer
with fourteen years of experience. I get involved mostly with
the design of steel framed fireproof buildings. We've never had
a steel framed skyscraper collapse in the United States or internationally,
so there's no precedent. I don't think Building seven could
have collapsed by fire, as NIST tells us that this
collapse mechanism starting with thermal expansion that worked its way
upward and outward through.
Speaker 33: The building in a matter of seconds.
Speaker 32: There's not enough time for the building to collapse the
way that NIST tells us that collapsed.
Speaker 22: I'm ed MUNAC licensed fire protection engineer for the at
least twenty five years, and I worked for a number
of organizations, city, federal, large insurance companies, consultant, always in
the area of fire safety and with the goal of
keeping the public safe and the first responders safe. I
became fascinated with the government's version of the events on
nine to eleven because this is totally contrary to everything
that I've ever experienced, either working in the field of
fire safety or knowing what I know about the mechanical engineering.
It defies many fundamentals of mechanics and materials and physics,
and just many fundamental engineering chips.
Speaker 25: World Trade Center seven mis claims the fires were very large,
very hot, and long lasting, when in reality, observation which
has been research by many people shows these fires that
did not last very long. They were not, and then
locations were missed claims they were at given times.
Speaker 5: According to lead investigator Sean Sunder of the National Institute
for Standards and Technology nissed, World Trade Center seven collapsed
at free fall acceleration for more than one hundred feet
of its fall. What does the speed of the collapse
reveal to us?
Speaker 16: Essentially in less than seven seconds, Tower seven came down
upon it.
Speaker 24: So Building seven, they missed reports admits, fell at the
rate of gravity for the first one hundred feet. Well,
that's impossible unless there's nothing resisting it.
Speaker 30: It's just like taking your car keys out and just
dropping them. That's how fast the building came down for
over one hundred feet, which and the only way you
can get that is when there's zero resistance. And so
what we're looking at is a building just coming straight down,
falling right through itself with zero resistance. Buildings don't have
zero resistance, which is why you feel comfortable walking into
a building.
Speaker 2: A building cannot do freefall with a huge structural steel
structural system in place to support it without it being
blown up. That's the only way it could come down
at free fall.
Speaker 13: The failure of all these connections as the primary means
of structural failure is inconsistent with a natural gravitational collapse
and in the case the presence of other agents which
would dismember these connections.
Speaker 30: I'm David Chandler. I have a bachelor's degree in physics
from Harvey Mudd College and a Masters in education from
Claremont Graduate University and another masters in mathematics from California
Polytechnic University. I've been teaching for over thirty years. I'd
heard people say, well, it came down at freefall or
close to free fall and so forth, so I decided
to measure it myself. I have a tool that I
use in teaching which allowed me to take a video
and put a dot on each frame to follow the
motion of things, and so you can make sure speeds
and accelerations and it will do the analysis. One of
the fundamental laws of nature is the conservation of energy.
In order for it to be falling down with zero resistance,
it means that resistance had to have been removed by
something else.
Speaker 23: And this claims that the columns were buckling in the
first several seconds before the free fall occurred. Now, I
don't see how that's possible.
Speaker 30: And in the final report they modified it, they tried
to doctor it up. It still tried to say that
it was essentially correct, but then they modified it and
they actually admitted there was a period of free fall involved,
but they never changed their model, Like, how do you
all of a sudden allow for free fall when they
just got done explaining how it couldn't have been in
free fall. If I were a scientists, I'd be endarrassed
to try to put forward something like that. It was
clearly a fraudulent argument.
Speaker 24: In other words, this is telling us that the building
below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds
of the collapse of the building. Well, things and physics
just don't cease to exist and cease to resist the forces.
Speaker 23: That are on them, free falling for eight stories, So
we know that happened.
Speaker 9: Okay, it's been measured and it's on videos. Everyone can see.
Speaker 23: It has admitted it free went into free fall for
eight stories.
Speaker 9: That it bothers.
Speaker 23: Some part of the puzzle becauseness never explained.
Speaker 13: It absolutely no resistance to the scent whatsoever.
Speaker 24: The building didn't disappear. So the building can fall for
one hundred feet at free fall speed. That's impossible. That's
a violation of the fundamental law of physics that says
that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
So that evidence alone would indicate that the official story
doesn't hold water.
Speaker 13: There was no time for this elastic defamation and plastic defamation,
which would have absorbed energy and decrease the descent to
less than free fall speed. As energy is drained away
from the system to deform those members, it would slow
down the descending mass and cause a descent at less.
Speaker 9: Than free fall speed.
Speaker 2: Forty thousand tons of structural steel in its structural system,
and that is intended to keep it from going anywhere.
A building cannot do free fall with a huge structural
steel structural system in place to support it.
Speaker 7: There's no resistance until the building gets down, maybe halfway.
Speaker 18: Buildings tend to be delayed as they collapse. They don't
just pancake down like this in a very short period
of time.
Speaker 34: But the pancake theory works. It's going to hit hesitation,
and there was no hesitation.
Speaker 23: Going from motionless to free fall instantly.
Speaker 25: One continuous motion, there couldn't have been any structural resistance.
Speaker 18: Buildings just don't behave like that. If floras fall, they
tend to fall and are braced by the floor directly
beneath it, and there's some delay there.
Speaker 13: This is inconsistent with the energy redistribution that would be
required from the descending mass to the remaining structure.
Speaker 25: Completely impossible, and this themselves have to recognize the implications
of this.
Speaker 9: The fact that they have is fraudulent.
Speaker 13: The connections are designed with a safety factor of one
point five to three times the failure load for the member,
so this assures that the member will always fail first
first in an elastic mode and then a plastic mode.
Speaker 23: Ideally, the member would fail before the connection. You don't
want the connections to fail first.
Speaker 13: The connections failed first without any of the members exhibiting
large deformations or deflections. Over four hundred connections per second
had to fail in order for them for the members
to be released, and for the structure to descend at
almost free.
Speaker 35: Fall rate to fail at the rate that they did.
Speaker 14: Progressively across the building.
Speaker 35: Even if a floor were to collapse, it still wouldn't
be able to collapse all of the connections simultaneously at
the rate that it did without secondary explosion.
Speaker 9: There's no hesitation.
Speaker 34: There was no hesitation when it was to hit the
story after story.
Speaker 14: If you were to look at a standard moment frame
steel connection, which is a welded connection between the beam
and the column, it would take on the order of
around five hundred thousand pounds to shear off one connection,
and if you multiply that by four hundred put maybe
a safety factor of four, you would require fifty million
pounds of force per second in order to collapse the
building the way it was shown. Based on the Nis
report and what we saw on the video evidence of
the video of the building that day, it's highly unlikely
don't know how that could ever happen without secondary explosions.
Speaker 9: It's not logical or reasonable.
Speaker 30: The fact that it's coming down at free fall says
all of the energy is being used to just make
it go straight down, which means it's coming down through
itself and not breaking up the building as it goes.
Something else has to be clearing the way, and that
is smoking gun evidence to me. I think that's one
of the primary pieces of evidence that these buildings really
were demolished. They weren't just accidents that happened.
Speaker 5: We might anticipate that an unevenly damaged building would fall over.
Yet videos are the collapse of Building seven show a
fairly symmetrical fall.
Speaker 19: How do we make sense of this?
Speaker 25: The exterior of the building comes down fully symmetrically, and
at one time both sides of the building comes down completely.
This is fully indicative of full structural support being removed
for at least six stories.
Speaker 9: That could not happen by fire.
Speaker 2: If you know, if there was some fire in one corner,
it would have collapsed maybe in that corner, but not
the total building. Free falling got.
Speaker 16: That corner's gonna want to topple over.
Speaker 9: But we didn't see that.
Speaker 16: We saw it come straight down.
Speaker 32: If the buildings had come down by fire, we would
have seen a more natural progression of collapse. We may
have seen, you know, the buildings actually topple over to
one side, certainly not coming down in its own footprint.
Speaker 18: And clearly a more asymmetrical pattern should have been present.
Speaker 36: I'm Kathy mcgrade. I have a bachelor's in metallurgical engineering
from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which I
got in nineteen seventy nine. I then spent the next
thirty years with three startup companies. The symmetry is the
smoking gun. It cannot happen that when you have asymmetric damage,
you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
Speaker 11: It would not have been a uniform collapse.
Speaker 26: The building might have partially fallen over, but the building
would not have collapsed as it did that.
Speaker 11: This doesn't make any logical sense for.
Speaker 16: It to come down straight down upon itself. You would
need to basically take out the supports at the center
at the core.
Speaker 12: The exterior columns on the outside on the outside as
well as on the inside at the bottom would have
to be severed almost at the same time.
Speaker 16: In my professional opinion from my experience for World Trade
Center seven to two collapse straight down upon itself as
video in the case, as everything that we've witnessed, the
supports at the center essentially all had to be taken
on at once.
