Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI, the mob, and 9/11

Scott Deitche

Recommended Posts

The pest control company was run by [cue sinister music] dancing Israeli “art students” with white vans.

Jokes aside are any thruthers out there willing to defended the thermite/thermate theory (thoroughly) in light of the overwhelming evidence it wasn't up to the task?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The video was based on strawmen no wonder the maker didn’t allow comments on his blog or Youtube

Sunder and Gross certainly aren’t very good public speakers but the same could be said about lots of people, perhaps there is a large degree of truth in the stereotype of most scientists being geeky.

Neither of them said or implied that it would be impossible or improbable for part of the façade to fall at close to free fall speed. Nor did it say that in the draft report*. Such a comment would be silly Bazant and Zhou (2001) and Kausel (2002?) structural engineering professors from Northwestern University and MIT respectively published papers which concluded that once collapse was initiated in either of the Twin Towers the structures of those buildings would do very little to impede them from collapsing. In the case of 7 WTC it is obvious the central core of the building collapsed first because the ‘mechanical penthouses’ disappear below the roof line several seconds before the façade collapsed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf - Pg 40 PDF pg 78

Nor is there any evidence i) NIST modeled the collapse time and ii) predicted it would take 5.2, suspiciously the exact time they measured. Sunder did say according their analysis that was the time for “the structural model” to come down but pretty obviously he misspoke because he didn’t make later reference to the collapse time of the actually building and neither the draft or final versions of the report said anything about such a model.

According to his own words Chandlers analysis did NOT differ that much NIST’s. He did not claim that the façade was in free fall the whole time only that it was for about 2 ½ seconds. Since free fall time would have been 3.9 seconds and it can’t have fallen faster than free fall he presumably concluded slower that free fall for at least 1.5. His chart seems to show he concluded it took 4.7 seconds which would mean 2.2 seconds of slower than free fall collapse. His chart seems to show that it was slower at the beginning and at the end which is what NIST concluded.

Nor did NIST radically change their position. In the draft version they only indicated they calculated the elapsed time and distance from collapse initiation till the roofline became obscured and compared the total time to free fall time. Perhaps in response to Chandler they took a closer look.

The only real difference is that NIST still sticks by the 5.2 second time and he thinks it took about 4.7 seconds. I watched his earlier video* and he doesn’t clearly establish his shorter collapse time.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video was based on strawmen no wonder the maker didn’t allow comments on his blog or Youtube

Perhaps he's taken a leaf out of NIST's playbook - you know, the one that says "thou shalt not release your modelling data for fear of public humiliation..."

Sunder and Gross certainly aren’t very good public speakers but the same could be said about lots of people, perhaps there is a large degree of truth in the stereotype of most scientists being geeky.

"Geeky"? You mean shifty, hesitant, and very, very obviously embarrassed? I wonder why. Could it be something to do with the manifest pack of porkies they were obliged to improvise?

For connossieurs of the shifty in the service of an on-going cover-up, here's parts 2 and 3:

Part 2:


Part 3:


NIST: “pseudo-science in the service of an on-going cover-up,”

David Chandler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth

Dear Mr. Gage and members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,

I am a member of AE911Truth (pending verification) and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. I have also contributed articles to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While I appreciate the work you and others are doing to examine the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I am concerned that many arguments

put forth are incorrect. Please don’t mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story believer. The truth movement needs to be very sure of its claims to avoid being dismissed as ignorant fools, nut-jobs or politically motivated manipulators. Justice is clearly dependent on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because of the large number of fallacious claims purveyed by various groups within the movement, my approach has been and will continue to be to examine claims on both sides of the argument and take them at their own merit. I hope others will embrace

this approach so that the truth movement can live up to its basic values and achieve its well meaning goals.

There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by truth movement. However, after spending many 100s of hours examining and discussing evidence, analyses and claims on both sides of the argument, I have found that a large portion of the truth movement’s claims are unsubstantiated or incorrect. These need to be corrected. With this in mind, I have looked at the AE911Truth claims given below and I offer criticism where I feel it can be helpful.

From AE911Truth with my comments interspersed:

”As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

The validity of this claim rests on the definition of “extremely rapid”. NIST provides evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1.

