Transcript 9/11: A Closer Look at the Official Conspiracy Theory

Confronting the Deception:
9/11, NIST and
the Road to Global Collapse
Kevin Ryan
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Come to Colorado
Boulder and Denver, October 28th and 29th, 2006
9/11: A Long String
of Unprecedented Events and Absurdities
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
Our nation’s air defenses effectively stood down
Many coincidental military exercises
Vast evidence of foreknowledge without anyone knowing
Insider trading without insiders
Plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11
Resistance to, and obstruction of, the investigations
(Former?) CIA allies hate us for our freedoms
Three tall buildings collapsed from fire on same day
Questioning an Ever-changing Story
►
As a manager for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I was
fired for publicly questioning the government’s October
2004 report on the collapse of the WTC towers
►
That report, generated by NIST*, is only one of several
conflicting reports produced in the last five years, and even
it continues to change
►
All the official WTC explanations have come from those
profiting from the War on Terror
►
The FEMA and NIST reports are direct products of the Bush
Administration (i.e. Bush Science)
*National Institute of Standards and Technology
“Bush Science”
►
The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and
systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of
policy goals”
Open letter from 9000+ scientists, currently including 49 Nobel laureates and 63
National Medal of Science recipients
►
“We found a serious pattern of undermining science by
the Bush Administration”
Union of Concerned Scientists
►
“[We] found numerous instances where the
Administration has manipulated the scientific process
and distorted or suppressed scientific findings”
House Committee on Government Reform
Unprecedented Building Failures
 No tall buildings have ever collapsed from fire,
but on 9/11, we’re told there were three
 No building exhibiting all the characteristics of
demolition has ever NOT been a demolition
 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite
outraged cries from public and fire experts
Demolition hypothesis?
►
The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic
controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National
Association of Demolition Contractors, “It cascaded down
like an implosion”
►
“It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the
building” -- Ronald Hamburger, structural engineer and
later a contributor to FEMA and NIST reports
►
British architect Bob Halvorson noted that the collapses
were "well beyond realistic experience."
►
But official investigations never considered demolition
Early support for the official WTC story
► “Experts”






said jet fuel fires melted the steel
BBC (Chris Wise, etc.)
Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel)
NOVA video (Matthys Levy)
Henry Koffman from USC
Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois
Osama Bin Laden -- “I was thinking that the fire from the gas in
the plane would melt the iron structure of the building…”
► Temperatures
exaggerated by media
 National Geographic Channel - 2,900 F
 A&E /History Channel - 2500 F
Official investigations into the collapse
of the WTC buildings
►ASCE
►FEMA
BPAT
 Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment”
 Report released May 2002
►Silverstein/Weidlinger
 report released October 2002
►NIST
 Final draft 10/04…Final, final draft 6/05
 First report 9/05…Responses to FAQs 8/06
ASCE Team = Murrah Team
Initial ASCE team leaders
(9/14/01)
 Gene Corley
 Charles Thornton
 Paul Mlakar
 Mete Sozen
 4 others
OKC Murrah building
report authors
 Gene Corley
 Charles Thornton
 Paul Mlakar
 Mete Sozen
ASCE says there are 1.5 million US engineers.
Why so few when it comes to terrorism?
Alfred P. Murrah Building
►
April 19, 1995 - Reinforced concrete building destoyed in
Oklahoma City, killing 168 people
 Survivors reported multiple explosions
 Many media reports and witness accounts of un-detonated bombs
 FBI confiscated videos and would not release them
►
May 5, 1995 - Memorial service with 300 people held 20 feet away
►
May 9, 1995 - Corley’s team arrives
from building foundation
 “Investigation” completed from 250 feet (1/2 block) away.
 Access only to drawings, samples from other buildings and photos
 They are not permitted to inspect any material from the OKC
bombing crime scene. They were not even allowed to tour the site.
One Guy / One Truck bomb?
