WTC 7 “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” A short film by Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth featuring Ed Asner.
The video was approaching 5,000 views. The 911blogger article about the Sunday Morning segment and video is here:
Source: 9-11 Blogger
9/11 WTC Tower Collapses – Ten Years on, it’s time to apply some Simple Logic
by Paul Mason BE, MIE Aust, CP Eng
In the 10 years since the events in New Yorkon September 11, 2001, much controversy has raged within the engineering world about exactly how all three buildings, including theTwinTowers collapsed, so rapidly, so symmetrically and so completely. Over the subsequent years, different theories have been put forward and various computer models constructed that purport to simulate the collapse initiating mechanisms, but none have been able to satisfactorily demonstrate how the collapses could have been so rapid, so symmetrical and indeed so complete. The very belated, USgovernment-sponsored official investigation and report did not address any of these questions and left a great many others glaringly unanswered. However, it is my contention that if you apply some simple engineering logic, the answer appears rather straight forward (if rather concerning).
Who is the Author?
I am a 59 year-old Civil Engineer, an existing and long-time Member of the Institution of Engineers, Australia(Membership No. 34040) and a Chartered Professional Engineer. I have worked, for the past 37years, on many large scale engineering projects, being involved with design, construction and investigation of major structures, including buildings, bridges and dams. I am currently employed as a structural specialist in a major state-government authority. Through my education and work experience I am very familiar with the characteristics and behavior of steel and concrete and the manner in which they are incorporated into major structures to ensure that such structures have more than ample strength to resist all combinations of extreme loadings. I have also witnessed many explosions associated with construction projects and at one stage of my career was a trained and licensed user of explosives. However, one only really needs a good understanding of high-school physics to be able to recognise the very obvious flaw in the official explanations of the 9/11 “collapses”.
The Official ‘Story’ is far from a Scientific Explanation
The official story of 9/11 tells us, of course, that theTwinTowerswere damaged by the airplane impacts and the subsequent fires, to the point where they suddenly (and completely symmetrically) collapsed. Sounds fairly plausible, doesn’t it? Maybe, and I must admit, for several years, I didn’t think too much about it and just accepted that view and felt nothing but disdain for those evil terrorists who were so obviously responsible….after all, George W. told me so himself, …..many, many times! However, a few years ago, after seeing and studying some videos of these “collapses”, I realised there was something very wrong with the official explanation. The “collapses” could not possibly have been just collapses, because they completely violate Newton’s laws of motion, upon which much of science and engineering is based. We all know that these collapses were sudden and very rapid. WTC 7 came down part of the way at free-fall acceleration, as now acknowledged by NIST. The twin towers came down a little slower but still too fast to be explained as due to gravity alone.
We also know that as each tower collapsed, the whole structure, composed of nearly 200,000 tonnes of massively strong steel columns and similar amounts of solid concrete, were progressively pulverised, jettisoned outward, and upward, at great speed and were reduced to tiny fragments with thick, billowing clouds of concrete dust. Anyone can see all of this very clearly on any of the video records.
If you haven’t already picked the obvious contradiction, then this is it:
- For any object, to fall with free fall acceleration there has to be absolutely no resistance to that fall, that is, the object is accelerated by gravity alone and there is nothing to restrict and slow its progress.
- In the case of the TwinTowercollapses, there was massive internal resistance within the buildings, below the impact zone. So massive was this resistance of the remaining structural components that the buildings should not have fallen at all, let alone with near free-fall acceleration!
- The vast quantity of extra energy that would have been required to produce both a near free-fall “collapse” and to simultaneously sever and eject the steel and pulveriseALL of the concrete into fragments and dust, can realistically, only have come from high-explosives charges, and a great many of them. There is simply no other plausible or indeed scientific explanation to these simultaneous events.