Speaker 37: Well, that's another indicator that this report is very suspect,
because I would have expected in a classic implosion, as
I've seen numerous times, is the core to fail. My
name's Tom Sullivan. I worked for Controlled Demolition Incorporated CDI
and the top rated explosives demolition firm in the world.
As an explosive floader. My job was to place explosives
in the buildings to prepare them for demolition. I was
licensed while in New York by the New York Fire
Department to handle explosives and I worked on major projects
such as Seattle Kingdome, the Free River Stadium, Philadelphia Naval Hospital,
and keyspand Gas holders in New York. I would expect
the center of the building to start moving first, and
then as the as the implosion progresses, then the size come.
Then the rest of the building is involved. What I
saw was a classic implosion, the center of the core,
the penthouse area starts to move first and then the
building follows along with it.
Speaker 23: And there were so many columns in the building that
were not affected by either the fires or the impact damage,
and they all came down just dead once. So it's
a little disheartening and it's implausible.
Speaker 7: When it's all finished, the outside walls from the lower
floors are piled one on top of the other right
in the middle of the building, just like a house
of cards if it were coming down.
Speaker 26: Logic tells you that if you have a single failure
at some random point in the building, that the entire
building is not.
Speaker 11: Going to collapse. They collapsed.
Speaker 26: Would have been a chaotic, random event. The building would
have partially collapsed possibly, but it didn't. There was a
total collapse. And there's very few things that could explain that,
none of which are addressed by the NIST report. According
to NIST, the failure occurred at column seventy nine on
level twelve. This means basically, yes, they're talking about a
single column their collapse or failure that resulted in a
total collapse of the building.
Speaker 11: That just does not make any sense.
Speaker 23: As a structural engineer, I don't believe that the failure
of one column would normally bring down an entire building
in the way we saw World Trade Center seven come
down because of redundancy, because of all the other columns
in the building that were not affected.
Speaker 5: This provided computer animations in support of their fire collapse theory.
But what do independent engineers say about these animations.
Speaker 12: When you observe the footage of how the building failed,
and when you look at the animation of the failure
and compare that to what you actually observe in reality,
I think they disproved their own theories. It is impossib
for the fail the way they said.
Speaker 13: I've seen the animation sequence from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology for their model, the mathematical model of
the collapse of building number seven, and they have the
inside members that one column gave way, which they claim
resulted in the collapse of all the surrounding members and
then this precipitated a global collapse.
Speaker 23: The NIST computer model. Actually, they had done a bunch
of finite element models of the connections individual connections, so
they had connections failing before the members failed, four part connections.
When three of the four parts failed, they considered it
to be all failed.
Speaker 25: The exterior of the NIST World Trade Center seven computer
simulation model which they put together to try to explain
their theory. So's large, very large deformations are not observed
in the video of the actual event. If they don't
attempt to explain this in the report on why their
model doesn't represent a replicate reality. What's actually happening with
the this computer model. It's behaving like a natural collapse
would it would be deforming the exterior of the building
if the whole interior was collapsing prior to the exterior.
What we're seeing is what would happen in natural collapse,
and what we saw, what we see on the real
video is not a natural collapse.
Speaker 13: So I think that then model is flawed. Of course,
they won't release all of their parameters that they used
to model the collapse, and that is a primary problem
for them.
Speaker 25: This is also repeatedly refused to release computer input data
that was requested through the Freedom of Information Act from
them in the past. Concerning will trates under one two
hand seven, what do.
Speaker 5: These professionals conclude about the destruction of World Trade Center
Building seven.
Speaker 13: There had to be some agent that was destroying the
connections and building number seven at four hundred connections per second,
and the only thing that I can see that would
be capable of doing this would be explosive devices at
the connections. And this is why I think that there
has to be a new investigation to find out the
real physical causes for these all these members to act
in an atypical fashion.
Speaker 16: And I certainly believe that it had to have been
controlled demolition, control charges, explosives, something of that type, because
it was a sudden failure controlled demolition.
Speaker 38: There's no way that fire did what they said it
did to that build.
Speaker 9: It impossible, couldn't happen.
Speaker 38: It just did not make sense that a building that
had a few minor fires in it could possibly.
Speaker 9: Circum the way it did.
Speaker 38: If there was damage, it would have been minor. There
might have been some deflection of a beam or two
here or there, but not a total and unequivoable complete collapse.
It just doesn't ring true.
Speaker 20: A few fires in that building, and I mean they
weren't even raging, and how could that cause a building
to collapse as if it were imploded.
Speaker 19: Couldn't happen to me, It was obvious that there was
some controlled demolition and some explosions involved.
Speaker 34: When I saw Building seven fall, it to me appeared
to be controlled demolition because it fell in free fall
manner into itself. It is my opinion, as a former
twelve Bravo combat engineer, well trained in the use of explosives,
that this building, all three buildings, were brought down as
a control as a result of controlled demolitions.
Speaker 5: This is the original site of the World Trade Center
Twin towers. Construction is now underway where dramatic new facilities
are being erected. Just ten years ago, the planes hit
the towers, cutting through some exterior and interiors supporting structural
steel columns. The fuel from the plane's ignited office fires
across several floors. According to the official reports, the structural
steel frame was weakened and failed, causing a total progressive
collapse of each tower. Does the official explanation make sense?
Was there a comprehensive investigation that examined all of the evidence.
Let's look at the details.
Speaker 10: These buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from airliners.
Speaker 20: I walked into the office and the first words that
I heard was planes just run into the World Trade Center.
And my initial thought was, well, that's okay. It's built
to withstand A seven oh seven.
Speaker 39: They stated that the fuel would be dumped into the building,
but the building would still be there, although most of
the fuel blew out the opposite side of the building.
Speaker 25: These buildings are built to handle several times the load
above them. Those perimeter columns could handle five times the
load above them, and the core columns could handle three
times a load above them.
Speaker 19: The majority of the jet fuel was burnt up instantly
in the big fireball and it was gone. The fires
that were left were office furnishings and carpet and things
like that. A lot of things in these kind of
buildings have to be fire resistant by nature. It's required
by code. So there really isn't a whole lot of
fuel in there to begin with.
Speaker 22: The media portrayed these fires as being extremely hard, but
the fires were not that hot in World Trade Center
one and two. If you look at in this owned data,
you could see this, and to uh, to use our
own powers of observation, you could tell by seeing these
fires and seeing black smoke come out the windows, that
means that the fires were oxygen starved and it was
incomplete combustion, and so it was a low temperature fire.
Speaker 9: I am Robert Podolski.
Speaker 40: I have a degree master's degree in theoretical physics from
Xavier University in Cincinnati. I worked for ten years as
a professional physicist engineer systems analyst for government and for
industry companies like Avco, ge Bendix, and also Air Force
Avionics Lab and the Coastguard Electronics Division. I looked up
in a manual the burning temperature of jet fuel and
found that under the conditions that existed at the World
Trade Center on nine to eleven, that jet fuel had
to have been burning at about seven hundred and fifty
degrees fahrenheit.
Speaker 33: I also.
Speaker 40: Noticed that the official explanation of what happened there was
that the heat from the fire supposedly softened the steel
and thereby brought the buildings down. If you have a
flame at seven hundred and fifty degrees, you can hold
that flame under a steel beam forever and you'll never
reach a high enough temperature to bend steel, let alone melted.
So immediately I knew at that point that the official
explanation was dead wrong. There was no way those flames
could have possibly brought about the collapse of the building.
Speaker 38: It did not seem possible that these towers that were
designed to withstand the impact of a seven oh seven
could possibly collapse in such a short order of time
from the time that they were hit. There's no way
the building was designed to take the impact of one,
if not more, multiple airplanes. They were designed to withstand
hurricane force winds of up to one hundred and forty
miles an hour.
Speaker 34: My first reaction was that looks like controlled demolitions. However,
I believe the official story because it was played to me.
Speaker 9: Over and over again.
Speaker 34: I heard repeated experts telling me that this was terrorists
that did this, and that it was planes that brought
those buildings down, so I accepted the official story.
Speaker 9: The nest.
Speaker 25: Testing of the twenty hour floors seways done at Underwriters laboratories.
This was done per ASTM E one nineteen two thousand
degree fire tests. We're going to test the Main trust
Is sagged approximately four inches after sixty minutes and six
inches at.
Speaker 9: There one hundred minutes.
Speaker 25: Yet this had the Main trust Is sagging well over
forty inches in their models.
Speaker 5: Rather than a slow growing collapse that we might anticipate,
the twin towers show in the videos a very rapid,
sudden onset of destruction.
Speaker 31: What does this imply?
Speaker 41: I'm Frank going in. I'm practicing civil engineer in the
state of California. I have a Bachelor of Science from
Chico State, which I received in nineteen eighty eight. I've
been a licensed civil engineer since nineteen ninety three. I
specialized in bridge construction, pertaining one construction, small building construction,
bridge demolition, and I have experienced in bridge design buildings.