►
May 18, 1995 – USAF Gen. Benton Partin to Congress: "I can say
with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the
reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been
attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing
demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases." A
series of tests done by USAF’s Wright Labs confirmed this conclusion.
►
May 23, 1995 -- Murrah Building demolished, and rubble buried in a
landfill guarded by security personnel.
►
March 1996 -- Strategic Investment newsletter: "A classified report
prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the
destruction of the Federal building in Oklahoma City last April was
caused by five separate bombs”
►
October 1997 – Corley, Mlakar, Sozen & Thornton release paper
in support of the One Guy/One Bomb political story. Their entire
argument is based on one piece of data – the size of the bomb crater and that data was given to them.
Department Of Defense’s
“Blast Mitigation for Structures Program”
►
Formed in 1998 to provide DOD with expertise in explosive
effects on buildings
►
Funded at $10 million annually
►
Committee chaired by Sozen with Corley and Thornton
as members (and Mark Loizeaux)
►
Blast consulting firms include ARUP, ARA, SG&H, ThorntonTomasetti, Weidlinger
WTC - pre-determined conclusions
 Gene Corley knew once the jets hit the building that the
WTC would collapse as it did, “I just didn’t know when it
was going to happen”, said Corley
(reported by St. Petersburg Times)
 Charles Thornton -- "Karl, we all know what caused the
collapse."
(From Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel)
 Shankar Nair -- "Already there is near-consensus as to
the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the
World Trade Center.”
(Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001)
The first official leaders
►
Gene Corley in charge of ASCE WTC investigation
►
NYC put Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of site
►
Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the
decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known
the direction that investigations into the disaster would
take, he would have adopted a different stance.”
►
Sozen and Mlakar led the Pentagon investigation team
Restrictions on ASCE investigation
► No
access to blueprints
► Not
allowed to ask for help from public
► Team
members threatened with dismissal for
speaking to press
► No
access to steel until first week of October
► FEMA
obstruction
FEMA BPAT
►
ASCE expanded and was named FEMA BPAT
 John Gross, NIST engineer with oil and gas history
 Therese McAllister, Greenhorne and O’Mara (G&O)
 Other DOD contractors (Arup, Hughes, SG&H,
Weidlinger)
►
When FEMA took over, $1 million was allocated, but
only $100,000 was spent by December
►
At the same time, Bush was telling us “It costs a lot
to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion
dollars a month…”
By January, it was a half-baked farce
 Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine,
said the “official investigation…is a half-baked farce
that may already have been commandeered by
political forces whose primary interests, to put it
mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.”
 Dick Cheney called Senate leader Tom Daschle and
asked him to “limit the scope and overall review of
what happened [on 9/11]”, claiming resources would
be pulled from the War on Terrorism. President Bush
met with Daschle privately and asked him to limit the
investigation.
Who would design a building for plane
crashes but forget the jet fuel fires?
 Eduardo Kausel – The WTC buildings were designed to
withstand Boeing 707 impacts but were “never designed
for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires
that came next – a key design omission.”
 Loring Knoblauch (CEO of UL) – the jet fuel fires were not
“reasonably foreseeable.”
 What? How would the planes get to the buildings? Who
would really do this?
Not the WTC’s design Engineer
 Towers designed by John Skilling (Leslie Robertson
worked for Skilling)
 Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he
considered plane crashes in his design.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be
the fact that all the fuel would dump into the
building. [But] the building structure would still be
there.”
City in the Sky, Glanz and Lipton
Where’s the fire?
Windsor building, Madrid, February 2005
Twin towers shortly after WTC2 hit
FEMA findings
► April
2002 NOVA video with commentators Corley
and Thornton
►Fireproofing
easily blown off
►Floors collapsed
►Columns buckled outward
► May
2002 final FEMA report
 “a pancake-type of collapse of successive floors”
June 2002 – NIST drafts plan
►
National Institute of Standards and Technology
 Directors are Presidential appointees
►
First meeting included “Public” comments by




Gene Corley
Richard Tomasetti
Shankar Nair
Other contributors to official reports
► Charles
Thornton later named to NIST’s Advisory
Committee
October 2002
Silverstein / Weidlinger report
► Corley
and Thornton-Tomasetti involved in study
to establish Silverstein insurance claim
► Report
results
 No floor failure of any kind
 Column failure only
 Directly contradicts FEMA report
They knew what happened from the start?
