Kanook – Tlingit Nation

February – 2010
The controversy behind that day in September

A day in the life of civilization that has socially changed the human race, a day
that will certainly mark our history for years to come, a day that has produced some
of the hottest debates across the Blue Marble.
The official published documentation of that day in the USA tells us that on
September 11th 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners
en-route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington
D.C. (Dulles International) and did some pretty serious damage, whereas at 8:46
AM, American Airlines Flt 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center’s North
Tower, followed by United Airlines Flt 175 which crashed into the WTC’s South
Tower at 9:03 AM (17 minutes later). And that another group of hijackers flew
American Airlines Flt 77 into the Pentagon in Washington D.C at 9:37 AM (51
minutes after the North Tower crash), in addition another group took over United
Airlines Flt 93 which crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM
(77 minutes after the North Tower crash).
Those 77 minutes have not only created widespread confusion, deaths, and the
invasion of two countries, and the way our species travels via an airplane, but a
wealth of information on what actually transpired that faithful day in September, in
turn pitting societies against societies. Whoever was behind this event, friend or
foe, the event has changed our world at least for the next 50-100 years, many
voicing that even more than the two World Wars.
In this day and age most of the inhabitants of the Blue Marble have access to the
World Wide Web, whereas we from time-to-time have received communications
from our well meaning friends and relatives that have pointed to more than a few
flaws in the accepted view of what really happened that day. More for myself than
anyone else I will attempt to sort through the discrepancies some have pointed too
in the official report. There is no doubt that the day actually happened, albeit I
predict that long past the day I walk on this planet, there will be more than a few
who will tell their generations that 9-11 is a myth and a legend. Mark my words!
 Leading the pack in conspiracy theories of the day is “Foreknowledge”, or that the
United States government, such as it was on that day, had knowledge before hand
and let the events unfold. A theory mimicking the attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7th, 1941 where the sitting president FDR let it happen in order to draw
America into WWII.
Worldwide debate continues about whether anybody had any previous knowledge
of 9-11, and that they should have taken action to try and prevent the day. While
some lump this into a conspiracy basket, most proclaim gross incompetence and
systematic failures blamed on many individuals and government entities, rather
than a deliberate allowance of 9-11.
Naturally, most point to the United States government and the sitting Bush
administration and that his military knew about the threat of commercial planes
used as missiles and whether or not the operating intelligence operations of the U.S.
understood and knew about al-Qaeda activities inside the United States. Questions
have surfaced on whether or not the “warnings” received from foreign counties
were detailed enough to create action by the United States government, including
whether or not information gathered about al-Qaeda was specifically sufficient to
give the U.S. a reason to put the alleged hijackers under surveillance prior to the
attacks, and others accused the agents of the Mossad and the Pakistani Inter-
Services Intelligence of being aware of the impending attacks.
Another sticking point is whether or not it was even al-Qaeda that was behind the
attack, while Terrell E Arnold, MA who was the former Deputy Director of Counter-
Terrorism and Emergency Planning, U.S. State Department stated in July 2007,
“Washington leadership keeps the American people fixated on the events of 9-11.
They have brought us NO closer than we were on September 12 th, 2001, to
resolving how it was executed and by what Enemy. They tell us repeatedly that it
was the work of al-Qaeda, but they have yet to show us the proofs. They have told
us the “official version” of what happened that day, but their story is laced with
contradictions and the facts visible on the ground at the time “belie” much of the
official account…As an alleged post 9-11 defense, the War on Terrorism is a gigantic
fraud.”
In October-2007, soon after the 9/11 Commission Report was released 100
prominent Americans endorsed a petition urging Congress to “immediately” re-
investigate 9/11 – signers included former senior CIA officials, Raymond McGovern
and Melvin Goodman, three former State Department veterans, Daniel Ellsberg,
Fred Burks and a former interpreter for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton
and a retired career Foreign Service officer Michael Springmann, whereas the
petition stated in part:
“We want truthful answers to questions such as:
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not
followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed
around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
 3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit,
apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross
incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple
investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details
of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”
Questions that have still NOT been answered by the United States government, or
anyone else associated with the 9/11 Commission Report…in more than one sense
giving more credence to the doubts of the world wide public about 9/11.
Another strong skeptic of the official account of the day is Lt Col Karen
Kwiatkowski, PhD, retired from the U.S. Air Force where she wrote in 2006, “I
believe the 9/11 Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to
apply scientific rigor to its assessments of events leading up to and including 9/11,
failed to produce a believable and “unbiased” summary of what happened, failed to
examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions
for future research. It as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the ‘official’
government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of
probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly
violate the laws of probability and physics.”