Own structural steal is required by building and design codes
to prevent catastrophic failure and lost of public life. Everybody's
seeing the building collapses on nine to eleven, and it
was shocking how fast the buildings collapsed.
Speaker 20: The way the buildings fell was not indicative of the
way a building that's in distress collapses.
Speaker 15: This doesn't happen with structural steel buildings and never has
and never will again.
Speaker 9: We assume that fires could destroy a building.
Speaker 15: Why people select steel buildings is because they would destroy slowly.
It would gradually twist and bend and give people plenty
of time and safety in getting out of the building.
Speaker 13: The basic philosophy of the building codes in the last
seventy five to eighty years has been to ensure doctal
failure of the members to provide for the public safety.
Under this philosophy, members that are overloaded will deform elastically
any elastic range of material with increasingly large defamations and deflections.
This gives rise to large defamations that are visible and
apparent to the occupants of the structure. This gives them
time to evacuate the structure.
Speaker 19: I would not have expected the whole building to just
give in at once, and I thought it rather odd
that they fell almost perfectly in very similar ways. It
seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.
Speaker 14: Upon further review of the videos of the tower's destruction
in the nine to eleven Blueprint for Truth DVD, I
was surprised to see the upper floors of the North tower,
the upper fifteen floors of the North Tower implode prior
to any destruction of the tower below, because it would
be logical that as a result of the plane crash
that the that the upper fifteen floors would start to
damage the floors below, not the floors above.
Speaker 15: And it certainly would stay in the damage zone. It
would not drop down through eighty thousand ton of insulated,
undamaged structural steel and do it in twelve seconds.
Speaker 25: I discuss the miss claim that the upper section of
each of the towers crossed the lower section. However, when
you watch video closely, in the case of World Trade
Center one, you'll see that the upper section disintegrates itself.
Its lower stories are breaking up before it even impacts
the lower section. It appears to be a controlled demoition
of its own of the upper section.
Speaker 20: The tops of the buildings were basically disintegrated.
Speaker 30: The top section pushing on the bottom section. It's going
to meet equal forces as it goes. Both sections are
going to be demolished at the same rate. So by
the time you've crushed up fifteen stories below it, the
top fifteen stories are also going to be crushed, and
so there's nothing left now to crush the rest of
the building. So there's so many paradoxes here. A little
tiny chunk of the building can't possibly fall and crush
the entire structure below it.
Speaker 25: Well, there's demolitions done in France when shoes what we
call the Baronet's technique, where they take out a couple
floors worth of columns with hydraulics.
Speaker 9: They take the columns out and they let the building.
Speaker 25: The epersection building drop two full floors, and when it
impacts the lower section there's a very definitive, observable deceleration
and velocity loss.
Speaker 30: You're looking for a jowler that this thing, if it
actually comes down and hits, you should be able to
see the point at which they actually impact, because it
would actually slow down the motion of the falling blot,
and you.
Speaker 9: Can see in the graph it is not there. In
the case of the North South it.
Speaker 30: Never slows down. It accelerates the entire time. And that
was what was extremely significant. So I published a paper
about that. It's in the Journal of nine to eleven Studies.
And so, if you had the top section acting like
a pile driver, if in fact it actually hit and
made an impact, it was effectively crushing anything pushing hard
on this core structure below it. The core structure is
going to push back equally hard, and that's what's going
to cause the top section of the building to slow down.
But the fact that it's constantly accelerating downward is evidence
that it didn't slow down. It's not actually hitting and
engaging with the structure below it in any way that
could demolish it. The top section is not crushing the
bottom section of the building, or it would meet resistance.
Speaker 9: I am Richard Euman.
Speaker 42: I am a retired professional electrical engineer. I went to
Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and received the Bachelor of Electrical Engineering
degree in nineteen fifty four. I worked for Joseph Loooring
for forty one years and was principal Chief electrical Engineer
for the World Traits and A Complex. I was very
familiar with the Twin Towers elevator systems because we took
over conceptual maintenance and improvements of the elevator systems after
the project was completed. I actually read and rolled up
and down elevator shafts on the top of a car.
Calling twelve hundred feet a minut you could imagine the experience.
I'm very familiar with the interior structure that surrounded the
elevator shafts and the accessibility which the elevator companies had
twenty four to seven.
Speaker 9: The only way that I can see that.
Speaker 42: The towers could have collapsed is that the interior columns
were compromised in Tower one. Unless my eyes were deceiving
me before the towers started collapsing from the top. The
antenna started to fall, and the antenna, of course, was
over the middle of the elevator sheriffs, and of course
their access to the elevator shriff gave them total access
to the surrounding core columns.
Speaker 9: The interior of the core columns.
Speaker 33: Missed.
Speaker 5: The National Institute of Standards and Technology acknowledges that the
towers came down at essentially free fall acceleration. What are
the implications of that admission.
Speaker 43: The measurements have indicated that Tower one collapsed in about
eleven seconds and Tower two collapse in about nine seconds,
and the argument goes that this is essentially the rate
at which freefall would happen.
Speaker 32: I had a friend that asked me if it was
possible for the twin towers to achieve near free fall
speed when they collapsed.
Speaker 39: The twin towers could not have come straight down through
the thousand tons of structural steel, through the greatest resistance
to the resistance of eighty thousand tons of structural steel,
at the speed of a practically free fall.
Speaker 11: That just would not happen.
Speaker 20: There are columns of steel around the exterior of the
building and within the core, all of which are there
to prevent the thing from falling down, and so if
even if something falls on it, it's not going to
immediately just go pop pop pop pop pop pop, like
that floor by floor it's going to if it's going
to collapse, it's going to have to take some time
to weaken the structure below it.
Speaker 30: This structure was capable of holding three to five times
the weight, and here it is falling through it with
the resistance of only one third of its weight. Roughly
ninety percent of the resistance has been removed, and what's
happening is the top section is not crushing down the
lower section like a pile driver, which is the picture
that miss basically it is painting. It's actually falling into
material that's already been pulverized. It's offering very little resistance.
It's just coming down through pre pulverized material. One of
the fundamental laws of nature is the conservation of energy.
Speaker 13: There was no time for this elastic defamation and plastic defamation,
which would have absorbed energy and decrease the descent to
less than free fall speed. As energy is drained away
from the system to deform those members, it would slow
down the descending mass and cause a descent at less than.
Speaker 9: Free fall speed.
Speaker 24: This is high school physics, and our whole society is
being led to believe that these fundamental laws of physics
hard science don't apply anymore.
Speaker 9: I think that should really frighten all of us.
Speaker 13: Over four hundred connections per second had the fail in
order for the members, for the members to be released,
and for the structures to descend at almost free fall rate.
Speaker 41: Structural connections not only had to fail nearly simultaneously.
Speaker 44: What do water The buildings fall at a speed which
can only occur if the structure has been removed the
vertical structure.
Speaker 30: This block accelerates straight down or as it's picking up
speed downward continually. It doesn't slow down, it just continues
to gain speed.
Speaker 7: From what I what I understand, the buildings actually accelerated
as they came down, meaning they were not getting resistance
from these massive columns in the center of the core
of this building. Core of this building was very heavy.
They're huge columns.
Speaker 9: Huge.
Speaker 19: I couldnt see how those mass of very thick columns
could just snap like that. I would have expected them to,
most of them to stay intact with the floors collapsing
around them.
Speaker 9: I'm Alfred Lopez.
Speaker 39: I'm a registered professional structural engineer in the state of
Michigan and have been in private practice for forty years
with Lopez Engineering. I've worked on several high rise projects
with office buildings above parking decks and high rise apartment
buildings here in the Detroit area. I've done numerous investigations
of failures of buildings because of fire and.
Speaker 11: Wind damage.
Speaker 39: I was shocked at at how the buildings collapsed, but
expected that they would have come down much slower that
they would have tipped over. That the whole thing did
not make sense, and ever since then a hard time
believing that the fires did drop those buildings.
Speaker 19: I thought that given the way the planes hit the building,
one side would have given away first and it just
would have fallen off or fallen over at a steep angle.
But the way the whole thing just gave way at
once and started to plummet down without slowing down as
it went down again, just like the controlled demolition.
Speaker 15: Eyewitnessed personally the area below the damage zone where the
planes flew in and where the fire was. That area
below that, though eighty or ninety stories eighty thousand tons
of structural steel, was not damaged in any way, Yet
you stood there and watched it destroy itself, wiping out,
floor by floor all two hundred and eighty seven structural columns,
as if they didn't exist underneath the damage shown.
Speaker 5: According to the first responders oral histories which were reported
in the New York Times, over one hundred first responders
reported sounds of explosions and flashes of light at the
onset of destruction of both towers. These were not discussed
in the mystery report. What did these eyewitnesses actually.
Speaker 33: See and hear.
Speaker 2: All the other evidence of seeing flashes and explosions, and
the melted metal and the dust particles, and with the
chemical the explosive chemicals found in the debris. There's just
a lot of questions about what's been going on, and
that these questions have not been answered or even addressed
in any sort of full way.