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

Surely, there were explosive sounds and flashes of light as there are too many witnesses to deny this. Nonetheless, the only videos of the collapses with sound do not have any explosive sounds. In the following video, one can hear people talking and the sound of the collapse. In videos of actual demolitions the explosive charges are at least ten times louder than collapse sounds. Compare:


to these actual demolitions:

This evidence directly contradicts the controlled demolition theory, at least by conventional means. Nonetheless, the witness testimonies should be taken seriously. It is possible that people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency vehicles or cars exploding.

3. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

This argument would only favor controlled demolition if the pressures inside the building in a gravitational collapse are not sufficient or cannot propagate fast enough to cause the observed phenomena. To my knowledge, this has not been demonstrated.

4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbs per square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Is the cloud really pyroclastic, or is it just dust? Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that 15% of the concrete together with fireproofing and gypsum would result in massive volumes amounting to 10 lbs of dust per square foot over an area of 200 acres. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the air being expelled from the collapsing building was approaching velocities of 200 m/s. This is the primary engine driving the expanding dust clouds. The dust cloud was given even more energy from debris falling outside the perimeter.

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

This is only one interpretation of the visual records of the collapses. Another interpretation is that the pressures due to impacts were blowing out the windows. The characterization as “demolition waves” has no support in the evidence or scientific analyses to date.

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation.

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

This claim in no way favors CD over gravitational collapse. The size of the debris field is not surprising considering that the exteriors peeled outward (see also #10). The debris was not equally distributed.

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows.

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Close inspection of some of the videos reveal that most exterior columns fell still connected as the exterior peeled outward. Since the exterior was 1400 ft. high it is not surprising that they reached 500 ft. away. In fact, there exist photos of the nearly intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

It has not been demonstrated that this is uncharacteristic of a gravitational collapse that initiates high up in a 110 floor, high rise, tube/core structure building. Since the world has never seen such a collapse prior to or after 9/11, there are no empirical results to compare to. Often, the collapses are compared to gravitation collapses due to earthquakes resulting in pan-caking or toppling. These comparisons are not relevant to the Twin Towers because the initiation of the collapses is low in the building due to lateral forces. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that there was plenty of

potential energy to enable buckling of all columns at every floor. In reality, the core columns broke mostly at the welded connections every 36 ft, which takes even less energy.

12. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

Does any evidence for “tons of molten metal” exist? What metals comprise this molten metal? This author is only aware of witness statements regarding molten metal and only small pieces of previously molten metal. Can molten metal observed in the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which was not observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a

reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be considered indicative of a thermate attack.

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and inter-granular melting on structural steel samples

I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings”

This does not favor the CD hypothesis over the gravitational collapse hypothesis. See #4.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations.

See #1 above.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

Has any rigorous analysis of the “path of least resistance” been done? An application of the principle of least action would probably be more appropriate. Mechanical dynamics are governed by inertia, force, momentum and material properties. This author has seen no dynamic analyses showing that the top parts of the towers should have fallen off. Unless this argument is supported by careful analysis it is only conjecture.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.

It is well proven that temperatures in building fires can soften steel. This is why buildings have thermal insulation applied to the steel structural components.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

These buildings were not structurally damaged to begin with and had different structural designs than the Twin Towers. It would be meaningful to examine whether or not the buildings, which survived serious fires, had concrete cores or not. Does any evidence exist that buildings with similar structural design, damaged in the manner of the world trade center, should not collapse due to fires?


My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis. Most important, there are no tell-tale sharp cracking sounds in the sound video given above and there is no comparison between the sounds in that video

and the sounds in videos actual demolitions. This means we can rule out demolition using conventional means.

I hope that your commitment to the truth is such that you take my criticisms seriously. If the truth movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and avoid conjecture. I would welcome constructive discussion of these issues in any forum. I am

regularly available on the STJ911 and JREF forums, and you have my e-mail address.


Gregory Urich

P.S. Some wordings have been changed for clarity and small errors have been corrected in this published version.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems these "truth and justice" organisations want anything but:

Dear Steering Committee of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,

I hereby resign my membership with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and respectfully demand that all information on the public web site regarding my membership status be updated to reflect this or be removed. My reasons for this decision are that the organization does not live up to its charter regarding “evidence based scientific inquiry” or democratic principles.