While one expert, Terrell E Arnold and former United States government official
criticizes the lack of evidence tying al-Qaeda to 9/11 another Major John M Newman,
PhD retired U.S. Army and a former Executive Assistant to the Director of the
National Security Agency, speaks out a 2005 Congressional briefing where he says,
“It falls to me this morning to bring to your attention the story of Saeed Sheikh,
whose full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and his astonishing rise to power in
al-Qaeda, his crucial role in 9/11, which is completely, utterly, missing from the 9/11
Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission which studied U.S. Intelligence and Law
enforcement community performance in ‘general’, neglected to cover the
community’s performance during the weeks following the attacks to determine who
was responsible for them, not a word about that in the Report.”
He continued on, “The Report does discuss the immediate United States
responses but the ‘immediate’ investigation is NEVER addressed, and anyone who
has closely studied the post 9/11 investigation knows that the first breakthrough
came two weeks into the investigation when the money transfers from the United
Arab Emirates (“UAE”) to the hijackers were uncovered. Furthermore, if you have
studied that investigation, you would know there is NO DISPUTING that while
investigators may have struggled with the identity of the paymaster, they were
CLEAR about one thing, he was al-Qaeda’s finance chief. For this reason alone you
have to ask why the 9/11 Commission Report NEVER mentions the finance chief’s
role as the 9/11 paymaster.”
 General knowledge, reported in the Wall Street Journal1, that Omar Saeed Sheikh
wired more than $100,000 to Mohamed Atta under instructions from General
Mahmud Ahmed, the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (“ISI”) – whereas
the 9/11 Commission Report states, “The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere
between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack…The origin of the
funds remains unknown…” and “Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any
foreign government—or government official—supplied the funding.”
One opinion accuses the powers-that-be in not having any evidence to lay the
blame on al-Qaeda while another top official that used to be associated with that
power asks why they haven’t told the world in their Report of the link between al-
Qaeda and the hijackers, confusing at best.
Mr. William Christison, a 29-year veteran of the CIA and former National
Intelligence Officer and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political
Analysis said the 9/11 Commission Report was a “joke”, and wrote in an online
essay in late 2006, “I have come to believe that significant parts of the alternative
9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the ‘official story’ put
out by the US government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is
persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush
administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe…an airliner almost
certainly did NOT hit the Pentagon…the North and South Towers of the World Trade
Center almost certainly did NOT collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft
hit them.”
Robert Baer a 21-year CIA veteran and a well known specialist in the Middle East,
a man who Seymour Hersh noted that Baer, “was considered perhaps the best on-
the-ground field officer in the Middle East.”
Thom Hartmann interviewed Baer on the radio in 2006 and was asked, “What
about the political profit? There are those who suggest that…someone in that chain
of command…had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen…and
really didn’t do much to stop it – or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they
thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush’s…failing presidency.”
Baer replied, “Absolutely!”
Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion…that there was an
aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the US Government?”
To which Baer said, “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.”
Hartmann continued, “And why is it not being investigated?”
Baer replied, “Why isn’t the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn’t anybody
been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor.
Why has there been no change of command? Why have there been no political
repercussions? Why has there been no…any sort of exposure on this? It really
makes you wonder.”
Shortly after the attacks National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice claimed no-
one “could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
1
Our Friends the Pakistanis by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2001
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298
 Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, with a 24-year career with
the FBI, Coleen Rowley penned a letter on May 21st, 2001 to FBI Director Robert
Mueller writing,
“The fact is that key FBI Headquarter personnel whose job it was to assist and
coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining
and use of FISA searches, continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks
and undermine Minneapolis’ by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search
warrant, long after the French Intelligence service provided its information and
probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost “ridiculous”
questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause…
“When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBI-HQ roadblock, the
Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIAs Counter Terrorist Center
(“CTC”), FBI-HQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the
direct notification without their approval…
“I know I shouldn’t be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the
key FBI-HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were
actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut the Minneapolis’ effort.”
In September 2005 Agent Rowley, during an interview said, “And what I did was, I
think, I put the first good dent in the blanket defense that for 8 ½ months or nine
were our administration was holding – that 9/11 could not have been prevented.
When Condi Rice gave her statement “ever imagined that someone would fly…” she
was throwing away or disregarding a whole lot of information. People are letting
her get away with it. She’s disregarding the ‘fact’ of two or three prior incidents of
people trying to fly planes into buildings, attempted takeovers of cockpits…We’re
also ignoring the ‘fact’ that in Minneapolis, the acting supervisor, arguing with FBI-
HQ said, ‘This is a guy [Zacarias Moussaoui] that could fly a plane into the World
Trade Center’ this conversation taking place on August 22nd, 2001.”
Despite Agent Rowley’s “high-profile” revelations and intimate knowledge of the
FBIs efforts to obstruct investigations of al-Qaeda-related terrorist activities in the
“four-weeks” prior to 9/11, the 9/11 Commission NEVER interviewed her. The
Report contains NO mention of her allegations that FBI headquarters “continued to,
almost inexplicably throw up roadblocks and undermine,” FBI field agent
counterterrorism efforts – the only mention of her is in a single footnote.