►
”Experts” Towering Inferno
 Steel melted
►
FEMA
 Floor failure: “A pancake-type of collapse of successive
floors”
►
Silverstein/Weidlinger
 Column failure only
►
NIST
 Final theory is mixed bag of sagging floors, softening
core columns and external column bowing – apparently
leading to pile driver collapse…
(but the story remains flexible)
Characteristics of demolition - ignored
►
►
►
►
►
►
Sudden onset
► Dust clouds
Straight down
► Horizontal ejections
(squibs)
Nearly free-fall speed
► Demolition rings
Total collapse
► Sounds of explosions
Sliced steel
Pulverization of concrete ► Pools of molten steel
All supported by photographic evidence and
eyewitness testimonies
The WTC towers exploded.
Eyewitness interviews not used
►
Paramedic Daniel Rivera – “[Did] you ever see professional
demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop?’…I thought it was
that.”
►
Witness Timothy Burke – “the building popped, lower than
the fire…I was going oh, my God, there is a secondary
device because the way the building popped. I thought it
was an explosion.”
►
Firefighter Edward Cachia – “It actually gave at a lower
floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally
thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives…”
►
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory -- “I
thought…that I saw low-level flashes…[at] the lower level
of the building. You know like when they demolish a
building?”
Eyewitness interviews not used
►
Firefighter Richard Banaciski – “It seemed like on television
[when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was
going all around like a belt, all these explosions.”
►
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick – “My initial
reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when
they show you those implosions on TV.”
►
Battalion Chief Brian Dixon – “the lowest floor of the fire in
the south tower actually looked like someone had planted
explosives all around it because…everything blew out on
the one floor.”
►
Firefighter Kenneth Rogers – “there was an explosion in
the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after
floor. [It] looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of
thing.”
Sept 2005 - The NIST WTC Report
► 42
sub-reports and
10,000 pages
► Only
for Twin Towers
► Like
others, focused only
on political story
► With
same people as before
(i.e. FEMA, DOD contractors)
FEMA authors become NIST authors
► FEMA
Chapter 1 authors
► FEMA
Chapter 2 authors
► FEMA
chapter 5 authors (WTC 7)
 Therese McAllister: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
 John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
 Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor
 Ronald Hamburger: see above
 William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom tower
 Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7
 Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F
 Harold Nelson: see above
NFPA 921 used?
Standard for fire investigation
►
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest
should be avoided (The War on Terrorism is big
business!)
 NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on
government contracts or on the official story itself
►
Sec 12-4: Unusual residues …could arise from thermite,
magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials
 NIST report does not mention evidence of intragranular melting
of WTC samples or FEMA’s puzzling Sulfur residue – “No clear
explanation for the source of the Sulfur has been identified.”
 The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery
uncovered in the investigation.”
NIST’s review of documents
► Reports
of original design claims?
 No, many relevant claims not mentioned
► Fire
resistance test data (e.g. UL test
documents)?
 No, documents came up missing
► Skilling’s
fire resistance analysis?
 No, documents missing
Original design claims
►
“The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent
capacity to resist unforeseen calamities.”
►
For the perimeter columns (83% of total columns), “live
loads on these columns can be increased more than
2,000% before failure occurs.”
►
One “could cut away all the first story columns on one side
of the building, and partway from the corners of the
perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand
design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.”
All quotes from Engineering News-Record, 1964
Were the WTC steel components
tested for fire resistance?