I have repeatedly called on the steering committee to reign in abuses by the moderator (Victoria Ashley) on the discussion forum only to be ignored. The abuses have ranged from anti-scientific censorship tactics (i.e. moving unwanted arguments to the “Debunker” sub-forum) to the banning of members who actually call others to the mat to support their spurious claims. I have repeatedly asked the steering committee to make a simple statement to the effect that ALL evidence based arguments should be permitted on the “Scientific Analysis” sub-forum.

An earlier letter to the steering committee:

Dear Friends,

I have sent the moderators at the STJ911 forum the following questions and posted them repeatedly on the forum:

1. I believe the analysis by Kuttler (WTC1) is incorrect for a number of reasons. Is it OK to post on the Scientific Analysis forum demonstrating what is wrong with this analysis?

2. Is it OK to challenge each generally accepted theory or results which I believe may be incorrect on the Scientific Analysis forum?

3. If I think that gravitational collapse is the most likely cause of the destruction of WTC1 and 2, is it OK to argue that on the Scientific Analysis forum?

No answers have been forthcoming. Considering the hundreds of hours I have put into sincere work for our cause, I believe I at least deserve answers to these questions. Any support you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Let's not let science and truth die on our watch.

Best regards,

Gregory Urich

These calls for a commitment to the scientific process have fallen on deaf ears. In all fairness, Steven Jones has supported this, but he is not on the steering committee. Actually, one steering committee member did support this and was subsequently banned from the discussion forum after repeatedly arguing my point of view.

The organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, is supposed to be democratic in accord with the frequently asked questions on the web site which is as close to a charter as I can find for the group:

5. "Who is in charge now, and how does the group operate?"

An elected steering committee will be in charge of the website and its contents. Currently an ad hoc committee is in place. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership.

To my knowledge, the original ad-hoc committee has retained their positions for years, there have been no elections and not a single “important decision” has ever been submitted to the whole group.

Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed by the organization. In my opinion the group no longer functions in its search for truth, but has come down on the side of delusion and misinformation. I hope my resignation is a wakeup call to the steering committee and members. Justice can never be served if the truth is secondary to the movement.


Gregory Urich


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for many in the "'truth' movement" "freedom of speech" is only for those they agree with. Fetzer's endorsement of storming media outlets and "damning" engineers to hell that don't back his POV and expulsion of Steve Jones are cases in point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Since 2005 William Rodriguez has told whoever would listen that he brought his lawsuit and became involved in the “‘truth’ movement” because “the testimony I gave the [9/11] commission behind closed doors last year was omitted from the final report.” He claimed his “statements…directly contradict the government story” (1) Remember that old adage about having to be careful about what you wish for? In Rodriguez’s case that should be amended to “be careful about what you PRETEND to wish for because you just might get it”. The commission released the hand written notes of James Miller and George Delgrosso the investigators who interviewed him on June 9, 2004 and Miller’s typed up summary. They were obtained and put online by debunker Mike Williams (2). Not only has Rodriguez not challenged their authenticity but he released his copies and they match and the blogger who posted them claims they “vindicate” the 9/11 hero (3). However it is further evidence he was not being truthful because he told the comission nothing that “directly contradict[ed] the government story”.

According to the typed summary "Rodriguez said…he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake."

So he indicated “the first explosion” happened “when the plane struck the North Tower”. Let’s not forget that there no record of him claiming before May 2005 that there was a pre-impact explosion from below. There wasn’t even any mention of it in his October 2004 RICO complaint or his or his lawyer’s interviews in that and the following month (4).

There are other contradictions; neither commission interviewer noted him making any comments about the damaged caused by or intensity of the first blast however the second one “rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse” (3a summary) “Bld shakes false ceiling collapse” (3a notes) “large explosion ceiling collapsed walls cracked” (3b). In latter retellings however the first explosion was the more powerful one which cracked the walls and brought down the ceiling. Just under a year later on May 25, 2005 he told the American Free Press the 2nd explosion shook the building and cracked the walls but after the first “The building shook, the ceiling fell, and some of the sprinklers began spraying.” (4) In June 2006 he told Alex Jones:

“As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top" (4)

In an interview with the makers of Loose Change he stated more explicitly a version contradicting his commission testimony. The first explosion was now far more powerful than the first:

“All of a sudden we hear BOOM! (claps hands together at waist level loudly) and I said to myself ‘Oh my God! I think it was a generator’ and I was going to verbalize it and when I finish saying that in my mind I hear poooh (claps hands less loudly than before over head) right on top pretty far away…” (4)

In several of his subsequent retellings Rodriguez mentioned stopping on the 33rd floor were his company had an office after leaving the firemen behind on the 27th floor and hearing strange inexplicable noises on the 34th floor. In at least one of those accounts he mentioned saving a woman who had passed out. I pointed out various inconsistencies and other problems with the different versions in my paper (4). Though he discussed going from the 27th floor to the 39th before turning back and meeting PA police officer he knew on the 36th he seems not to have mentioned anything about the 33rd or 34th floors to the commission’s investigators (3 a & B) .

1] http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lies_under.html

2] No relation to this forum’s Mike Williams - http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:NYC_Bo...m_Rodriguez.pdf - In the report Miller is described as a “Professional Staff Member” and Delgrosso as an “Investigator” [ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf pgs xiii – xiv, PDF pgs 13 – 14] but for simplicity’s sake I describe them both as investigators.

3] http://911blogger.com/node/19439 Rodriguez used to post on this blog and sent his copies to “Reprehensor” the administrator

a) Miller’s notes and summary - http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez.pdf

B) Delgrosso notes - http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez-2.pdf

4] See my paper on pg 1 for links to his other subsequent statements

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites


What exactly did Len say / quote that was wrong?


I doubt he would even bother to answer, any info that contradicts his pre-conceived notions is rejected out of hand that which reconfirms them is accepted uncritically.

“Reprehensor” ‘debunked’ a strawman, no one disputes that Rodriguez has said since 9/11 he heard 2 or more explosions. What has been inconsistent are his accounts of their order, direction and intensity. According to the notes and summary whose accuracy he has not disputed he said 1) the 1st explosion was caused by the impact of the plane 2) the 2nd explosion was more powerful and brought down the ceiling, he contradicted this in later retellings. There is no record* of him saying anything about an explosion from below preceding the crash, stopping on the 33rd floor after the explosions, saving a woman there or hearing strange noises on the 34th floor, these were elements of his post 2004 accounts.

* No record in the commision’s notes nor any of the various 2001 – 2004 interviews in English and Spanish I was able to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here's an easy one: How about Big Tobacco's conspiracy to hide the health risks associated with nicotine consumption -- at an estimated cost of 100 million lives through this century?

This one surely can be acknowledged by all but those who, for any number of reasons, feel a kinship with the conspirators.

Giving new definition to the term "smoking gun," I should say.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here's an easy one: How about Big Tobacco's conspiracy to hide the health risks associated with nicotine consumption -- at an estimated cost of 100 million lives through this century?

This one surely can be acknowledged by all but those who, for any number of reasons, feel a kinship with the conspirators.

Giving new definition to the term "smoking gun," I should say.


By those who feel a kinship or have a literal kinship.

Agreed Len? You son of a (smoking) gun.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any of those defending Rodriguez

1) show how his statement to the commission contradicted "the official story" as he claimed?

2) explain the discrepancies I pointed out?

3) explain why he made no mention of a pre-impact explosion until nearly 4 years after the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

AE911T is a logical fallacy it is an appeal to false authority. True it has about 600 architects and engineers, out of about 1 million in the US but chemical, HVAC and electrical etc engineers are NOT especially qualified neither are civil engineers if their area of expertise is something like road construction. Mechanical/materials engineers are qualified if their area of expertise includes construction materials/methods. Fire engineers can also add valuable insights.

The most applicable experts are structural engineers specifically those who design multistory steel frame buildings and especially those who design skyscrapers. As far as I know no members of Gage’s group fall in the latter category. As far as can be determined by Internet searches the few structural engineers who are members either got the applicable license decades ago but worked as architects and/or only worked on 1 – 3 story buildings like school buildings and fast food joints, these probably not coincidentally are the types of buildings Richard Gage designed (mostly one, a single three and a few two story structures).

Another problem with AE911T is that based on their comments few if any of them have read the NIST reports. Troy from WV a debunking video prankster called several members of the group and they admitted to having not read the 7 WTC report. Most make comments about having reached their conclusions by watched videos or comment on non-engineering issues, some oddly debunk the 2002 SEAofNY/ASCE/FEMA report whose known deficiencies led to the more authoritative and exhaustive NIST reports.