Speaker 44: We have eyewitness testimony of firemen, policemen, news reporters and
occupants of the building to explosions. An enormous number of
eyewitness testimonies.
Speaker 33: Have you due the explosion inside the lobby?
Speaker 22: Is that a secondary explosion?
Speaker 9: Yes, it was.
Speaker 15: There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building.
Speaker 30: It was.
Speaker 9: There were continuous explosions.
Speaker 45: There was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted
before or under.
Speaker 42: Your correct that did not explode and through a hour later.
Speaker 46: Then it was our secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses.
Speaker 31: It's und like gunfire, you know, by bye bye bye bang.
Speaker 17: And then and then all of a sudden, three big explosions.
Speaker 14: About fifty consecutive bangs, and it went fell down like a.
Speaker 32: Waterfall, and we heard the noise associated with an implosion.
Speaker 41: We heard a very loud explosion.
Speaker 12: We heard a loud explosion.
Speaker 33: At that point, we heard a large boom.
Speaker 23: Do you know if it was an explosion, if it
was a building collapse?
Speaker 18: To me, it sounded like to me, it sounded like
an explosion.
Speaker 44: There was another major explosion all of a sudden, you
hear explosion, and he could see the buildings starting to collapse.
Speaker 31: Huge explosion that we all heard and felt.
Speaker 47: We could hear a rumble which was about five seconds long,
preceding the actual collapse, and then a boom when each
of those towers collapsed a fine to seconds ago, there
was a huge explosion.
Speaker 48: And it appears right now the Second World Trade Tower
has just collapsed.
Speaker 4: If I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions.
Speaker 49: Then you heard from far away boom boom, and you
heard the boom.
Speaker 45: It was just.
Speaker 33: Plans to take down a built.
Speaker 50: And it just started going pop.
Speaker 15: But it started with boom boom, boom, boo boom, and
he goes how.
Speaker 8: Fast they go like firecrackers.
Speaker 21: One of the one of miss other excuses was that
there were no blast sounds heard by witnesses or recorded.
There's so many videos of witnesses from that day that
report explosions. There's radio transmissions from the FDN Y. We
have the transcripts that were recorded, you know back in
two thousand and one, of all these firefighters and first
responders reporting explosions, there's no doubt they were heard.
Speaker 25: In the oral histories of the emergency personnel taken down
in late two thousand and one and early two thousand
and two, there are over one hundred individuals who make
comments about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in those buildings.
These oral histories were documented well before this started their
World Trade Centers investigation in September.
Speaker 9: Two thousand and two.
Speaker 25: This testimony should have caused the presumption that there was
a good chance explosive resident would be found the justified
testing for it rather than the opposite.
Speaker 2: Reviewing the.
Speaker 16: Some of the eyewitness accounts and people hearing what sound
like explosions and things like that, again, it didn't seem
very plausible for any other type of cause for such
an event.
Speaker 30: So it doesn't look like a collapse. It's like a
huge mushrooming, billowing kind of an event. That whole thing
looks nothing like a building falling down. It's a building
being blown up, and it's being blown up progressively from
the top down. That's what the physics.
Speaker 25: Shows in this acknowledges in their response to a requests
for correction that they are unable to provide a full
explanation of the total collapse, Yet they refuse to consider
the possibility explosives or some other form of demolition device
could have been used to cause of the collapses of
the towers and the fact that controlled demolition is consistent
with all the available technical evidence. And the response to
that request for correction is this simply saying they're unable
to provide a full explanation for the total collapse, even
though that was their task given to them by Congress.
Speaker 30: The core structure of the building had to have been
destroyed by other means.
Speaker 5: FEMA documents a twelve hundred foot diameter debris field around
each tower. Videos show multi ton steel sections of hundreds
of individual steel pieces ejecting out of the towers at
sixty miles an hour for a distance of six hundred feet.
They also show clouds of debris pulverized in mid air
and isolated explosive ejections as many as sixty stories below
the so called crush soone videos also show.
Speaker 33: The near total destruction of both towers.
Speaker 5: What does all this tell us about the forces and
energies involved.
Speaker 33: In the destruction.
Speaker 32: The spread of debris in a large radius around each tower.
Speaker 9: What we see is an.
Speaker 32: Outward explosion of material beyond the perimeters of each footprint,
and this is not expected and it's not congruent with
the reports of our government.
Speaker 23: Debris that was shooting out for hundreds of feet in
all directions seventy miles an hour, leaving the the eightieth
floor of the North Tower and making a fairly level
trajectory that to me is fairly alarming.
Speaker 44: Large multi toon beams were hurled hundreds of yards laterally.
Gravity works vertically, not laterally.
Speaker 30: The number I got was seventy eight miles an hour.
So something's happening to throw these things horizontally at those
kinds of speeds, and here it is trailing white smoke
the whole time. It really is syndicative of some kind
of explosion.
Speaker 34: The individual explosions that I noticed twenty and thirty and
forty stories below the collapsing structure, those are what we
demolitions guys call squibs, And that's another characteristic that seems
to be evident.
Speaker 30: Well, in the case of the South Tower, you can
see these jets of black smoke being ejected from many locations,
on many different floors. Above the level of the impact.
There's a whole bunch of these squibs or puffs that
are coming out the side of the building. And naysayers
tend to say, well, that's just air being blown out
the windows because you have, like an accordion effect, been
being compressed. Well, it's going on at a lot of
different levels at the same time. It's one thing, and
if you're compressing it out here, if you're blown out
the windows down here, how are you getting the air pressure?
I mean, it doesn't really work to say it's just
air pressure. Some of these are coming out faster than
a hundred miles an hour.
Speaker 19: The impact of the floors pancaking upon themselves would create
gushes of air out the side, but not the kind
of explosive force that we saw. They would throw I
beams across the street into the windows of other buildings.
Speaker 34: The exection of the materials out of the building in
which it fell, the speed at which it fell exhibited
all the signs of demolitions, and the completeness of the
destruction down to their individual elements.
Speaker 19: When the South Tower was destroyed, at first it looked
like it was going to land in the street or
take a building out next to it, and then all
of a sudden it disappears in this huge cloud of smoke,
which didn't seem to make sense at the time.
Speaker 7: How can those steel columns, the massive steel columns that
they are supporting that way to that building virtually disappear.
Why aren't they poking up straight out of that rubble
at the bottom of the building.
Speaker 18: As an architect, I would expect to see larger portions
of the building floors, the decking, the steel decking, the
concrete topping, much larger remnants of what the structural components
of this building was. There were just small fragments of
strewn steel components. There should have been much larger pieces
for examination on the ground. After all, there was one
hundred and ten floors in each building and each floor
plate was over an acre in size.
Speaker 19: The fact that it was all reduced to rubble and
powder just did not make sense at all.
Speaker 44: We have no explanation of how the concrete was pulverized.
It takes an enormous amount of energy way beyond, but
we have an aviation fuel.
Speaker 42: There were two substations on the one hundred and eighth floor,
the seventy fifth floor, and the forty first floor and
the seventh floor. At those eight locations, there were four
transformers in each substation that weighed over thirty thousand pounds.
In the substations on the mechanical floors in each tower.
Transformers would not explode.
Speaker 9: On their own.
Speaker 42: They were air cool dry type transformers, and yet after
the collapse there was from what was reported, there was
no evidence of them being found at the bottom of
the towers.
Speaker 12: I wonder why.
Speaker 42: It was a shame that after the collapse, that a
forensic unit, a forensic engineering unit didn't go into the
debris and try to find at that time why the
towers had collapsed. I'm sure there was other evidence that
could have given a better indication at the time that
there was something else wrong.
Speaker 5: In its report on World Trade Center seven, which came
out in May of two thousand and two, FEMA documents
in Appendix C steel that has been melted and even
partially evaporated, resembling Swiss cheese. What are we to make
of this?
Speaker 33: My name is Jeff Fair.
Speaker 48: I have a PhD in material science and engineering from
the University of Minnesota. I have a BA in physics
from Brigham Young University. I've worked with solid state reactions.
I've worked characterizing materials, semiconductor materials, thin films. I currently
do a lot of work with nanoparticles as well as
solid state reactions. So Jonathan Barnett's study, which I thought
was very well done and quite extensive, is all documented
by FEMA in Appendix C in their BPAT report that
was May of two thousand and two. Unfortunately, it was
never used in the NIST report.
Speaker 51: My name is Jason Cheshure and I'm a licensed professional
engineer in the Province of Ontario in Canada, and I
have been working in the field of hydro metallurgy for
the past ten years for a major company here in Canada.
And I'd like to know why NIST excluded the document
from FEMA and Appendix CE that documented this the evidence
of melting steel. Well, why is this not included? Why
is this forensic evidence not being included in the report?
Speaker 15: First of all, let's go back to your basic premise
that there was a pool of molten steel. I know
absolutely nobody, even to no eyewitness who said so, nobody
who's produced it.
Speaker 38: You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, a
little molten steel running down the channel rails.