What we see here is found in all aspects of governing today, which by the way is
not limited to the United States, where we fine self-imposed demi-gods who sit in
their offices controlling the staff below them collecting information and hanging
onto it making their self-crowned godship that much larger, and forget it when it
comes to sharing any information across the hall with another person equivalent to
their position in another agency. Their power driven kingdom is theirs, and
everyone else be damned when it comes to information they have accumulated,
keep in mind that doesn’t just hold true with the government whereas it can be
found in all levels of commercial enterprises.
 Albeit opinions across the world are shifting concerning the findings noted in the
‘official’ 9/11 Commission Report the trail to this point in time has been a long-hard
pull by many qualified individuals that have disputed the findings.
Individuals, which a scant few are mentioned above and Lt Col Anthony Shaffer
the former Chief of the Army’s Controlled Human Intelligence Program (“HUMINT”)
whereas in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2006,
said:
“Basic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining
and analytical tools…resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence
collection—and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several others of the 9/11
terrorists as having links to al-Qaeda leadership a FULL YEAR in advance of the
attack.
“After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER (data mining
operation) team…the 9/11 Commission staff REFUSED to perform any in-depth
review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them…It was their job to
do a thorough investigation of these claims – to NOT simply dismiss them based on
what many now believe was a PRECONCEIVED conclusion to the 9/11 story they
wished to tell…I consider this a failure of the 9/11 staff – a failure that the 9/11
Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated
on them by the STAFF as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that
ABLE DANGER’s findings were URBAN LEGEND.”
A glaring question Lt Col Anthony Shaffer had in a 2005 interview on Fox News
was, “Why did this operation (in Afghanistan) which was created in 1999 to target
al-Qaeda globally, offensively, why was it turned off in the spring of 2001, FOUR
MONTHS before we were attacked? I can’t answer that, either. I can tell you I was
ordered out of the operation directly by a two-star general.”

What about the statement from Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, “The collapses of
the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”
As you have more than likely read a time or two, she is NOT alone with this
question.
One Nathan Lomba watching the replays (over and over again on 9/11) of the Twin
Tower collapses, and as a licensed structural engineer trained in buildings
responses to stress said to himself, “Something is wrong with this picture.”
As trained experienced person, he saw a bit more than the average person on that
day, the one thing he puzzled over was, “How did the structures collapse in a near-
symmetrical fashion when the damage was CLEARLY not symmetrical?”
Most structural engineers, worth their stuff, were surprised when the towers free-
fell, and most being who they were kept their misgivings to themselves, and like
you and I read or watched published accounts of the collapse of the building in
Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and watched similar
accountings on the BBC, the History Channel and chuckled over the overbearing
reports from government agencies like FEMA and NIST as they struggled offering
their imaginative theories attempting to explain how fires brought the tower
crashing down.
In 2006, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA started a campaign
asking questions among his professional colleagues about the destruction of the
Twin Towers and the 47-story WTC Building 7. Those he questioned overwhelmingly
agreed that vital questions remain unanswered. Today over 29 structural
engineers, trained and with more than sufficient experience in what CAN and
CANNOT bring building down have joined a group of almost 700 Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth in endorsing the petition demanding a new investigation.
This group cite various concerns as their reason to call for a re-investigation, all
having questions about the free-fall unnatural symmetric collapse of all three
structures, and the rapidity of their collapses, whereas some note the weakness of
the original fire, others ask how did the tilting upper section of WTC2 “straighten”
itself – the bottom line, this group finds many inadequacies in the official report.
And as time moves forward, new evidence that has been mounting that is only
VALIDATING their concerns, such as eyewitness testimony of explosions,
unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and chemical evidence of steel-cutting
incendiaries – all omitted from government reports. Especially troubling to some
was the collapse of WTC 7. On July 4th, 2008 it was reported that the NIST is
expected to FINALLY release their Cinderella version of what “really” happened with
WTC 7, their expected report will put the blame entirely on fires burning un-checked
until the structure collapsed at 5:12 PM NYC Time, see
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm).
In Melbourne, Australia Paul Mason, a structural engineer and Dennis Kollar P.E.
were troubled by the “totality and uniformity” and that the mass of debris remained
centered on the building core all the way down. Howard Pasternack P.E.
maintained, the tower should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the
collapse progressed,”
Another P.E. Frank Cullinan a bridge designer from Northern California wrote,
“These systematic collapses required that many structural connections fail NEARLY
SIMULTANEOUSLY and in SEQUENTIAL ORDER. That’s impossible from asymmetrical
impact loading and…small, short-duration fires.”
