Full text of the Steve Jones 911 Paper

[Patrick Brown]

I figured I'd post this as some of you may not have a PDF reader you don't get the picture's as it is just the text as stated in the title although the links should work OK . I've attached the PDF file (which does have the pictures, of course) as it is an important document for all 911 truth seekers to read and pass around.

If you would like to comment on Jones research I've started a thread here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5009

Enjoy


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author.

The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews
organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.

An earlier version is now published in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale
Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink
Publishing, 2006. It is published here by kind permission of the editors. One of the editors
(Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were
physicists. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History

of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006.

Translated versions are available:

En Español:"¿Por qué se derrumbaron realmente los edificios del WTC?"

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/StevenJonesMs_Espa.html

http://www17.plala.or.jp/d_spectator/

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use
of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all
three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been
analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Introduction

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in
basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A
video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero _low_quality.
wmv . The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being
removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to
photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells
us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its
composition, as we shall see.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 1 September 2006/Volume 3


Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story
WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. Here is the building prior to and on September 11,
2001:


Journal of 9/11 Studies 2 September 2006/Volume 3


WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..


WTC 7 on 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-scraper in the background, right.
Seen from WTC plaza / Church Street area.


WTC 7 collapsed completely, primarily onto its own footprint.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 September 2006/Volume 3


Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which
follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of
this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have
sound.

Then consider a video close-up of the same building, southwest corner, as this corner
begins its steady drop to the ground:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_co rner.htm

New, side-by-side comparison of WTC7 collapse and a controlled demolition using
explosives: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Italiandebateshow-WTC7.wmv
(backup: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=113 ).

What did you observe?

Symmetry: Did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did
it topple over?

Speed: How fast did the southwest corner of the roof fall? (Students and I measure

[6.5 +- 0.2] seconds for the SW corner of WTC 7, after this corner begins its steady fall.)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the
building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed plumes of dust.
Note that references to web pages are used in this paper due largely to the importance of
viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and
physics generally. High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and
the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004),
magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html .

On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and
analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which
fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, in favor of the
controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of
the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-
demolition hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my arguments for in-depth investigation can be
complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)

Journal of 9/11 Studies 4 September 2006/Volume 3


Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored
Reports and to Investigate the Controlled-demolition
Hypothesis

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero
and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten

metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared

and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first
photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees

Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes

when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be

dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and
was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in
Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins

still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down
in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to
subterranean fires after the collapses.

A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at
ground zero:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero _low_quality.wmv .
The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks
after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a
relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground
location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long
time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well
insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well
have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials
entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would
tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter
charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 5 September 2006/Volume 3


Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific
analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-
charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to
melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum
powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the
thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate
steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical
mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), .H = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered,
even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will
accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed
in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the
FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also,
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) On the other hand,
falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result
in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during
collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams
-- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working
with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of
people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.
(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report
that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the
composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This
could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt
steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media
report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel
burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not
capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed
flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not
mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when
the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse
flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat

Journal of 9/11 Studies 6 September 2006/Volume 3


intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt
steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse
flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to
650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse
flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel
begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,
1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss
of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this
low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even
with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses
imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.

Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on
available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of hot metal being extracted at
ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in
the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following
table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm ) provides data regarding
the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate
metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its
color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid
aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight
conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the
poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce (glow) like other metals, but
faintly, so that with the conditions described in the previous sentence (which prevailed at the
WTC on 9/11), falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Rapid oxidation of the hot
flowing aluminum will contribute to the observed appearance. [Experiments: Jones, 2006])

Journal of 9/11 Studies 7 September 2006/Volume 3


°F °C K


*Lead (Pb) Melts 621 327 601
Faint Red 930 500 770
Blood Red 1075 580 855
*Aluminum Melts 1221 660 933
Medium Cherry 1275 690 965
Cherry 1375 745 1020
Bright Cherry 1450 790 1060
Salmon 1550 845 1115
Dark Orange 1630 890 1160
Orange 1725 940 1215
Lemon 1830 1000 1270
Light Yellow 1975 1080 1355
White 2200 1205 1480
*Structural Steel ~2750 ~1510 ~1783
Melts
*Iron Melts 2800 1538 1811
*Thermite >4,500 >2500 >2770(typical)


We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at
salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is
well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently
be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below)
temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building)
or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot
metal could provide further information and advance the research.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 8 September 2006/Volume 3


The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal
with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:


The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust
observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us
information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental
composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small
amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning
electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell
us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish
these data, whatever they reveal.

An intriguing photograph found as Figure 9-44 in the NIST report provides evidence for
a highly exothermic reaction at the corner of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse.
Furthermore, failure occurs at this very corner of the Tower as seen in this video footage:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=camerap lanet+9%2F11 .