Speaker 6: Like you're in a foundry, actually melted beams where it
was molten steel that was being dug out underground.
Speaker 52: It was still so hot that molten metal dripped on
the sides of a wall.
Speaker 11: And it clean up was very difficult.
Speaker 33: In the beginning, steel was coming out red in certain areas.
Speaker 23: From the first couple of weeks.
Speaker 5: It's fused element of steel, molten steel.
Speaker 53: And they pulled off the big block or concrete and
there was like a little River of Steel Flower.
Speaker 54: My name is Mark Basil. I'm a chemical engineer. I
have a Bachelor of Science and Chemical Engineering from Worcester
Polytechnic Institute. I've worked for about twenty five years in
industry and the majority of what I do is analytical
work and figuring out what materials are composed of, why
they are what they are, why they do what they do.
There were sections of them that clearly showed melting. They
had sections that were thinned away and there were actually
holes through them, and some of the ends were just
melted away or even possibly evaporated away mcgrade.
Speaker 36: I have a bachelor's in Metallurgical Engineering from New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology, which I got in nineteen
seventy nine. I then spent the next thirty years with
three startup companies. In an office fire, you cannot generate
enough heat to melt steel, and yet we have evidence
of molten iron in the microspheres in the rubble pile
and the metal pouring out of the side of the tower.
Speaker 55: We could have filled up the twin towers with jet
fuel and burned it all up, and that does not
cause a fire hot enough to melt structural steel.
Speaker 53: My name is Gary Warner. I'm a mechanical engineer. I
hold a professional certification from the Association British Columbia.
Speaker 9: I worked as.
Speaker 53: In the project engineering department of the Casting plant of
alcan the Aluminum Company of Canada, one of the largest
aluminum smelters on the planet at the time, and in
that smelter we turned aluminum oxide into aluminum molten aluminum.
Speaker 9: Molten aluminium is silver. It's not yellow. It's silver. It
looks like mercury.
Speaker 53: The yellow molten metal that I saw pouring out of
the South Tower is indicative of molten iron. I was
a bit incredulous when I learned that disclaimed that the
molten metal was aluminium. And it doesn't look at all
like molten aluminum. Looks like iron. Molten iron and what
it looks like, and I've seen tons of it. We
used to cast this in Elcan. They still cast it.
I spent two years casting that.
Speaker 46: I'm David Gregg. I have a master's and PhD in
chemical engineering from the University of Illinois. Afterwards, I went
to work for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, where I worked there
for more than thirty years. It cannot get a flame
hot enough to start the metal the molten make it
molten in the first place, so that this other process
takes off.
Speaker 30: I don't know of a mech for that.
Speaker 46: The only way that's known that a carbonaceous material can
cause steel or iron oxide to turned into a molten
metal is in a blasphemous and that's very different than.
Speaker 9: What we had.
Speaker 56: An incendiary used by the military. Thermite is a compound
of iron oxide and aluminium, which, when ignited, sustains an
extreme heat reaction, creating molten iron in just two seconds.
Thermite can reach temperatures over forty five hundred degrees fahrenheit,
quite enough to liquefy steel. We know that open air
fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but metal
had melted at the base of the towers.
Speaker 48: The next question is how do you get how do
you get the sulfur in these pieces of steel or
in the debris, and that question is is unanswered. There's
a version of thermite called thermate, which has sulfur in
the in the thermate to on what the what the
sulfur does is it It's sort of like salt on ice.
Speaker 56: Appendix SEA of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on
the World Trade Center Steel. The New York Times called
this the deepest mystery of all Sulfur slightly lowers the
melting point of iron and iron oxide and iron.
Speaker 54: Sulfide, and it just basically makes the steel melt at
a lower temperature. So instead of having to bring the
steel up to fifteen hundred centigrade, you can slice through
the material that's at nine hundred or one thousand degrees centigrade.
And if you do a search on Google for thermite
and building demolition, you can find all sorts of wonderful
devices that have been fabricated and invented that use thermite
for building demolitions.
Speaker 29: Thermide is in the old fashioned thermide is a mixture
of pulverized aluminum and polarized rusts. And if you can
get these this mixture to react, which is not so easy,
it produces tremendous heat. And this is what you call
an incendiary. An incendiary is something which can be used
to destroy something by the means of heat, while an
explosive is something which reacts s with pressure. It knocks
things apart. Now, the old fashioned incendiary is not an explosive.
It is still used for military purposes for melting AISO structures.
Speaker 54: Practical applications of thermite involve things such as equipment decommissioning.
In the military, when they have a piece of artillery
or a tank or something like that that they don't
want to leave behind to the enemy, they throw what
are called grenades thermite grenades down the barrel. Let's say,
but thermite does not explode. It simply reacts, produces large
amounts of heat and molten material.
Speaker 37: In the case of thermite cutting charges, you would have
heard far less noise since they are worked by thermal
heating melting of the steel rather than an explosive cutting
as in RDX charges.
Speaker 50: I'm Kim Ireland. I have a degree in chemical engineering
from Clarkson University in nineteen sixty three. After graduating, I
served two years as a reserve officer in the US
Army Corps of Engineers, where, among other things, I had
training in flosives such as C four. I was involved
in the industrial chemical industry for twenty years with major companies.
There were reports of molten steel having been seen in
the rubble pile of all three buildings, and I knew
that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, is not capable
of melting steel nor iron. Kerosene or jet fuel burns
at less than sixteen hundred degrees fahrenheit, and molten steel
needs at least twenty seven hundred degrees fahrenheit in order
to melt.
Speaker 51: Thing that most struck me about the nine to eleven
incident was following the incident, how overflights had detected with
infrared camera fourteen hundred degree fahrenheit hotspots on the surface
of around zero and that being there for a week,
you know, indicates that there was something very hot going
on below the surface.
Speaker 5: Another question that may hunt the New Freedom Tower. According
to USGS, they found as much as six percent of
the World Trade Center dust consisted of tiny, previously molten
iron spheres. What does this tell us about the temperatures
generated in the tower's destruction.
Speaker 57: My name is Adam Parrott and I have a bachelor's
degree in chemical engineering from Queen's University. I've been working
for an environmental consulting firm for a number of years.
When the USGS collected samples of the World Trade Center dust,
they found the iron microspheres. In the USGS does not
have a valid explanation for the presence of these iron microspheres.
Speaker 54: But I have independently seen thermtic activity within two separate
independent samples of World Trade Center DUSK.
Speaker 58: I'm Jerry Lobdell. I'm a retired physicist and chemical engineer.
I have a BS and Chemical engineering from Texas Tech,
and I have extensive coursework in mathematics and physics from
the University of Texas at Austin. I've had broad experience
in analysis and applied research. Thirty year professional history spanning physics,
chemical engineering, statistical analysis, and modeling and operations research. So
what do the microspheres contain? Iron is the main element,
and then it has smaller portions of aluminum sulfur, a
trace of manganese, a trace of potassium. Most of them
are less than about a tenth of an anchentye diameter,
and they're spherical, and they're found in all of the
dust blown out of the buildings during collapse. No matter
where in Manhattan that dust is picked.
Speaker 36: Up, you must have had a much hotter heat source
for you to get twenty seven hundred degrees fahrenheit in
order to melt the steel, melt the iron. To get
these these spheres, these molten spheres, your heat source must
be something like a chemical reaction, an exothermic chemical reaction
that reacts, in the case of thermite, reacts at forty
five hundred degrees fahrenheit.
Speaker 54: My contention, based on finding thermite residue in the dust
is that had happened before, it didn't happen after, in
the fires that ensued in the rubble pile afterwards. It's
all the characteristics of the microspheres, along with what I
see in the attack of the beams that were actually found,
tell me that thermite was involved in melting that those
steel beams.
Speaker 5: Out of the ashes of the World Trade Center devastation
rises the Freedom Tower, whose foundation, however, is shrouded in question.
For example, in the World Trade Center dust, an international
team of scientists find an advanced form of highly energetic
nano thermite composites.
Speaker 33: What is it and where does it come from?
Speaker 9: My name is Nils Harriet.
Speaker 29: I have a master and a PhD in chemistry and
I'm associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, and I
have been so for almost forty years. I have published
close to sixty peer reviewed papers in the best journals,
and currently I'm involved with research X ray time resolved
spectroscopy on timescales are one millions or one millions of
a second. In the dust, we found what we characterize
as unreacted thermatic material in the shape of some very
tiny red gray chips which have different properties. Most importantly
is they're still reacting some of them and in the
reaction they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication
of a thematic reaction, and such a reaction can be.
Speaker 9: Used to destroy steel structures.
Speaker 29: What we have found is a modern version of thermite,
which we call nanothermide, which is produced in a different way.
It is not just two powders being mixed. The material
is actually built from the atom scale op. We call
it the bottom op procedure, which is what you do
in nanotechnology. This has two consequences for the nanotherrmite which
separate distinguishes it from the classical thermite. First, the ingredients
are much smaller, which means they're reacting faster and they
are more easily ignited.