On the other hand several fire and structural engineers with such expertise who obviously read the reports have voiced their disagreement with the controlled demolition theories. Recently the association of these experts, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, issued a report in which they raise some technical points about particular details (but not the conclusions of NIST’s draft 7 WTC report. The authors declared:

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the ‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.


The authors of the report, David Scott Simon Lay and Daniel O'Connor, are highly qualified. Scott is Chairman of the CTBUH 2006 – 9, a structural engineer, principle of ARUP’s New York office, and a designer of tall buildings since 1981 including:

Sir Norman Foster’s Hongkong Bank

the Freedom Tower

the 300m Cheung Kong Center

the 425m Landmark Tower in Hong Kong;

the Orca tower in Warsaw, Poland;

the Northeast Asia Tower in Songdo, Korea

He witnessed the 9/11 attacks and “was a team leader working with contractors on the search, recovery and clean-up of the World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11 attack and was extensively involved in the subsequent industry review of building design and standards. He has authored papers on seismic design, wind engineering, the performance of tall buildings in fire, composite structures and the design of long-span roofs” Along with two other engineers from ARUP, (one of the worlds leading engineering consulting firms, he authored the paper “Fire Induced Progressive Collapse”



Lay and O’Connor areighly qualified fire engineers and co-chairs of CTBUH’s Fire and Satey Working group

In response to a truther Scott said

The ae911truth movement is not interested in truth. It presents one side of the argument and ignores all the facts that indicate that they may be wrong.


As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

Against this you have the ae911truth movement which has support from approximately 80 licensed structural or civil engineers, who have signed its petition. Now in proportion to the industry the level of support that the 911truth movement is tiny. However I can understand why 80 people did, because the response from government was slow and the one side videos the 911truth movement show are very compelling, if you do not review them critically.

Some people will never believe we landed on the moon and some people will never believe that the planes that crashed into the towers, eventually brought them down. From my perspective both of these statements are equally preposterous. However the 911truth movement only provides one side of the argument and any organization that does so is not interested in truth. There are numerous answers to the questions they raise and the overwhelming evidence is that CD played no part in the collapse.


Much of the evidence is circumstantial and is presented in a highly biased and emotive way. I have taken several of my family members through the ae911truth presentation and videos when they first came out and there was nothing that I saw, that could not be explained as a reasonable part of a collapse. Much of this information can be extracted from the NIST reports or from various contradictory web-sites..

My main concern is that the debate is that the CD theory is a distraction. 9/11 raises many issues about building performance, terror attacks and how structural steel behaves in extreme fire conditions. These issues need to be properly discussed and debated and every time the conversation starts, then CD takes us wildly of course.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...7314&page=2 – The entire thread starting from page 1 is of interest

Scott, Lay and O’Conner were not the only ones to say such things. Leslie R Robertson was the structural engineer who designed the WTC as well as many other tall buildings, his firm was retained by the PANYNJ after the 1993 bombing to repair, renovate and update the building and his wife the firms #2 engineer participated in the ASCE/FEMA and NIST investigations of the collapses. He said :

I support the general conclusions of the NIST report. It was prepared, by the way, not just by NIST, but by a series of engineering firms around the country who provided advice and assistance to NIST in their investigations


Zdenenk Bazandt is considered one the world’s leading structural engineers and has advanced degrees in mechanical engineering and physics. He is a professor of structural engineering at Northwestern University (one of the top engineering schools in the US. He has written 6 books and close to 500 scholarly articles he has written more peer reviewed papers (published in established journals) about the WTC collapses than anyone else. The most recent of those papers was published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and ASCE publication. His co-authors included Dr. Frank Greening a chemical physicist, engineering consultant and nuclear industry whistleblower who had previously believed the towers were demolished, he was a founding member of the Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11 (SPINE). They wrote:

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 mm—0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas more than 150 tons of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.

Thomas W. Eagar is not a structural engineer but a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems a MIT. Previously employed by Bethlehem Steel he is one of the worlds leading metallurgists. In December 2001 he wrote a paper about the collapses and concluded:

...the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.


Links to numerous other papers and articles by highly qualified structural engineers and other scientists can be found here.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...