►
The NYC building code requires fire resistance testing of
both columns (steel assemblies) and floors (floor
assemblies)
►
NIST said they found no documents, yet states the
buildings were rated as Class 1B (3 hours for columns
and 2 hours for floors)
►
Port Authority -- “there are no test records in our files”
►
ASTM E119 is used for testing both steel components
and floor assemblies
ASTM E119 Time-temperature curve
UL comments on testing the WTC steel
►
September 2001
 Loring Knoblauch, UL’s CEO, told staff that UL had certified the
steel used in the WTC
►
November 2003
 I asked Knoblauch in writing about UL’s involvement, and he
responded in December confirming details.
►
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and
it did beautifully.”
►
“As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we
can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed
properly coated.”
►
“We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met
[the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them.”
Underwriters Laboratories
Lying To Us?
►
August 2004
 UL performed tests of WTC floor models
 Floors barely affected and didn’t collapse
 Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly

►
November 2004
 My letter to NIST became public
 UL quickly backtracked, saying
► “No
evidence” any firm tested the steel
► They played only a “limited” role in investigation
►
No evidence? Does that mean their CEO was wrong or
they were in no way involved?
NIST’s analysis of steel samples
► Most
of the steel evidence destroyed
 Tomasetti decision (Thornton’s partner)
 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
► NIST
tests
 Paint test indicated low steel temps (480 F )
“despite pre-collapse exposure to fire”
 Microstructure test showed no steel reached
critical, half-strength value (1100 F)
NIST Comments Before and After
► Before
steel temperature analysis
(12/02/03)
 “Regions of impact and fire damage emphasized in
selection of steel pieces.”
► After
steel temperature analysis
(final report)
 “None of the samples were from zones where [high]
heating was predicted.”
Other NIST tests
► UL
floor model tests evaluated Pancake Theory
► Workstation
burn tests
 Gas temperatures, not steel temperatures
 Used double the average amount of jet fuel
 Used “Over-ventilation”
► Tests
to prove loss of fireproofing?
 Fifteen rounds from a shotgun
Pancake Theory
 “I could see it in my mind’s eye: The fire burned until the steel
was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain
reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk –
clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the
nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the
exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally
supported and folded in.” -- Karl Koch
(from Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel)
 Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads
to that perception." - NIST’s Shyam Sunder in Popular Mechanics
Floor panels 20 feet wide
WTC floor model tests by UL (Aug 2004)
►
►
►
►
►
Began with less fireproofing than was known to exist in
WTC1, and then reduced fireproofing further
Performed “…four standard fire resistance tests (ASTM
E119) of the floor truss assemblies with twice the floor
load that was on the WTC floors.” (NCSTAR 1-6)
Minimal floor sagging
No floor collapse
“The results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without
collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the
duration of the fires in any given location on September
11th.”
NIST comments before and after
► Before
UL floor tests
 “[Tests will] determine the fire rating of typical WTC
floor systems under both as-built and specified
conditions”
► After
UL floor tests
 “The Investigation Team was cautious about using these
results directly in the formulation of collapse
hypotheses”
► August
2006
 “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of
collapse”
NIST’s computer simulations
► Input
parameters could be tweaked
► “Realistic”
parameters tossed in favor of “More
severe” parameters
► Animations
generated to “compare with observed
events” (but we can’t see them)
NIST’s investigative practices were
deceptive and unscientific
►
Documents needed just happened to be missing
►
Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored
►
Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions
were downplayed or ignored
►
Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer
simulations
NIST’s Final, Computer-Based Story
1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged
4. High temperatures softened columns and floors
5. Some floors began to sag
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing
them to buckle
7. Instability spread around entire building
“Global collapse ensued”
1. How many columns were severed?
► NIST
now admits only a small percentage of
columns were severed
 14% in WTC1
 15% in WTC2
►
But since one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of
the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides,
and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph
wind from any direction”, we know the buildings could withstand >
25% column loss without a problem.
2. How much load was re-distributed?
►
NIST says loads on some columns were decreased (as
much as 20%) and other loads were increased (up to
25%). What about failure zone?