Journal of 9/11 Studies 9 September 2006/Volume 3


Regarding this photo, NIST states:
“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44}
a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding
flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source:
NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot
appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows
removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing
liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many
such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes
leading up to the collapse of this tower.” Source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (August 2006)

Thus it is established that the "glowing liquid" flow is associated spatially and temporally with
the "bright spot" observed on the corner of the 80th floor of WTC 2. The photograph below
shows, for comparison, a thermite reaction with a white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending
from very bright reaction region. (Experiment by the author and colleagues in which thermite-
plus-sulfur cut through a steel cup in a fraction of a second. Any thermite reaction is a
dangerous reaction and should only be performed by a trained professional capable of assessing
the hazards and risks.) The similarities between the known thermite reaction and the hitherto
unknown reaction at the WTC Tower are plain to see. These discoveries strongly motivate an
immediate in-depth investigation of the use of thermite-type reactions in the destruction of the
World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 10 September 2006/Volume 3


Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC
Tower at this SAME CORNER just minutes before its collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2991254740145858863&
q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. I assert that this glowing liquid metal is
consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone, the "bright spot" in the
NIST photo. Other photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing yellow-
white hot liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 11 September 2006/Volume 3


Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a
thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color
implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the
dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane)
had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650
oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten
aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics
seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron
at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in
the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also,
the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph)
further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite).

Journal of 9/11 Studies 12 September 2006/Volume 3


Here are two independent videos of the yellow-white liquid metal pouring out of the South
Tower: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2991254740145858863&
q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=camerap lanet+9%2F11.

A third and independent video of the yellow-hot falling liquid metal has recently been obtained
by the Loose Change team and will be publicly available soon. ["Final Cut;" Dylan Avery,
private communication.]

The absence of dark smoke trailing behind the falling liquid material indicated it was not
fuel-soaked debris. Indeed, white ash is seen in these videos trailing away from the falling liquid
material. Falling molten steel would not produce such a white ash, whereas thermites produce a
white aluminum-oxide ash which indeed trails away from the falling molten metal generated in
the reaction, corresponding to the observations.

We are studying residues found in solidified slag as well as in dust from the WTC
collapses, in order to determine the nature of the reactions which produced this molten material.
We have performed electron-microprobe, X-ray Fluorescence and other analyses on samples of
the solidified slag and on the WTC dust. The provenience of the WTC dust sample is an
apartment at 113 Cedar Street in New York City, NY. A memorial constructed from structural
steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source
of previously-molten metal samples. Porous, solidified splatter found with the compacted dirt
from this memorial is being analyzed. Results from these studies were presented at the 2006
meeting of the Utah Academy of Science followed by the American Scholars Symposium (Los
Angeles), and are made available here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCent er.pdf . Further
strong evidences for the use of aluminothermics continue to be discovered in our analyses and
will be reported in a separate paper.

Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening
has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this
aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening,
2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and
dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent
thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact
with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe)
until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron
oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus
NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even
warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we
dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel.
[Jones, 2006; available at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc ] These
experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum
in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the
buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid
aluminum.

F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow
survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen
in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn
office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal
Journal of 9/11 Studies 13 September 2006/Volume 3


flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC2. [Greening, 2006] Note that the latest
proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen
stream, i.e., this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the
plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F –
while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to
consider heat transport in the steel as well as the probability that oxygen tanks in the planes
could survive the destructive crashes of the planes. Finally, no plane hit WTC 7, so this latest
hypothesis fails from the outset in this case. But we do consider alternative hypotheses such as
these. Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel
since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and
high concentrations of nickel and zinc. These results will be the subject of a separate paper. A
brief discussion of recent results, presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences and subsequent
colloquia is available here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCent er.pdf , and here:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysic sDepartment.pdf .

We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow
hot, when poured out the falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, adding significantly to
the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the South Tower shortly
before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten
metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100oC -- too high for the dark-
smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is a point worth emphasizing:
aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions after falling
through air 1-2 meters, molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its
characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100oC) as observed in the molten
metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse (see:
http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php ). We also recall that this molten metal, after falling
approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (photograph above).
This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 14 September 2006/Volume 3


Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: silvery flow, and no violent reactions

observed at all (contrary to predictions by some of a vigorous aluminum-rust “thermitic

reaction”). Same result -- when the rusty steel piece was pre-heated with the torch.

In a fact sheet posted in August, 2006, NIST provides a possible explanation regarding
this flowing liquid material:

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys
from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius
and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the
expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is
no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the
molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially
burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and
computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a
fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag
formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Journal of 9/11 Studies 15 September 2006/Volume 3


NIST states the hypothesis that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed
in, "can display an orange glow." But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find
out. Our group melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. Then we added
plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of
the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board
chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons
floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it
appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence
as these are processed. Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery
appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.

We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when
we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood
concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the
liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the
flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.