To appreciate the extent of the internal resistance within the lower sections of the buildings consider these facts:
- The Twin Towers were very well engineered steel-frame structures designed and constructed in accordance with strict buildings codes that ensure such structures have huge capacity to safely resist overloads. This can easily be appreciated by studying the construction blueprints that have only recently become available, via a “whistleblower”
- The Twin Towers were designed to be absolutely stable when subjected to combinations of hurricanes, earthquakes and even Boeing 707 impacts. On 9/11 it was a still day, with no earthquakes and the buildings were known to have reduced occupancy. These facts combined with the requirements of the building codes of the day, mean that at the time of the “attacks” the twin towers had perhaps four times the strength needed to support their own weight before any overload (or heating of components) could initiate even gradual deformations.
- The main supports of the structure, the vertical steel members, (it was the floor slabs that were composed of concrete) necessarily got increasingly stronger toward the base of the buildings, to resist not just the weight of the building, but the huge additional forces that occur with hurricane winds and under earthquake loadings (not to mention the 707’s)
- The main load carrying members were located within the central core of the TwinTowersand these were huge steel box section columns.
- Towards the bottom of the TwinTowers, each of these box-section support columns were about a metre across and composed of 100 mm thick steel plate.
- The airplane impacts occurred near the tops of the Towers. Those impacts and the subsequent, low-heat fires would have had minimal, if any, effect on the strength and integrity of the buildings below the impact zones.
“Collapse Mechanism” is a Complete Absurdity
As a simple analogy of what the official story is telling us; imagine five bricks stacked up, end to end, on top of each other, to form a tower; the four lower bricks mortared together and the fifth sitting on top. Now, if you were to pick up the top brick, raise it straight up for half its length and then drop it back on top of the other four, what would you expect to happen? The official 9/11 story would suggest that the brick you dropped would just keep dropping, straight down, through the four-brick tower at near free-fall speed as if the other four bricks were matchwood, finally crushing itself, the whole lot turning into granules and thick clouds of dust.
While I would acknowledge that the construction of the Twin Towers was more complicated than the column of bricks, the principles involved are exactly the same. This brick collapse scenario is basically what we are expected to believe happened to the Twin Towers’ super-strong steel central core; IN BOTH BUILDINGS! You don’t really need to be an engineer to recognise the complete absurdity of this assertion. How could the falling upper section, where the fires were, be stronger than the lower unheated undamaged section?
In essence, there is no scientific reason and indeed no likelihood whatsoever, that these buildings could have progressively disintegrated at near free-fall speed simply because their tops were weakened, (unless of course,Newton had it completely wrong). By studying the videos, it is obvious and consistent with the buildings’ subsequent behaviour, that hundreds, if not thousands, of explosive charges were detonated progressively as the buildings came down. There is, quite simply, no other practical way to so completely pulverise all of the structural components. This should be clear to anyone, but again I can say this with some authority, having been trained in the use of explosives and having witnessed many high explosive blasts.
The “collapse” videos also reveal that as both of the Twin Towers fell, enormous quantities of fragmented steel and concrete were jettisoned at great speed, not just horizontally, but also upward. Again, this behaviour is just not scientifically possible in a simple collapse scenario. As everyone should be aware; gravity has never been known to propel any object upward and outward. Steel itself is both an elastic and plastic material; meaning that it has the capacity to stretch and bend to absorb a large degree of overloading and then will gradually deform when this overload becomes too great. On the rare occasions when steel structures do fail, they do so by bending and buckling, not by suddenly shattering in a brittle manner. Steel will only shatter if it is subjected to extremely rapid and massive overload, as can only occur with high-explosives. The flying fragments of steel that are seen in the collapse videos can realistically only be the result of explosive demolition; a simple gravitational collapse cannot possibly induce such behaviour in structural steel.
If, in fact, all of the steel was superheated by the fires, as some of the ‘theories’ claim, then it would be even less likely to shatter, instead it would gradually soften, bend and deform and slowly sag into a mangled heap. And incidentally, before and since 9/11, fires have never been known to cause the complete collapse of any high-rise, steel-framed building anywhere in the world. Consider the photo of the “Waving Woman” a survivor of the original airplane impact and later identified as Edna Cintron. How was she able to survive and stand in the hole if there were “blast furnace” temperatures around her? And what about the fire-fighter who made it up the stairs to the affected floors and reported via radio that the fires would be easily controlled?