Needless to say, engineers find it more than difficult to believe the government’s
claim “scattered” fires brought about such an ORDERLY collapse, whereas failures
of heat-weakened steel would show, “large deflection, asymmetric and local failure
and slow progress.” In other words, it’s a gradual process and cannot be
simultaneous everywhere. A Swedish naval architect working in France, Anders
Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in
the direction of the local collapse, and William Rice P.E. a Vermont structural
engineer expects fire-induced failures to be “tilting, erratic and twisting,” while
Ronald Brookman, S.E. a licensed structural engineer from Novato California, figures
on “a partial collapse to the side.”
Symmetrical collapse requires simultaneous failure of all supporting columns,
Charles Pegelow asks, “How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant?” His
field is the design of offshore oil rigs and tall buildings – in a simple statement he
remarks, “Fires could not do that!”
Ronald Brookman, S.E. wrote asking the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (“NIST”), who characterized the Twin Towers collapse as “essentially in
free-fall”, its investigators why debris fell “with little or no resistance from the intact
structure below.
William Rice P.E. questions how each tower “inexplicably collapsed upon itself,
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining near free-fall
speed as if the 80,000 tons of supporting structural steel framework underneath did
NOT EXIST,”
While Howard Pasternack P.E. notes, “Falling objects should take the path of least
resistance”, whereas the official explanations claim the Tower debris took the path
of GREATER resistance, in other words, through the strong, cross-braced core
structure all the way to the ground.
As per standard building code plus, the Twin Towers were OVERBUILT to prevent
office workers from getting seasick on windy days says Dennis Kollar P.E., “there’s
so much redundancy…The building has to be stiff enough so it doesn’t sway.”
Perimeter columns, as the designers maintain, were made to withstand
hurricanes, and that they were only loaded to about 10% of their designed capacity
on 9/11 that had only a gently breeze. The buildings engineers, Worthington,
Skilling, Helle and Jackson said that even with all the columns on one-side cut, and
several around the two corners, the tower would have still withstood a 100 mph
winds. They noted that the rapid breakup of these “robust” structures appears to
defy the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
Claude Briscoe, P.E. with over 45-years of structural design experience says that
the government’s collapse theories, “seem to defy the laws of mechanics,
conservation of energy, and known structural failure behavior,” in other words just
plain dumb. In the official story, the “kinetic energy” of the falling debris would
have been largely absorbed by the energy required to dismember the structure,
bending and twisting steel components and pulverizing 220 acres of concrete floors.
To accomplish all this while achieving a nearly free-fall speed collapse is “simply not
physically possible” says Paul Mason. “There is not sufficient energy available…For
this massive strong structure to just crumble away at near-free-fall speed would
have required immense amounts of explosive energy.”

There are four (count them 4) official accounts that blame fire for the destruction
of all three WTC buildings, but by all professional accounts the fire(s) do not appear
to have been particularly severe. The NIST states that the Jet Fuel burned off in just
ten minutes and they have also acknowledged that office furniture burns for only
15-20 minutes in any one area, before it is consumed. And from more than one
source there is ample evidence that the steel temperatures DID NOT come
anywhere close to the 600°C [1,080°F] required to cause its failure.
David Huebner P.E. quietly says, “we saw no raging infernos”, while David Scott at
the Institution of Structural Engineers in the United Kingdom says, “sooty smoke
and dull red flames indicate cool fires…fuel starved fires.” Firemen at the 78th-floor
impact zone reported “only two small fires”, Scott adds, “not the 1000°C inferno”
that government officials claim.
New York Fire Department (“FDNY”) personnel trained to assess fires’ structural
hazards had no reason to expect TOTAL COLLAPSE. There have been several steel-
framed towers that have burned longer and hotter with more intensive heat than
witnessed in NYC on 9/11 and did NOT collapse, where the highly skill professionally
trained in a city full of skyscrapers have learned “what fire can and cannot do to
steel.”
Over one-hundred “recorded” witnesses reported hearing and seeing multiple
explosions, William Rice P.E. wrote, as Brookman cites “numerous eyewitness
accounts, including the FDNY oral histories, of secondary explosions…well below the
impact floors.” Brookman’s letter to Congressional representatives describes,
“explosive clouds of dust and debris moving horizontally and vertically, does NOT
look anything like a heat-induced gravitational collapse mechanism. Rice noted
that “perimeter columns weighing several tons each were ejected LATERALLY “up”
to 600’ – NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIONS.”
As the South Tower began to fail, the top 25 stories tipped as a unit. Brookman
said, “The tilting block doesn’t look right, and it should have continued to rotate and
fall to the ground.” Whereas the failure mode of such tall structures should have
been a “fall over to the side, and a toppling of the upper floors to one side, NOT a
concentric, vertical collapse.” The preceding statement a compilation of three
statement from Brookman, Edward Knesl and Lomba…”It looked like an explosive
event, the upper section began tilting toward the damage zone, and then suddenly
dropped straight down and disintegrated in the process,” said Brookman.