Speaker 28: The primary elements in the red material are aluminum, iron oxide,
as well as silicon and carbon. The iron oxide appears
in fasted grains approxially one hundred nanometers across. The aluminium
appears in thin platelets about forty nanometers thick. It is
the small size of the particles involved in this material
that allow us to carree it as nano thermite. In
ordinary thermite, the particle size is much larger, and hence
ordinary thermite is an incendiary, whereas as the particle size
becomes smaller and smaller, it can become explosive super thermite
it is sometimes called. This red material contains also a
significant amount of carbon, and the formulation of nanothermite is
described by National Laboratory publications also implies the presence of carbon.
Very Typically, the organic is used with nanothermite in order
to produce gas that is a very high pressure gas
that makes the nanothermite an explosive. We do have descriptions
from the Levermore National Laboratory in particular of how they
fabricated this material, but to fabricated is not so easy.
This is discussed in our paper in the Open Chemical
Physics Journal published in April of two thousand and nine.
So far, none of these papers have been refuted in
the literature the scientific literature, so that means they are
unchallenged in the scientific sense. They stand as an indictment
really of the official story of nine to eleven.
Speaker 54: One of the things I'd like to stress about these
chips is that they really shouldn't be there. They're not
a natural formed agglomeration of aluminum from the aircraft or
materials that were in the building and iron oxide that
got knocked off.
Speaker 22: It isn't just a.
Speaker 54: Haphazard bringing together of iron oxide and aluminum, which is
the basic components of thermite. This is a material that
is made up of nanosized particles that are all very uniform,
very symmetrical.
Speaker 57: The formulation of the Grade chips is nanosized. This cannot
be paint. Paint does not have these exotic properties.
Speaker 38: It's impossible.
Speaker 29: We do not know which role is played by the
Grade chips that we found in the dust, but we know,
and this was already totally clear before we started investigating
the dust, that both explosives and incentiaries were used in
the control demolition of World Trade Center. This is quite
obvious because of other observations the malten iron and other
findings in the dust.
Speaker 51: This is material that is of military use that really shouldn't.
Speaker 24: Be there, and our whole society is being led to
believe that these fundamental laws of physics, hard science don't
apply anymore. I think that should really frighten all of us.
Speaker 2: Just all the other evidence of seeing flashes and explosions,
and the melted metal and the dust particles, and with
the chemical the explosive chemicals found in the debris. There's
just a lot of questions about what's been going on,
and that these questions have not been answered or even
addressed in any sort of full way.
Speaker 11: My name is Rick Folks.
Speaker 55: I'm a structural engineer with over forty years experience in engineering.
I'm a president of my own engineering business here in
Arizona since nineteen eighty three. Prior to that, I was
a vice president was prominent engineering firms in the Phoenix area.
I have experienced designing large structures including power plant structures,
shopping center structures, schools, commercial buildings, you name it. I
know structural design and I know that on September eleventh,
when I saw those twin towers coming down, I knew
there had to be more to the story than just
a fire causing those failures. That had to be a
controlled demolition that we were witnessing. The government has lied
to us, and we need to get to the truth.
Those victims deserve the truth, They deserve justice. What we
have right now is a travesty of justice.
Speaker 25: A Freedom of Information Act request to this by a
registered structural engineer for calculations and analysis substantiating the walk
off failures of the horizontal girders from their seats that
Colm seventy nine to eighty one was denied by this
But the claim that releasing this data might jeopardize public safety?
How could it possibly jeopardize public safety to tell people
in the industry, engineers who were responsible for designing these buildings,
how this failure could occur.
Speaker 23: That implies that anybody who requests or demands these calculations
is a threat to public safety.
Speaker 27: Science is never secret when it's done right. Science is
a way of finding out that is self correcting and
involves many people. Sciences and science unless it's published, unless
it's openly published and made available for criticism. The thing
that's most important about science is that it's a way
of knowing, and it's a way of knowing that anyone
can participate in. At the end of any kind of science, activity.
People will agree that they have collected evidence that illustrates
a hypothesis, and if the evidence is contradictory to the hypothesis,
you have to one has to abandon that hypothesis and
look for another one.
Speaker 10: The explanations from FEMA and from this don't add up,
but there is enormous circumstantial evidence, circumstantial and actually physical
evidence as well that would lead us to a different conclusion,
and the conclusion is controlled demolition.
Speaker 42: It was a shame that if the collapse, that a
forensic unit, forensic engineering unit didn't go into the debris
and try to find that that time why the talents
had collapsed. I'm sure there was other evidence that could
have given a better indication at the time that there
were something else wrong.
Speaker 30: Any honest investigator would be looking at this and looking
for explosives and so forth, and this investigation didn't go there.
They just would not look for explosives. There have been
explosives found in the dust and the debris, but this
has been the work of independent researchers not missed.
Speaker 58: And the physical chemistry of everything that I wrote about
is consistent with no other hypothesis, and all the testimony
of eyewitnesses. All of the video evidence supports only controlled
demolition as the cause of all three World Trade Center
buildings destruction.
Speaker 46: You don't have to be a chemical engineer to question
that official story is very very obvious. Both Building seven
and the towers were brought down by demolition. It couldn't
have been any other possible way.
Speaker 24: That conclusion I come to based upon, first of all,
my training, my education, particularly my experience in.
Speaker 9: Blowing up.
Speaker 24: Major structures that had been designed to withstand blasts. The
experience that I had gained in the military and as
an engineer was irrefutable.
Speaker 9: Those buildings were brought down by explosives.
Speaker 59: Well.
Speaker 24: The American Society of Civil Engineers were brought into this
investigation early on issue to report without any significant forensic examination.
For the American Society of Civil Engineers to ignore those
events is extremely disturbing and is a violation, in my opinion,
of their professional code of ethics. The only thing that
you can say about their participation in this is that
it must have been an orchestrated cover up.
Speaker 27: So the preconceived notion ofness is that there's no evidence
for explosives, and so there's no point in looking that
is the most unscientific thing that you can possibly think of.
Not to look because you don't expect to find evidence,
and in fact the evidence is overwhelming. They state these
conclusions for which there's virtually no evidence, and then they
ignore conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
Speaker 34: It is my opinion as a former twelve Bravo combat
engineer well trained in the use of explosives. This building,
all three buildings were brought down as a control as
a result of controlled demolitions.
Speaker 42: Elevate A company personnel add twenty four to seven access
to the shafts, which is for normal time in the
evening and early morning hours when they performed their maintenance,
and of course their access to the elevator sheeffs gave
them total access to the surrounding core columns, the interior
of the core columns.
Speaker 30: It took some kind of consciousness raising on my part
before I was willing to look at the possibilities and really,
you need to go where the evidence leads.
Speaker 17: We know we've been lied to about nine to eleven.
Speaker 60: We don't know for sure who did it, We don't
know exactly how they did everything, and that's why we
need a new investigation to find out.
Speaker 33: But in the mean time, there are things we do know.
Speaker 17: We do know that there was a massive cover up,
that there was evidence hidden and destroyed.
Speaker 5: And given these conclusions, what remedy do these professionals recommend.
Speaker 29: The three skyscravers were taking down in controlled demolition, and
all we're asking for is a new investigation and the
myst also will investigate the.
Speaker 9: Dust for remaining explosives.
Speaker 11: At firefight Shround eleven.
Speaker 21: Truth, that's what we're asking for, is we're asking for
an investigation that follows national standards.
Speaker 9: I'm Jody Gibbs.
Speaker 44: I was licensed for general building and heavy construction as
well as architecture over thirty five years ago. I was
educated at Yale University, the Harvard Graduate School of Design,
the Yale Graduate School of Art and Architecture, and I
taught it am I as an adjunct faculty for a
number of years in the Graduate School of Architecture. My
reasons for looking and demanding and urging people to see
that we get a judicial investigation are really very simple.
No high rise steel structure has ever been destroyed by
a fire in the history of construction. We have eyewitness
testimony of firemen policemen, news reporters, and occupants of the
building to explosions, an enormous number of eyewitness testimonies. Fourth,
the buildings fall at a speed which can only occur
if the structure has been removed. The vertical structure large
multi toon beams were hurled hundreds of yards laterally, gravity
works vertically not laterally. We also now have the evidence
of thermite and thermite explosives. Most of these things were
not even mentioned in the nine to eleven Commission report.
It's for this reason I urge all architects and engineers
to look into the matter, look at the evidence that
is available, and sign on to the demands of Architects
and Engineers for nine to eleven Truth in demanding that
we get a judicial investigation.
Speaker 7: I signed the petition for Architects and Engineers for nine
to eleven Truth because I felt it was an organization
trying to get it at the truth of what in
fact actually happened, what brought those buildings down. So what
I'm looking for is a new investigation where all of
the original information and tests and hypotheses are re examined,
as well as the ones that have surfaced since the
new ones, including the allegations of controlled demolition.