This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially-
burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague
noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons
float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do
NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an "orange glow" when it falls, when you actually do the
experiment! Videos of our experiments involving organics added to liquid aluminum are
available here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glo whypothesis.
html

In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, the falling
liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We
conclude from all these studies that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT
aluminum. Not even aluminum "mixed" with organics as NIST hypothesizes. However, if NIST
will tell us how to mix organics into molten aluminum to get the “orange glow” observed with
the liquid material as it flows out of the South Tower just before its collapse, we will be happy to
try any experiment they suggest. We have tried again (October 3, 2006), this time with carpet
remnants and glass added to wood/paper ash, all of this added to aluminum chips and pieces,
which was then melted in a pot and stirred. Still the organics floated to the top (or most of
them), and when the molten stuff was poured out, it appeared silvery-gray. No orange glow was
observed in the falling, poured-out material.

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well
above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using
thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN.
Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in
which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF). We
demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the

Journal of 9/11 Studies 16 September 2006/Volume 3


electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.
Thermite did not ignite when
thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An

heated with a propane torch.

"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120
nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by
mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide
dust.

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as
superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides
such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and
Technology group at Los Alamos. "The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you
can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of
superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly...
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists
can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy
release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including
underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what
practical military applications may come from this research." (Gartner, January 2005)

Based on these and other discoveries, the possible use of incendiary thermites and explosive
superthermites on 9/11 should be investigated immediately and vigorously.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 17 September 2006/Volume 3


Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm I am further checking whether these
photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole. In any case,
there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC
7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-moltenmetal -under.html.

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate
demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to
numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three
buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of
molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if
underground fires could somehow produce large pools of molten steel, for example, but then
there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in
numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all
three pools of orange-hot molten metal.

Furthermore, we have seen published reports that "molten steel [or other metal] flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that
effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances. However, thermite-
derivative reactions as conjectured would produce molten flowing iron, as observed.

The very high temperatures (corresponding to salmon-yellow colors) of the molten metal
observed in videos and photographs are difficult to explain in the context of the official theory
that fires finally caused the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. Highly exothermic
reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce
white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of
explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive
as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by
the available data. The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly
omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and
the Towers. The facts that the official reports do not address the molten metal pools or their

Journal of 9/11 Studies 18 September 2006/Volume 3


chemical compositions provide compelling motivation for continued research on the WTC
collapses. I appreciate all who have joined the investigation, including those at st911.org.

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation
in WTC 7 Steel
One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses
provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief
but important letter states:

While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion

of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that

occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation

in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The

formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at

which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this

region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a

“blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the
quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires
evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by
the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high steel (not just air) temperatures
deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable.

Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What
is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.

Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well
above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite).
Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=descript ion&id=6766744&
HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and
sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds
rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus,
both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation
(Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note
that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in
thermite analogs.

Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and
one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that
more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in
some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that
this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The
evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the
destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious
investigation.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 19 September 2006/Volume 3


3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down
symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about
seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible
(considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside
WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven

perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).
Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof.

Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet

away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core

columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling”
of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper).
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the
“official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few
columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of
the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite
very significant impact damage and severe fires.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 20 September 2006/Volume 3


Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings when due to random causes. L'Ambiance Plaza

collapse (right) shows how pancaked concrete floor slabs are largely intact and clearly reveal

stacking effects with minimal fine dust, as expected from random progressive collapse. By

contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust -- as is

common in controlled demolitions using explosives.

On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using cutter-charges/explosives
is the complete and straight-down-symmetrical collapse of buildings. The reader may wish to
review controlled-demolition examples at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm for
examples of complete symmetrical collapses due to carefully pre-positioned explosives. (The
videos of the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses are
particularly instructive.)

Journal of 9/11 Studies 21 September 2006/Volume 3


Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these
arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse
[“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the
premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damagecaused
collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5;
emphasis added.)

That is precisely the point: further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including
serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the
government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11
Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission,
2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened
on 9-11.

4. No Previous Skyscraper Complete Collapse Due to Fires
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC;
Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had
ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life.
No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…

The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived
with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to
fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings
have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure
called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in
downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11,
2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should
be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings
in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the
structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear
to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis
added.)

Journal of 9/11 Studies 22 September 2006/Volume 3


The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory,
since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures
anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not
hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite-
variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can
readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach
the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the
“official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

5. Plume-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
Horizontal puffs or plumes of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on
upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to
view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one
another yet, from what one can observe from the videos. In addition, the timing between the
puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors (see Chertoff, 2005) is
evidently excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer
than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is
near the initiation of the collapse.

However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is
common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm The same site shows that rapid timing between
explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this
web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the
building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed
explosives. Release by the government (NIST, in particular) of all videographic and
photographic data showing details of the fires, damage, and collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11/2001would allow us to analyze these plume data in greater detail, to determine whether
breaking windows or explosive charges are evidenced in the observed puffs of smoke.
Horizontal plumes and sounds of explosions are even more pronounced in available videos of the
collapses of the WTC Towers (see sections 7 and 8 below).