Few Americans have given much thought to the third WTC building 7, whereas
engineers involved in the structures of buildings and their failure were just as
perplexed, if not more, about its collapse on the 11th. Perplexing for a number of
reasons, not least of that it was not hit by a plane, and as Kamal Obeid S.E. says, “A
localized failure in a steel-framed building such as WTC 7 CANNOT cause a
catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned
loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building.”
Videos have shown SIMULTANEOUS failure of ALL columns, rather than the
expected phased approach, in which undamaged columns would show resistance
sequentially. Although WTC 7 housed offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the
Department of Defense, among other governmental agencies the 9/11 Commission
Report left its collapse out of its report.
FEMA’s 2002 inquiry “blamed” WTC 7’s collapse on fires, albeit FEMA admits that
its “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence, whatever, you and I
have seen little footage on its demise.
Two days after 9/11 a certain Zdeněk Bažant offered up a colorful Alice in
Wonderland rationale for the most catastrophic structural failure in the history of
mankind. Nine years later, his thesis still underlies official claims that total
collapses were “inevitable”, where his mathematical “model” of the upper floors
transformation into a pile drive “block” free-falling one story to hammer the entire
tower into scrap metal and powder involves as “very misty allegations, actually
inventions,” says Björkman who gives his opinion supported by his 35-years of
experience in ship surveying and construction in designing tankers and ferries, and
his practical observations of steel vessels after collisions. NEVER BEFORE, Björkman
notes has “a smaller object (the light-weight, upper, actually non-rigid flexible steel
structure consisting of many smaller parts) destroyed the bigger and stronger other
object (the complex steel structure below) only with the assistance of gravity.”
Like others, Björkman scoffs (actually lies on the floor laughing) at Bažant’s
MYTHICAL free-falling top block bringing down 287 columns below. You see, steel
bends and mashes in Björkman’s salty world, and “it is not certain that the hammer
even hits the nail.” Real-life columns miss, lodge in horizontal structures, and
punch holes in floors, creating energy-absorbing frictions, deformed steel, local
failures, and “a soft collision (NOT impact)” that tangles damaged floors in a
shuffled array—and stops well short of total collapse.
After sitting with his bowl full of stale popcorn and watching the videos that show
Bažant’s “alleged” pile driver disintegrates “within 3.5 seconds after the roof starts
to fall…before global collapse starts!” Björkman challenges Dr. Bažant and his
devoted followers to produce a “timetable, analysis and explanation” consistent
with the video evidence. Please, “and tell us…what happened to the upper block?”
Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion
resistance, or ease of fabrication – steel is just the element iron that has been
processed to control the amount of carbon, iron out of the ground, which melts at
around 1510°C [2718°F], refined steel often melts at around 1370°C [2466°F]. Jet
fuel is refined kerosene, airliners use “Jet A” kerosene and the military used “JP 4”
kerosene, regardless neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet
engine. “Jet A” is the same kerosene burned in conventional steel wall heaters, in
the open-air office fire such as that at the WTC (labeled a ‘dirty burn’) kerosene or
any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700°F. The FEMA report on 9/11 said that
the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and
carpets were about 560°F. The “special structural steel” of the WTC has over 98%
of its strength remaining at those temperatures, and the WTC was constructed to
hold five-times its load. In other words, the fires started by the crashing aircraft
would have melted the steel about as much as a single match starting a bonfire in a
rain forest during a downpour.
Consider, as further proof, that in a “controlled burn” (where oxygen and fuel are
regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800°F
[982°C], which is STILL not anywhere near the temperature required to “weaken”
the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building would plummet to
the ground.
Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful
“fuel” was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the buildings, not at their top.
Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military
operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel, whereas Thermite can reach
a temperature of 4500°F [2482°C] in 2-seconds, and steel begins to melt 2466°F.
Professor Steven Jones, physicist at Brigham Young University submitted a paper
in 2004 on the “possibility” of Thermite having been used at the WTC. Continue
research by Professor Jones where he has found “solidified” drops of molten metal
in a dust sample from the WTC, to include evidence of “sulfuric granulation” (a
eutectic reaction) on the structural steel, which strongly suggests that Themate (an
enhanced form of Thermite) was involved in the destruction of the towers.
FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo reported seeing in the “basements” MOLTEN STEEL…
like you were in a foundry, like lava.” One of the designers of the WTC, Leslie
Robertson and a supporter of the “official story” acknowledges on October 5 th, 2001
that “twenty-one days AFTER the attack, MOLTEN STEEL was still running.” Richard
Garlock, a structural engineer in Robertson’s firm said, “Going below…the debris
past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.”
Dr Abolhassan Astanch-Asl, another supporter of the “official story” and the first
structural engineer given access to the WTC steel, told PBS, “I saw melting girders
in the World Trade Center”, and as we wrote, Jet fuel can’t melt steel, “but Thermite
explosives/incendiaries can…create temperatures in excess of 4000°F…” wrote
William Rice P.E., “instantly melting/severing short segments of steel columns and
beams.” Bookman, citing Dr Steven Jones findings challenged the NIST to explain
the “tiny iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust,” which appear to be solidified
droplets of once-molten iron.