Speaker 19: I don't think any of us are pointing fingers at
this time. We're just saying, let's reopen it. Let's look
at it objectively, Let's look at the evidence, not these
fabricated computer models and hearsay and all these predetermined conclusions.
Let's really open it up again and investigate this thing
properly and then come to conclusions.
Speaker 13: In my thirty seven years of experience as a structural engineer,
I've never seen modes of failures such as have been
exhibited in the case of these buildings, and that's why
I feel that we need a new, independent investigation to
explain the destruction of these three buildings.
Speaker 26: I strongly support an independent investigation into what actually occurred.
There are many problems, and in fact, as a forensic engineer,
I can tell you that unfortunately the government has destroyed
much of the evidence that we could do an appropriate investigation,
that an investigation could be done that would be independent
of the government, independent of all of the influences that
obviously were in effect during the inst investigation.
Speaker 14: Based on the evidence available, I feel that we must
demand a new investigation into the destruction of the World
Trade Center, Towers and NIST itself.
Speaker 16: Need to have an investigation of miss themselves. I believe
that the reports that came out are not true. I
believe there's a lot of a lot of information that
was omitted blatantly or otherwise.
Speaker 42: I strongly feel that an international commission should be formed
to look at this matter in an unbiased manner and
come to a conclusion that could be presented to the
entire engineering community.
Speaker 24: We have a professional responsibility and I urge every engineer,
an architect, and demolitions expert, and anybody that has any
knowledge in this field to examine the evidence and stand
up and become because the rest of the world is
depending upon us.
Speaker 30: I would like to see a real investigation. I'd like
to see I'd like to see people on the inside
who really know what they're what happened. I'd like to
see some of those come out. There's some very good scientists,
I'm sure at NIS and their life's work is getting
distorted and used for political purposes.
Speaker 34: What happened on nine to eleven is not something that
is just going to go away. This is very pertinent
to us today. I wish to further the investigation and
I want to make a difference because I want this
to be a safe and better place for my children.
Speaker 19: I signed the petition on the Architect and Engineer's nine
to eleven Truth website mainly because I wanted to stand
behind the families that lost people on nine to eleven.
The nine to eleven Truth Movement was started by the
families that lost loved ones on that day, and they
were all out there alone screaming for help, and our
own country was ignoring them and ignoring their needs and
not taking care of them the way we should have
after that happened.
Speaker 9: We have not been told the truth. We deserve the truth,
and so did the victims.
Speaker 19: We need to come together again as a country. I
believe that this one event split our country in half,
and the only way we're going to come back together
is to reopen the wound. Talk about this in an
open dialogue.
Speaker 5: Most of us who have lived with the events of
nine to eleven have, as a result, experienced some kind
of trauma. It can be very difficult to come to
terms with what actually happened at the World Trade Center.
In fact, someone told me recently, I wouldn't believe what
you're telling me even if it were true, our petition
signers with psychological expertise have stepped forward to offer their insight.
While this segment is clearly outside the knowledge base of
the architects and engineers for nine to eleven truth, these
experts in psychology highlight their valuable experience for us as
to why this evidence can still be so difficult for
people to accept.
Speaker 61: At this point, we have nine years of hard scientific
evidence that disproves a government theory about what happened on
September eleventh. Then, yet people continue to be either oblivious
to the fact that this information exists or completely resistant
to looking at this information. So the question becomes why
why is it that people have so much trouble hearing
this information? From my work, I think we would be
remiss not to look at the impact of trauma. My
name is Marty Hopper and I'm a PhD clinical psychologist.
I've been working and living for the past thirty years
here in Boulder, Colorado. For the past eleven years, my
work has focused on helping people who have experienced personal trauma. Now,
as we know, the horrors of what happened on nine
to eleven were televised all over the world, and they
were televised in fact live, we witnessed the deaths of
almost three thousand of our fellow Americans. We know this
had a very severe and traumatic impact on a large
majority of the population. I myself cried for weeks after
September eleventh. A friend of mine, who is a psychologist
and practice here in Boulder, said that her caseload increased
tremendously after nine to eleven, and people that she hadn't
seen in ten years were coming back into her practice.
Speaker 23: So I think it's safe to say that.
Speaker 61: Collectively, as a nation, because of what happened on September eleventh,
we experienced trauma.
Speaker 62: I'm friend sure, and I have a master's degree from
the University of Colorado. I've had a private practice as
a psychotherapist and as a licensed professional counselor for about
twenty years. Why do people resist this information, the information
that shows that the official story about nine to eleven
cannot be true. What I've learned is that as humans,
each of us have a worldview, and that worldview is
usually formed in great part by the culture we grow
up in. When we hear information that contradicts our worldview,
social psychologists called the result, the resulting insecurity cognitive dissonance.
For example, with nine to eleven, we have one cognition,
which is what the official story of nine to eleven,
what our government told us, what media repeated to us
over and over, that nineteen Muslims attacked us. On the
other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects, engineers are
now beginning to tell us, which is that there is
evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true.
So now we've lost our sense of security. We are
starting to feel vulnerable. Now we're confused.
Speaker 33: Nine to eleven.
Speaker 49: Truth challenges some of our most fundamental beliefs about our
government and about our country. When your beliefs are challenged,
or when two beliefs are inconsistent, cognitive dissonance is created.
Nine to eleven Truth challenges the beliefs that our country
protects us and keeps us safe, and.
Speaker 33: That America is the good guy.
Speaker 49: My name is Bob Hopper and I have a PhD
in clinical psychology from the University of Cincinnati.
Speaker 33: For the past twenty nine.
Speaker 49: Years, I've been a licensed PhD clinical psychologist in Boulder, Colorado.
When your beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety are created.
In response to that, our psychological defenses kick in and
they protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably
the most primitive coological defense, is the one most likely
to kick in.
Speaker 33: When our beliefs are challenged.
Speaker 52: I'm Daniel dupere PhD originally from Switzerland, where I studied
psychology and psychoanalysis. For the past fifteen years, I've been
empowering people who have experienced significant trauma. America is a
powerful nation. It has never been attacked. We were confident,
we felt secure, and all of a sudden that security collapsed.
People started to be fearful with all those rumors, those
news people didn't know what to think about, and it's
a very, very uncomfortable state to be in. And eventually
our mind shuts off. Just like when a computer is overloaded,
our minds get overloaded. We can't handle it anymore, and
we shut down. It's easier to deny it and move
on with our lives.
Speaker 62: What some of us will tend to do is deny
the evidence that's coming our way and stick to the
original story, the official story, and to try to regain
our equilibrium in that way. Another thing we can do
is decide to look at the conflicting evidence and be
sincere and be open minded and look at both sides
of the issue, and then make up our own mind
about what reality is.
Speaker 59: I'm Dorothy Louric. I have a master's degree in counseling
psychology from the University of Colorado, and I've been practicing
reevaluation counseling for over sixteen years. If we can think
of our worldview as being sort of our mental and
emotional home, I think all of this will do just
about anything to defend our homes, to defend our families.
And so I see that with people, and I saw
that with myself when my brother tried to talk with
me about it, of don't mess with me, don't mess
with my home, don't mess with my comfort with how
how things are and at A week later, I read
a lengthy article by Professor Griffin about why he believes
the official account of nine to eleven cannot be true.
And it was a very well researched article. Or I
was in my office at the time. I sat there
and I felt my stomach churning. I thought maybe I
was going to be sick, and I leaped out of
my chair and ran out the door and took a
long walk around the block, around several blocks, and just
broke down. I understand now that what was happening was
my worldview about my government being in some way, my protector,
almost like a parent, had been dashed, and it was
like being cast out into the wilderness, I think is
the closest way to describe that feeling. And I sobbed,
and I sobbed, felt like the ground had completely disappeared
beneath my feet. And I knew at some point during
the walk that I knew that I was going to
have to become active in educating other people about this,
that there was that for me to retain any sense
of integrity, I.
Speaker 54: Was going to have to take some action.
Speaker 36: I couldn't just let something like this go.
Speaker 49: Many people respond to these truths in a very deep way.
Some have a visceral reaction, like they've been punched in
the stomach. To begin to accept the possibility that the
government was involved is like opening Pandora's box.
Speaker 33: If you open the lid and peek in a little.
Speaker 49: Bit, it's going to challenge some of your fundamental beliefs
about the world.
Speaker 62: Well, here are a few of those spontaneous initial reactions too.
Hearing the contradictory evidence about nine to eleven, I don't
want to know the.
Speaker 49: Truth, or I'd become too negative and psychologically go downhill.
Speaker 33: I'm not sure I want to know. If this is true, then.
Speaker 49: Up would be down and down would be up. My
life would never be the same.
Speaker 62: Friend. I refuse to believe that that many Americans could
be that treasonous. Someone would have talked. But these are beliefs.
They are not scientific facts. But these beliefs do keep
us from looking at the empirical evidence.
Speaker 63: I'm David ra Griffin. I taught philosophy, religion, and theology
at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.