Pancaking or Pile Driver?
The initial official story described the “collapse” as “pancaking” due to the failure of the floor support connections. However, if this was the case, we would end up with a stack of cracked, but substantially intact reinforced concrete slab floors, piled up around a still-standing, massively strong central core. Looking much like a 100+ quoits stacked up around a central spike. There is noway that pancaking could account for reinforced concrete being completely pulverised to dust and all the steel chopped into convenient lengths. Realizing the absurdity of the pancaking theory NIST eventually adopted the “pile driver” theory suggested by Bazant. This theory is also absurd, as described below.
The flowing molten metal at the base of the Towers, observed and reported by many of the first responders, (but denied in the official account), suggests steel heated to several thousand degrees at critical points, by extreme-temperature cutting charges used to dismember the steel components, prior to them being blown apart. Again, it is simply not scientifically possible for the fires created by the plane impacts, burning jet fuel (kerosene) and office fittings, to be anywhere near the temperatures required to turn structural steel into a flowing liquid.
Real World Collapses
Careful examination of the videos also show that the collapses of the twin towers only initiate AFTER large, sudden explosions can be seen just above and below the plane impact zones. This behaviour is, again, completely consistent with an explosive demolition. Many succeeding explosions can also be seen ejecting material outward up to the time when the whole structure becomes enveloped in thick clouds of debris, which then obscures any subsequent activity. It is clear that the first explosions occur above the plane impact zones and that the top sections commence to collapse before the lower section, thus refuting the “pile driver” theory.
Contrast the 911 “collapses” with real collapses that happen as a result of earthquakes for example. When a large structure is subjected to extreme earthquake forces, which act both horizontally and vertically, its components can get broken and cracked to the point where they can no longer support their own weight and the structure falls. In these cases, unlike the Twin Towers, much of the internal strength of the structure has been broken down by the massive applied energy of the earthquake; so, particularly with concrete structures, the fall may be relatively rapid. But even though these structures may have suffered major and widespread internal damage, (as opposed to the local WTC damage) they still don’t, in any way, collapse in the explosive manner of the WTC buildings.
- They do not collapse perfectly vertically (three times out of three)
- They do not collapse at near free-fall acceleration
- They do not collapse with the progressive pulverisation of all the concrete.
- They do not jettison their components outward and upward
- They do not create incredibly huge billowing clouds of thick debris dust. Such clouds are usually only associated with volcanic eruptions where extreme temperature explosions create “pyroclastic” dust clouds.
As noted previously structures that are predominantly of steel frame construction (like the Twin Towers) deform when subjected to massive overloads, rather than rapidly collapse because of the capacity of steel to absorb, first elastically and then plastically, sudden shock loadings.
On the basis of both this scientifically logical analysis and my long and extensive engineering experience, I am prepared to stake my professional reputation on the assertion that the three buildings in New Yorkon September 11, did not simply collapse, but were demolished with enormous amounts of explosive energy.
Not surprisingly, I have discovered that there are thousands of engineering professionals worldwide who are in complete agreement with me. Many are members, (as indeed I am now), of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (go to www.ae911truth.org ).
So, how were all of these explosives planted in the buildings, (as indeed they must have been), and who did it? That is something that engineering logic will not tell you, but it would be really nice to find out!…..and shouldn’t it be the duty of professional engineers everywhere to reject ridiculous unscientific assertions and demand satisfactory answers?
And, why aren’t these obvious flaws in the official account being challenged or even being reported? Being only a structural engineer I am struggling to work that out, and I think my mate Isaac would pretty much feel the same!
Paul Mason BE, MIEAust, CPEng
матрациOn Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister. This is the audo of that historic debate.
The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?
Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. His quest for the truth about 9/11 began in 2006, and he subsequently founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Chris Mohr, investigative journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, is a sincere seeker of the truth who has extensively researched the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, consulted with independent physicists and engineers, and passionately argues that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and fires.