Structural engineer of New Jersey Michael Donly says the 2002 FEMA Report was
“incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst,” noting that a metallurgical study in
the reports Appendix C found “evidence of a severe high-temperature corrosion
attack on the steel…with subsequent inter-granular melting” forming a “sulfur-rich
liquid” that “severely weakened” the structural steel. FEMA scientists’ later state in
Appendix C that “no clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been
identified.”
Donly finds that un-acceptable. “The report has uncovered an un-explainable
phenomenon [within the context of the official story] that may have led to the
collapse of the three WTC buildings, and has stated that further study is needed,
but FEMA has NOT proceeded with further research.”
Evidence was not JUST ignored; it was DESTROYED. Firemen rioted at Ground
Zero, protesting the desecration of the dead in a HASTY “scoop and dump’ clean-up
of the structural steel debris. “The destruction of the crime scene evidence is
inexcusable,” Huebner wrote, while Scott cries in his beer, “masses of vital forensic
evidence lost”, and Bill Manning Editor in Chief of Fire Engineering magazine, called
FEMA’s investigation “a half-baked farce.”
Steel components were stamped with identification numbers that would have
aided their reassembly for study, but their reassembly NEVER took place.
Brookman asks, “Why was the steel…not thoroughly examined by fire-safety and
structural experts BEFORE being shipped to Asia for recycling?”
Pegelow charges that “FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation,” citing Dr
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl’s complaints in 2002 to the House Committee on Science
that FEMA held back essential engineering drawings and video-tapes and
photographs.
Such flawed methodology was accompanied by inadequate theories that “cannot
explain the loss of the cores,” Scott point out. He says FEMA’s notion that floor
connections ALL failed simultaneously at the outer wall and at the core is “not too
plausible.”
Bill Genitsaris, structural engineer and builder based in Melbourne, believes that a
PANCAKE-STYLE collapse should have left supporting columns standing, whereas
such a collapse would have left at least dozens of shattered floors in the building
footprint below. ONLY a very small floor sections were found, and not many of
them.
Deceptive presentations further damaged FEMA’s credibility…Tom Lackey who
designs bridges for the Vermont Agency of Transportation, cites the Minneapolis
Bridge collapse study as the “kind of analysis and straightforward explanation,” the
WTC needs. FEMA’s reports stack up poorly. Some of its graphics “OMIT THE
CORES ALTOGETHER” say Scott and some depict columns half as wide and twice as
far apart as they actually were, he says “attempts to distort important technical
information.” The Australians are a bit more colorful in describing FEMA’s
presentation, saying we’ve been “taken for suckers and we’ve been stooged.”
NIST’s $20 million report is “generally” believed by those who HAVEN’T walked
through its 10,000+ pages, to make a determination and understand how fires and
plane impacts destroyed the WTC.
 Brookman states, “The report NOT only fails to explain why and how the towers
completely collapsed, but it states that the collapse became INEVITABLE without
any further explanation.”
He asked why the NIST, “considered conservation of energy and momentum
principles ONLY up to the moment PRIOR to collapse.”
Scott adds, “NIST stopped its computerized models BEFORE the onset of
collapse!”
And Scott further remarks, “No work was done to calculate what happened during
the failure. Why are we content with this?”
Ron Brookman in the same vein adds, “The complete collapse mechanism…
cannot be OMITTED FOR BREVITY in any comprehensive analysis.”
Whereas NIST’s claim that a kinetic “attack” exceeded the building’s RESERVER
STRENGHT is NOT supported by any calculations or “by any evidence whatsoever or
serious structural analyst,” says Anders Björkman.
While the NIST fails to show essential work on central issues, its numerous
volumes are packed with DISTRACTING trivia, reminding numerous professionals to
a “college paper where you just keep adding STUFFING to make the paper longer.
Lots of pages of nothing! Definitely trying to cover up something.” Others
maintain, a paper if not trying to cover something up, a paper demonstrating their
lack of information on what they were trying to prove.
Professionals involved in the design and construction of buildings, buildings that
will provide shelter and working space for countless human beings are required by
US Law to be certified to submit their designs and lead the construction of such
structures. These individuals spend countless hours at a great expense to obtain
these certifications going to recognized institutions, there courses include advanced
mathematics and comprehensive courses in physics and mechanical disciplines…all
the doubters today have either MA or PhDs in specific disciplines, such as Brookman
who says, “I believe in the law of physics, and rely on them every day. Where the
NIST report seems to require multiple leaps of faith in highly improbable events.”