I published about thirty five books in my field, but
then starting in two thousand and four, I started publishing
about nine to eleven, and since that time I have
published ten books. About nine to eleven.
Speaker 45: You have.
Speaker 63: Empirical people who will simply say, look at the evidence,
and if it's convincing, I will change my mind. Other
people are paradigmatic people. They have a paradigm. They say
this is the way the world works, and I'm convinced
this is the right way the world works. Nine to
eleven doesn't fit into that paradigm, so I don't need
to look at the evidence. It's paradigmatic. And then there
is a third type of person that we often call
wishful thinkers. I call it wishful and fearful thinking. So
they simply will not believe something that they fear to
be the truth. And I found that maybe to be
the most powerful factor of people rejecting nine to eleven
truth and not even entertaining the evidence.
Speaker 62: So whenever we say I refuse to believe, we can
be sure that the evidence that's coming our way is
not bearable and that it's going it's conflicting with worldview
much too much.
Speaker 49: Denial protects people from this kind of anxiety.
Speaker 62: As I thought about all of these responses, I realize
that what is common to every one of them is
the emotion of fear. People are afraid of being ostracized.
They're afraid of being alienated. They're afraid of being shunned.
They're afraid of their lives being inconvenience they have to
change their lives. They're afraid of being confused. They're afraid
of psychological deterioration. They're afraid of feeling helpless and vulnerable,
and they're afraid that they won't be able to handle
the feelings that are coming up. None of us want
to feel helpless and vulnerable, so we want to defend ourselves,
and the way we often do that is with anger.
So then we become angry, and when we become angry,
then we become indignant, become offended. We want to ridicule
the messenger, we want to pathologize the messenger, and we
want to censor the messenger.
Speaker 33: So how can we overcome this resistance and denial.
Speaker 49: The first thing is to meet people where they're at.
Speaker 64: One thing is that we need to raise people's awareness
about this through what I would call gentle dialogue and
gentle questioning. My name is John Freedom. I'm a counselor
in private practice here in tucsona Arizona, right, you've been
for the past twenty years. I hold a master's level
certification in NLP, which is neuro linguistic programming. So it
doesn't work to challenge people's belief or immediately tell them
you know, I know the truth about nine to eleven.
But good way is to ask questions, ask open end
to questions and lead them into a dialogue and discussion
about it.
Speaker 8: Healing comes through ex facing the truth, experiencing it, allowing
the feelings to come in. So if there are feelings
of fear that perhaps these events were caused something that
we haven't thought about yet, dark elements within our society,
for example, we'll let that come in and explore it.
Let the light shine on whatever happened. This will be
the most healing process. The Germans did this after their war.
The South Africans did this after apartheid. Reconciliation through the
truth is what is a deep path to psychologic recovery
from the myths and lies around which this historical event
has been cloaked in the official view. I am Professor
William Woodward. I'm trained in the history of science with
a PhD. I also have a master's in experimental psychology.
I've edited four books and published well over twenty peer
reviewed papers. I've taught for thirty five years at a
state university, University of New Hampshire. I think as a psychologist,
to overcome our fear of the traumatic event with new
information would be the best healthiest route to our collective recovery.
Speaker 11: From the trauma of nine to eleven.
Speaker 8: That, by the way, is a psychotherapeutic insight that to
gradually uncover the truth in your own life the sources
of anxiety, to make them conscious is the royal road
to recovery.
Speaker 52: One of the ways to deal with the trauma is
to find the answers. That's why I think it is
of such importance to have a comprehensive investigation.
Speaker 8: To work together to expose what happened, regardless of where
the evidence takes us. That's what we expect in our
state government law enforcement. I think that by putting science
together with the law, we will have a psychological healing
around the impossible cognition that has been produced on that day.
Speaker 49: I believe that to be the kind of country that
we think we are, we have to face some of
the things.
Speaker 65: That are not as we think they are.
Speaker 33: I'm Robert Griffin.
Speaker 65: I am a licensed psychologist practicing in Pennsylvania for twenty
five years.
Speaker 33: I am a member of Psychologists for.
Speaker 65: Social Responsibility, and I am past president of the Northeastern
Pennsylvania Psychological Association.
Speaker 45: After World War Two, part of the way that Jewish
people honored the dead was by making sure that the
truth was known and that the value of these people
was respected. Not pursuing the truth about nine to eleven
disrespects the value of the life.
Speaker 33: Of the people that died.
Speaker 45: Thinking that we're above such things that it could happen
in other countries but it couldn't happen here. That's a
lack of humility and that success of pride, and so
not being able to see our dark.
Speaker 33: Side or our weaknesses is the most dangerous thing.
Speaker 63: The observation that pride is one of the basic human
flaws is absolutely correct. This is especially true for Americans
because we long for a long time looked at other
nations and say, oh, in such bad shape. But luckily
we don't have those problems. We don't have leaders who
would do those things that were done in the Soviet Union,
or done in Germany, or done in Japan and on
down the list. So this is a type of pride
that Americans have. A feature of American history that makes
us particularly liable to this pride is this notion that
it's called exceptionalism, that America is the exceptional nation, and
that it began from the beginning as they as this
country was formed. The people would say, well, there was
so much evil in the European country, so much cheating,
so much lying, so much using the people for the
rulers' purposes. But not in America. We have leaders that
are free from those sins. So I think I think
this has made nine to eleven particularly difficult for Americans.
Speaker 45: Anyone can make mistakes, but our ideals and our principles
get us back on track.
Speaker 64: This is one of the defining issues of our time.
Speaker 45: So we need to understand that questioning is patriotic. Questioning
is what we're supposed to do with citizens. That's our
duty when.
Speaker 62: We come to the national level when something like nine
to eleven happens, we need to be sure that we
have a real investigation into who the perpetrators are, and
then we need to be sure that those perpetrators are
how legally accountable. It's part of the healing process on
the individual level as on the collective level. We need
the truth in order to heal.
Speaker 5: Ten years later, the deep wounds from nine to eleven
have yet to heal. Nothing hits closer to home than
the loss that these famili men continue to endure. Along
with the torment of their unanswered questions.
Speaker 19: My name is Bob McIlvain.
Speaker 66: I'm from right outside of the Philadelphia area, and I'm
the father of Bobby McIlvain, who was killed in the
lobby of the North Tower on September.
Speaker 19: Eleventh, two thousand and one.
Speaker 66: But I've been searching to get the truth of exactly
what happened to Bobby, and Bobby is a very interesting story.
Bobby was one of the first ten bodies found.
Speaker 9: We took him home that week.
Speaker 66: We were one of the few well I finally found
the doctor who examined him. He gave me an outline
of a body, and he described all the injuries he had.
But the fact is that all his injuries were in
the face, the.
Speaker 43: Front of his face.
Speaker 66: His face was blown off, massive cuts in his chest,
and his right arm were blown off. To me, that
means explosion.
Speaker 47: My brother was my best friend. David has always been
a firefighter. My brother went in to save people's lives.
I'm a family member trying to find out the answers
to the murder of three thousand plus people.
Speaker 1: I'm Jane Polosino. My husband Steve, was forty eight years
old when he was killed on September eleventh, I had
no identification. You know, why is that? And you sort
of left with all these question marks, which it's harder
to deal within the pain of losing somebody in that way.
It seems to me we should know why over a
thousand victims there are no trace for and no identification,
no trace of over a thousand victims.
Speaker 47: Just a few years ago there were still finding body
parts on the roofs of buildings.
Speaker 37: What is that?
Speaker 1: We should know why there are over seven hundred bone
fragments found on the top of Deutsche Bank building, less
than a half an inch long. We should have that information.
Why were they up there, Why weren't they found? What
kind of explosion was there?
Speaker 66: And the explosions were brought up many at times, talking
to fireman, talking to medics, talking to everyone. Everybody talked
about these explosions.
Speaker 1: I want the officials that are in power to ask
the questions. I want answers. We never had answers. Nobody
ever stopped to have a scientific investigation.
Speaker 66: Please look at architects and engineers, people all around the world.
Scientists all around the world are questioning this, that these
towers could not have come down. But when you bring
science into the equation. That's so important because you can't
argue against science, and there's some deep, deep explaining to do.
Speaker 47: The bottom line is that it needs to be investigated properly.
Speaker 5: The forensic evidence that you've seen is very real.
Speaker 33: New light has been shown.
Speaker 5: A third being now reaches into the pitch black sky
stands in for the still officially unexplained free fall destruction
of the World Trade Center Building seven. The obvious dark
truth about Building.
Speaker 33: Seven may very well provide.
Speaker 5: The key to justice for the victims of the destruction
of the twin Towers.
Speaker 56: The country owns this.
Speaker 24: We're all victims.
Speaker 1: All you want answers, it's not just hours, not just mining.
Speaker 18: Were almost up many.
Speaker 33: You're listening to the fact hunter radio network.
Speaker 9: Just the facts, ma'amy h