►
Since the original design claims were that, “live loads on
these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than
2,000% before failure occurs”, these columns should have
supported the extra load and much, much more
►
So far, no reason to even suspect collapse
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?
“The towers would not have collapsed under the
combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent
multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely
dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by
aircraft impact.” -- NIST
3. NIST must have done extensive testing to
prove fireproofing was widely dislodged!
►
No, they shot 15 rounds from a shotgun at nonrepresentative samples in a plywood box
►
No evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into so many
shotgun blasts
(many thousands would be needed)
►
Shotgun test actually proved fireproofing could not have
been widely dislodged because the energy was simply not
available
No energy left to dislodge fireproofing
► NIST
says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane
that hit WTC1
 Calculations show that all this energy was consumed
in crushing aircraft and breaking columns & floors*
 Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was
needed to dislodge fireproofing
 For the areas in question, intact floors and columns
had > 6000 sq meters of surface area
*Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
4. How hot could the steel have become?
►
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to
feed fires. This would have provided 590,000 MJ of energy.
►
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided
490,000 MJ of energy.
►
Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a
maximum temperature in the impact zone can be calculated.
►
The result is less than 600 degrees F
 Assuming fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone,
that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an
unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Steel Temperatures Discussed (F)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Paint test
Calculated
Steel at half
strength
Steel Forged
ASTM E119
TV Program
Steel melts
Review
NIST Story and Problems
►
Column breakage (14%)
weakened building, then
external columns saw up to
25% increases in total load
►
Can lose an additional 30 or
more before challenging
design claims; external
columns designed to withstand
2000% increases in live load
►
Fireproofing “widely
dislodged”
►
No evidence that Boeing 767
would transform into
thousands of shotgun blasts;
no energy available to dislodge
fireproofing
►
High steel temps required
for long time
►
Tests and calculations show
steel temps were way too low
How long did fires last in failure zones?
►
In NCSTAR 1-6, section 9.4.3
and section 10.9.4, NIST
says…
“The fires in WTC 2 reached
the east side of the building
more quickly, within 10 to 20
minutes, than the 50 to 60
minutes it took the fires in
WTC 1 to reach the south
side.”
5. Some floors began to sag?
► Only
very slight sagging is visible in NIST photos
from UL tests (and no collapse)
► After
two hours in high temp furnace, the deck
of 35 ft floor model sagged about 3 inches in the
middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at
all
► NIST’s
computer turned this into dramatic 42
inch sagging, with joists bending downward
severely
6. How did the sagging floors pull exterior
columns inward causing them to buckle?
►
Over 30 columns would have to be pulled in to challenge
design claim.
►
What new force did a few inches of deck sagging apply to
those 30+ columns?
►
NIST did not perform tests to prove inward buckling via
sagging floors. This pivotal argument is supported only by
a highly manipulated, and ultimately absurd, computer
model.
*Note: NIST’s “enhanced” photos showing bowing just before failure do not
prove that this was caused by sagging floors – it could more easily be
explained by demolition.
Manipulated and disconnected
►
“An exterior wall section (9 columns wide and 9 floors
high) was found to bow inward when floor connections
applied an inward force.”
(computer result for one case out of nine)
►
NIST had to double the height of the inward pull zone,
strip of ALL the fireproofing, exaggerate temperatures
(1300 F), and then apply these temps for 90 minutes to
produce even a hint of inward bowing from fire.
►
But first - the floors had to be disconnected. Where does
the inward pull come from !?!
7. Instability spread around entire
building perimeter?
►
Buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. How fast would
instability have to spread first? How much of the ~10 sec fall
time could be spared?
►
Perimeter of building was 832 feet. If complete in 0.5
seconds, speed of “instability spread” would have been >1100
mph (Mach 1.5)
►
“A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse
suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable
warning signs, namely, large deformations.”
Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press
NIST’s collapse initiation sequence:
What would objective scientists have found?