Other professionals point to the fact that the NIST computer models using their
best “estimates” of temperature and damage could not even generate a collapse…
this compares to the present day “Global Warming” crowd where the NIST simply
adjusted the input of parameters until the computer model showed a collapse or in
the case of the Global Warming IPCC results, adjust the input parameters until the
desired results fit the projected end-of-the-world.

As you’ve read in the preceding the numerous objections to the “official story”
centers around the collapse of the three building in New York City, whereas two
primary points remain in the forefront of the objections:
1): Airplane impact plus fire is an inadequate explanation for the collapses
(especially WTC 7)
2): There is strong evidence that controlled demolition techniques were involved
in all three bldgs
It is noted in some journals and the media that the 9/11 airplane impacts were so
unusual, so unprecedented, that of course we should NOT be surprised if our pre-
existing models break down. Where this statement is guide us toward accepting
the dismissal of the basic laws of physics and forego a detailed investigation of the
incidents and in effect accept the “official story”. If this is in fact true, that the
impacts were so unusual, we need to shift our way of thinking and address
 updated laws, especially the law of gravity, which when I checked the Supreme
Court was not able to change.
Consider:
1): If the planes are to be held responsible for the collapses, they were acting
solely through a combination of damage plus fire – not the initial fuel explosion,
and not the force of the impact.
2): The WTC building were specifically designed to withstand a jet impact
3): The steel used was rated to 2000°F for up to 6-hours, there is considerable
evidence that the fires could not have burned anywhere near that hot, much less
of 6-hours [WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed after 1 hour, 41 minutes, 51 seconds and 0
hours, 55 minutes, 51 seconds respectively] and we won’t even reference WTC-7
which is considered a special case.
4): No structural steel building has ever, before or since 9/11 collapsed due to fire
5): Despite not having any historical reason to think that the building would
collapse (having survived the initial impact), and despite the conclusion of the
9/11 Commission Report that “none of the fire chiefs present believed that a total
collapse of either tower was possible”, there is considerable evidence of
foreknowledge that this was not only going to happen but was imminent
Foreknowledge: On a live British TV program on 9/11 the announcers
reported that the WTC web site had been updated with an explanation of the
1st collapse and a warning that the 2 nd tower would be collapsing as well – this
broadcast also mentions a couple of other terrorist incidents not mentioned
elsewhere and also that a car bomb was noted outside the State Department
in Washington DC – and that there was an explosion in a downtown DC
shopping mall.
The Office Emergency Management pre-warned the emergency responders of
the buildings collapse …
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oem_wtc.html?
q=oem_wtc.html

Much had/has been made of the evidence of the controlled demolition of the
buildings, in this consider:
1): The explosive outward force of the twin tower collapses CANNOT be explained
by the weight of the material above
2): Squibs are seen in multiple videos and photos (individual expulsions of
material several floors away from the current point of collapse
3): Each floor is seen to explode in a sequence which seems very regular and
even if this is due solely to gravity, shouldn’t the explosions start smaller and get
larger and faster?
4): If the collapse was due entirely to gravity, why were the buildings so
completely pulverized, except for a few vertical metal girders?
Even as a non-certified structural engineer or expert you and I really should
consider some of the following questions:
If the pulverization of the buildings was due to the “grinding action” of the falling
block of building on the fixed lower block:
How did the falling block remain sufficiently intact to destroy all the
remaining floors below it and then suddenly disintegrate into un-recognizable
rubble at street level?
 If the falling block was being abraded at the same time as it abraded the
fixed block, why didn’t the destruction stop after the approximated height of
the falling block?
If the falling block was somehow being abraded more SLOWLY than the fixed
block, how did it happen that it disintegrated just fast enough to completely
destroy the fixed block and itself?
And what mechanism caused this un-equal disintegration?
And even if the ratio happened to be just right in one tower, how was it
exactly right in the other one?
How did multiple steel girders end up embedded HORIZONTALLY (throw
outward, not down) into neighboring buildings?
Why were their outside structures, which were not as strong as the core, the
ones which survived?
Why did the collapse follow the path of the MOST resistance, collapsing
through the intact lower floors rather than toppling?
Why did the resulting rubble look nothing like any other steel-frame building
collapse in history?
How was such a relatively short, low-key fire well within the steel’s fire-rating
able to uttlerly destroy two steel-frame buildings when steel-frame buildings
have previously been engulfed in flame for many hours (long past their fire
rating) without collapse?
Explosions (other than the impacts and collapses) were both reported and
captured on audio recording and seismographs – raised a myriad of questions which
demanded answers, where the reports were NOT PROOF, of course, but if they were
not explosive charges, then some plausible alternate explanation needs to be found
for each one. One credible witness the Chief of Safety for the NYC Fire Department
Albert Turi is quoted as saying there were additional explosions, he believed there
were devices planted in the buildings, in addition there was at least one description
of the front of the WTC being sheared off, which does not match any photographs or
videos, but how do we explain the seismic reports from a nearby observatory.