In November 2010 at Denver’s Mercury Café, Mohr debated attorney Earl Staelin on the collapse of the twin towers. This debate was unprecedented in its civility and professionalism.
During this debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, the discussion explored not only the collapse of the twin towers, but also that of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed completely at 5:21 pm on 9/11/01. For those of you not familiar with the collapse of WTC7, this is a riveting, don’t-miss controversy. We look forward to a dynamic, respectful, and thoroughly informative exploration of these topics.
Special thanks to Colorado 9-11 Visibility and all the volunteers and donors that made this event possible.
To listen to the debate, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.
Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org, Colorado Citizens Concerned Over What Really Happened on September 11, 2001
From the iStockAnalyst website.
DENVER, March 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Colorado citizens are among the nation’s leaders in pursuing the growing questions of what really happened on September 11, 2001.
Two developments are of particular interest:
1) On Sunday March 6, 2011, Colorado citizens will sponsor a debate at the University of Colorado at Boulder exploring the question, “What brought down the three World Trade Center Towers?”
At 5:00 PM, Richard Gage, AIA, a 23-year architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, squares off with Chris Mohr, a Denver investigative journalist. See http://colorado911visibility.org/ for event details.
2) On May 20 last year, the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) adopted its 2010 Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf) that includes a resolution calling for a new, independent investigation of the events of, and related to, September 11, 2001:
“WHEREAS many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”
Colorado citizens, some of whom are signatories to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition (http://www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new forensic investigation into the events of September 11th, raised the issue for adoption at their respective precinct caucuses and county assemblies. The state platform committee then discussed, finalized and voted on the resolution and forwarded it, along with many other proposed positions, for adoption by the state party.
For supporting evidence and analysis, see:
Building What? (http://www.BuildingWhat.org)
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911Truth.org)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org)
The Journal for 9/11 Studies (http://stj911.org/journal.html)
911 Press For Truth (http://www.911PressForTruth.com)
911 Truth (http://www.911Truth.org)
911 Research WTC 7 (http://www.911Research.wtc7.net)
911 Review (http://www.911Review.com)
Hundreds of high-level military and intelligence officers, government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, scientists, journalists, 9/11 survivors and family members have called for a new independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11. Their collected statements at Patriots Question 911 (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) give weight and credibility to the call for a new, independent investigation.
Colorado 9/11 Visibility (http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org)
2010 Colorado Democratic Party Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf)
SOURCE Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org
(Source: PR Newswire )
David Chandler Talks About His New DVD “9/11 Analysis” and Rationalizes the Pentagon Debate on Visibility 9-11
Show notes and interview by: John Bursill
David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.
We then move on to talk about David’s his new DVD “9/11 Analysis” which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased here.
From the site:
“The 9/11 Analysis DVD project is a compilation of the many short analysis videos David Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few years, woven together with an interpretive narrative. The current release is in English, but the plan is to follow this with a multilingual release. We need to raise funds to cover the production costs to make Phase II a reality. Please order your copy now and/or help out with a donation.”
In the second part of this frank and informative interview David talks about his strong stance on the Pentagon fiasco that is now threatening the whole credible body of 9-11 research. The aggressive nature of the advocates of “no plane hit the Pentagon” has lead to a situation that is already out of control as has been seen by Ventura’s terrible error of judgement with his episode of “Conspiracy Theory” for True TV on this subject. The case made by David for us not to be seen as a “Pentagon Movement” for it could mean our destruction is the best I’ve heard to date!
For David’s analysis of the Pentagon Debate please see his and Jon Cole’s web page dedicated to the issue:
Here is an exert: “The Honey Pot – On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at
all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”
NOTE: You may have seen or heard on the net that CIT has said that I John Bursill made a commitment to them to leave this issue alone in a discussion had with Craig Ranke, this is true. I changed my mind many months back after the work Dr Frank Legge was doing around the Digital Flight Data Recorder data re-analysis of which I was involved. This and the aggressive moves by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the “fly over” was a proven fact has forced me back to this issue. I apologise for my back flip but I feel it is that important that I speak out and support those that do the same for the survival of the 9/11 Truth Movements credibility.