1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact
2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity
3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged
4. Steel could not have softened at the temps found
5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed
minimal sagging of floors
6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward
7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and
would not result in uniform free-fall
NIST’s computer story is Bush Science
►
The parameters NIST originally considered “realistic”
were discarded because computer results “did not
compare to observed events.”
►
“More severe” parameters were substituted until
animations gave the desired result
►
Public has no access to NIST’s computer model or to
their 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video
footage
“Global collapse ensued?”
►
What about resistance of floors below? If these floors each
caused hesitation of only half a second, an extra 40 seconds
would be needed.
►
What about the observed squibs? (No more pancaking!)
►
What about the molten metal observed pouring from the
building and the pools of molten metal in the basement areas
of both Towers and WTC 7?
►
What about the intragranular melting and sulfur residue found
on the steel?
The NIST WTC report is false because…
►
They did not explain why and how the buildings
collapsed, and their investigation was deceptive and
unscientific at every step
►
They reported findings that were in direct contradiction
to their physical testing
►
They omitted or distorted many important facts






Original design claims and John Skilling’s analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on the steel
NIST’s FAQ responses – Aug 2006
►
Why didn’t NIST consider demolition?
 No answer, but in retrospect they say demolition is not
reasonable
 “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of
collapse” (unless being interviewed by Popular Mechanics)
►
Where did the squibs come from?
 Compressed air, but not pancaking
►
Did UL test the steel for fire resistance?
 Not for six hours
►
Where does the molten metal come from?
 This is irrelevant, but it may have been Aluminum from the plane
 Or it may have been caused by the duration of the fires in the pile
Who else have we heard from?
►
Popular Mechanics
 Hearst magazine (propaganda tool again?) promotes the
pancake theory and magic fuel
►
Implosionworld
 The photographer Brent Blanchard, with uninformative
bluster, speaks for the demolition industry and gets State
Dept approval
►
The Progressive
 Corley and Sozen strike again
►
Rolling Stone
 We must cling to the false story until the “conspiracy
theorists” prove another, more outrageous one.
Who have we NOT heard from?
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
Advances in Applied Mechanics
International Journal of Plasticity
Proceedings of the IEEE
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data
Fluid Phase Equilibria
Materials science
Acta Materialia
Advanced Materials
Advanced Functional Materials
Annual Review of Materials Research
Chemistry of Materials
International Materials Review
Journal of Materials Research
Journal of Materials Science
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions
Nature Materials
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
Progress in Materials Science
Advances in Physics
Journal of Physics
Physical Review
Reports on Progress in Physics
Reviews in Modern Physics
Journal of the American Chemical
Society
Angewandte Chemie International
Edition
Chemical Communications
Chemical Reviews
Accounts of Chemical Research
Chemistry - A European Journal
Chemistry Letters
Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan
Helvetica Chimica Acta
Canadian Journal of Chemistry
What about WTC 7?
►
Would have been tallest building in 33 states
►
Collapsed in 6.6 seconds
►
Larry Silverstein, leaseholder for all three buildings -- “I
said…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And [the
fire department commander and I] made that decision to
pull and we watched the building collapse.” PBS, 2002
►
FEMA -- “the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than
any impact damage from the collapsing towers”
How did we get here?
►
The collapse of the WTC buildings is only a part of a long
list of unprecedented events on 9/11/01
►
The explanations we’ve been given have come from those
working for the Bush Administration, or from those
profiting from the War on Terror
►
We know these people lie to us about everything, and that
they distort and manipulate scientific findings
►
We know NIST’s story about the WTC is false, and is only
the latest in a string of false stories
How can we turn away
from the road to global collapse?
► By
admitting that this is not just about demons
wanting to steal our freedoms
► By
consciously examining ALL of the evidence
behind the false story of 9/11/01
► By
considering ALL the hypotheses no matter
where they lead
► By
taking responsibility for the deception in our
lives