As some have seen, the videos of the North Tower show its communications mast
falling first, which indicate to the professionals that the “central support columns”
must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse, where everything “went
simultaneously”.
One engineer wrote, “If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that
progress to the servering of hundreds of columns?” Rum Hamburger, a structural
engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, “That’s the $64,000 question.”
Another professional replied, “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put
explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the
structure.”
Seismographs at the Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, New York (21-miles north of the WTC) recorded STRANGE seismic activity
on Sept 11th, that has still not have been explained. The Palisades seismic data
recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South
Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower
at 10:28:31.
The record shows, as the collapse began, a huge seismic “spike” marked the
moment the greatest energy went into the ground. In other words, the STRONGEST
jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, WELL BEFORE the falling
debris struck the earth. These un-explained “spikes” in the seismic data lend
credence to the theory that MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS at the base of the towers caused
the collapses.

Thorne Lay of the University of California at Santa Cruz said, “sharp spike of short
duration” as if an underground nuclear explosion appears on the seismograph. The
two un-explained spikes are more than 20-times the amplitude of the other seismic
waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic
recording as the buildings began to fall.
Arthur Lerner-Lam (Director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk
Research) said that a 10-fold increase in “wave amplitude” indicates a 100-fold
increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,” REFLECT “the
interaction between the ground and the building foundation,” this according to a
report from Columbia Earth Institute. He also said, “Only a small fraction of the
energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion.”
“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a
gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7th, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology
Group reported on Sept 14th, 2001.
Won-Young Kim (Palisades seismologist) also said that the seismographs
registered daily underground explosions (such as on the 11th) from a quarry 20-
miles away, blasts there were caused by 80,000 lb of ammonium nitrate causing
quakes that were in the Magnitude of 1 and 2, he also reported that the 1993 truck-
bomb at the WTC DID NOT register because the truck was NOT directly coupled to
the ground.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves PEAKED before the towers hit the
ground, and at during the time immediately (or shortly thereafter) said, “This is an
element of current research and discussion and is still being investigated.” Lerner-
Lam said, “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was
EXTREMELY SMALL.”
So it appears that the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers
was many times MORE powerful than the TOTAL POTENIAL ENERGY released by the
falling mass of the huge towers. Naturally, experts of the “official” side of the story
maintained that the seismic record was misinterpreted! NATURALLY!

The preceding is just ONE piece of evidence that more than meets the eyes of you and I was
involved in the collapse of those two towers, this evidence coupled with some circumstantial
evidence that there were multiple reports of unusual activity in the Twin Towers during the
weeks before Sept 11th, 2001, strangely the security of the complex was the responsibility of one
of President Bush’s brothers, Marvin P Bush who was a PRINCIPAL in Securacom2.
One David Brin, suggested that the CLEAN NATURE of the collapses were a product of
superior design, in order not to inflict damage on the surrounding neighborhood – and to prevent
a domino effect…no information supporting this assertion has surfaced to-date.
The “free-fall” nature of all three collapses fits into two categories, 1. Inadequate explanation
and 2. Controlled demolition. Whereas the buildings collapsed in about the same amount of time
as it would take an object in a free-fall to drop from the point of impact, but damaged buildings
do NOT collapse in vertical free-fall.
Strong consideration should be given to the impact of the planes, if they are to be held
responsible for the collapses where at the time of impact there were three forces working towards
the destruction of the towers.
1) Initial impact (the plane’s inertia tending to push the building in one direction
2) The force of the explosion
3) Structural damage from the impact and explosion
The first two forces were ONLY in effect for a few seconds, so all that remained by the time of
the collapse was structural damage, agree?

At the end-of-the-day, to measure the discontent with the finding of the US Government,
which caused the published document 9/11 Commission Report, we find a growing number of
professionals extremely dissatisfied with its conclusions. Lately the number is not only un-
happy with the results of the Commission and its task force, we now watch their numbers
growing exponentially and in doing so, attracting the guy in the street. Granted there are many
sites on the Internet listing their points-of-view, but now when you Google the net you’ll find not
only numerous URLs, now they contain some fairly clear and precise questions.
As an engineer the one particular discrepancy that smacks me between the eyes is the “official
story” that says the steel in the building melted at a low-level heat temperature, or at best the
low-level fire melted the connection joints, the 2nd incident or record is the seismographs and that
the officials of the government tell us that the experts who examine seismic records from around
the world haven’t got a clue when it comes to Sept 11th, 2001 and the records from just 21-miles
distant.
In reading the rebuttals to the preceding, you will find a short vague sentence refuting the
question, than volumes and volumes on the individuals background, down to when they spit on
their kindergarten teacher a number of years ago, which they claim is twisting his vision of the
world.
You must draw your own conclusion, just as I – we have been stooged!

2
http://www.iwilltryit.com/marvin1.htm