Regarding this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A.
Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:

"The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7
World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were safely
evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office
windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building."
(Risen, 2001)

6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower
collapse:

Journal of 9/11 Studies 23 September 2006/Volume 3


Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that
the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally
slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse
began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA,
2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)


North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of collapse.

Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower
collapse. (See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html  ; also
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times article also notes this behavior:

The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse
appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the
rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow
gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the
antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?

The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the
New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002;
Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:

...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse

appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the
building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.
(NIST, 2005)

However, we find no quantitative analysis in the report which shows that this tilting of the
building section was sufficient to account for the large apparent drop of the antenna as seen from

Journal of 9/11 Studies 24 September 2006/Volume 3


the north, or that this building-section-tilting occurred before the apparent antenna
drop. Furthermore, the FEMA investigators also reviewed "videotape recordings of the collapse
taken from various angles" yet came to the sense that "collapse began with one or more
failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002) Quantitative analysis needs
to be done and shown to resolve the issue.

Gordon Ross has written a scholarly paper on the collapse of WTC 1, which carefully
considers conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ . He shows that even if the Tower started to collapse due
to fire and damage, it would not continue to complete collapse. Note that the collapse of the
McCormick Place building in Chicago is an example of a partial collapse only of a steel-frame
building due to fire. The roof collapsed, but since the walls of that one-story building remained
standing, it is clearly not comparable to the complete collapses of three WTC skyscrapers on
9/11/2000.

7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous
observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and
others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in
lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox

News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom…
something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand
Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in
succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually
gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis
added.)

And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2
came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista,
never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't
know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things
exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a
building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I
thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't
know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to
me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me.
He said no, I saw them, too... I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and
pushing things around, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been
Journal of 9/11 Studies 25 September 2006/Volume 3


whatever." (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File

No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)

It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on
lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for
NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005)
"Electrical explosions" would clearly be insufficient to bring a steel-frame skyscraper down, in
any building built to code. On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and
simple explanation for the observed detonations followed by complete building collapses. Thus,
it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter
needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated. "118
Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers" by Graeme
MacQueen in http://www.journalof911studies.com/ provides significant details regarding
eyewitness accounts. Another (shorter) summary is given here: http://911proof.com/11.html .

8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris-plumes from the
Towers
The horizontal ejection of structural steel members for hundreds of feet and the
pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC
towers, provide further evidence for the use of explosives – as well-explained in
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.) The
observed plumes or "squibs" are far below the pulverization region and therefore deserving of
particular attention. They appear much like the plumes observed in
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm (e.g., the controlled demolition of the Southwark
Towers).

Journal of 9/11 Studies 26 September 2006/Volume 3


North Tower during top-down collapse.
Notice mysterious horizontal plumes far below pulverization region.

Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding
from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on
the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher
floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region
where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in
an independent investigation using all available data.

9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and
Energy
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST,
2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence
for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of
acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the
official "pre-collapse theory."

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists
( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof
of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner as it commences its steady fall)
falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would
hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very

Journal of 9/11 Studies 27 September 2006/Volume 3


rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which
provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum –
one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors –
and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less,
but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with
the falling floor pans. Peer-reviewed papers which further analyze the WTC skyscraper
collapses, by Dr. Frank Legge, Professor Kenneth Kuttler, Gordon Ross and Kevin Ryan, are
recommended and available here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/ .

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in
the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission
reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed.
Gordon Ross argues that when conservation of energy and momentum are factored in, then a
gravity-driven collapse will be arrested, so that only a partial collapse of the Tower would occur
(see http://www.journalof911studies.com/, Gordon Ross). The paradox is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material
including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine
dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might
expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of
the Towers material (concrete, carpet, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the
buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical random collapses, but quite possibly
a series of “shock-and-awe” explosions coupled with the use of thermate-incendiaries – at least
the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish to take a
closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collap se.mpeg

Journal of 9/11 Studies 28 September 2006/Volume 3


Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?


We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.
They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block
turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without
explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded
reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed
during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they
follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See
Mooney, 2005.)

So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the international
community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open for considering the alternative
hypothesis outlined here, due to its neglect in studies funded by the US government.

Journal of 9/11 Studies 29 September 2006/Volume 3


10. Controlled Demolition “Implosions” Require Skill
The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the
WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus
damage caused all these collapses. Even with high-level cutting charges, achieving such results
requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise. As Tom Harris, an authority in this field, has
explained:

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls.
Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a
parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute. Tipping a
building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the
blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this
case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it
collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the
building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
in the world will attempt it.
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is to detonate the
columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's
sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support
columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories… [nb: The upper floors
then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled
demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above) demonstrates a downward
“kink” near the center of the building first, suggesting “pulling”