Chris Mohr's Video Rebuttals to
9/11: Blueprint for Truth
Responses by Controlled Demolition Advocates

Regarding the Destruction of the World Trade Center
Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001

A Respectful Online Debate based on Chris Mohr's Research Videos
inspired by his debate with Richard Gage, AIA of AE911Truth

Please click video links below left at the beginning of each section and
watch the video before reading these reasons so the responses make sense to you,
for the best educational experience.   
ChrisMohr911.com

Controlled Demolition Advocates

Part 0:

Before viewing Chris Mohr's rebuttal, it is necessary to see the video he is rebutting so you can see for yourself what it says.
2 hr version  Here
1 hr version  Here

The statement implies that Gage is engaging in "reverse science".
When 9/11 truth activists use the term "reverse science", they are talking about NIST starting with a conclusion and trying to get the data to fit that conclusion while ignoring all the evidence that is in conflict with that conclusion. NIST hand waves all the reports of explosions and molten iron because it doesn't fit their pre conceived natural collapse theory. 
Part 0 @5:46  Mohr: "MIT professor Thomas Eagar  remarked, quote: 'These people use the reverse scientific method. They determine what happened, throw out all the debate data that doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.' " 
Gage believed the natural collapse theory until he looked at the evidence.

This insulting comment subtly links Gage to ridiculous theories.
Part 0 @6:33 "He (NIST representative Michael Newman) also did not look for mini-nukes, post star wars energy rays, aliens, missiles, holograms or other alleged sources of the WTC collapses. To Richard Gage, this is the reverse scientific method.

None of the earlier  fires were anywhere near the size and scope of the fires caused by the 282,000 pound planes full of jet fuel crashing into the buildings at 500 mph then exploding!!!

Here is another list of scientific articles (the compiler says peer-reviewed) that helped shape the common narrative of the Towers' collapses: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7433709&postcount=1474

Dozens of Civil and structural engineering organizations worldwide in support of NIST Report and how their policies were changed by it: http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Thorough explanation of many aspects of WTC Collapses:

Ryan Mackey: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking”: https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey

The World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 had already sustained several serious fires, such as 13-Feb-1975 in WTC 1 on floors 9-14, 19-May-1975 in WTC 2 on floors 25-36, plus a bombing in 1993, with no collapse . 
Loose Change video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3MN9382eGY 55:00

Planes do not land at speeds near 500 mph!  Pilots say it would be very difficult.
It is difficult to hit a building the first time at such speeds. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToxQVq-Lg 
"I couldn't do it" - fight instructor and seasoned pilot Adam Shaw

False comparison: if the steel on  a single floor of WTC towers was 10x greater than the plane, so what? The plane was going 500 mph and cut through a lot of steel, then exploded and started massive, uncontrollable fires. When the steel weakened, all that weight had enormous gravitational momentum as the huge static load became a completely unsupportable dynamic load (30x greater after only one story!). The weight of the steel is an argument in favor of progressive collapse.

One of the claims that Trusters often submit is that the weight of the plane contributed significantly to the collapse of the towers. 

The fires were not "uncontrollable".  Orio Palmer, a fire fighter is recorded on the 78th floor saying "We have two isolated pockets of fire. We can knock it out with two lines" meaning hoses.  Seconds later, the remote detonation of explosives began, and he died, along with numerous firemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orio_Palmer

Damage to the core's fireproofing due to the impact was significant. Load distribution/redistribution is not linear re-allocation; 25% columns cut uniformly increases remaining column loadings by 33%.

If you are sitting on a four legged chair and cut one leg, one of the remaining legs bears almost no load while the other two bear almost the rest of the weight.

Thomas Eagar strongly rejects the 9/11 controlled demolition theory, accusing its advocates of employing "reverse scientific method." He is correct that the number of columns lost was not large enough in and of itself to cause progressive collapse. But as I say in this video, that is only the beginning.

Kevin Ryan's assertion (see link on right)  that there is no evidence that fire insulation was stripped off seems based on NIST claims that the plane disintegrated symmetrically into "buckshot." The scenario of asymmetrical destruction of the planes, still allows for asymmetrical stripping of insulation.  Remember, this is sprayed-on and drywall insulation, not concrete reinforcement like you find in many other tall structures.

NIST's actual investigations into core damage are explained in detail starting on page 19 of Ryan Mackey's paper, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking":

https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey. Also on page 15, the core damage to the Pentagon (which stood intact) proves that the broken-up pieces of the shattered plane parts caused a pattern of damage to the core very similar to the damage theorized in the NIST Report.

Cutoff of water sprinklers is not the central reason for the collapse of the towers, but it is one more reason why this was an ever-growing, unfought fire above the crash zone. Look at how much more smoke was pouring out of the buildings 45 minutes after the collapse than five minutes after. The claim, "the fires went out, even without water" is simply untrue.  Fire burned out in some areas but had expanded to 14 stories in the course of a single hour!

Not all the pipes were cut by the planes.

As the fire expanded in one area, it burnt out in the others.  The place where Edna was standing was where the first plane entered.  The fire completely burned out. She and others were able to stand there.  No "huge flames" are visible there. 

No repeatable experiment shows that steel significantly loses its load bearing strength in under an hour of heat at the temperature jet fuel burns.

The collapses initiated at floors with minimal damage.
See: www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/
FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

This NIST quote to the right is accurate but irrelevant. The point being debated is that the fires were fast-moving and grew quickly.

Yes, explosions radiating in every directions means explosives were used.
For sounds of explosions this should be used:
www.ae911truth.org/news-section/
41-articles/574-faq-7.html

According to NIST: “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.” –NCSTAR 1-6, pg. 322 and 338
Point 10 for more

Correction: My estimate of 90,000 liters was not from NIST, which reports the fuel mass to be 
WTC1: between 66,100 lb and 69,300 lb = 29,745 - 31,185 kg = ~36,300 - ~38,000 L
WTC2: between 62,000 lb and 65,100 lb = 27,900 - 29,295 kg = ~34,000 - ~35,700 L
Total: ~70,000 - 74,000 L

Flames do not go down elevators shafts.
Flames rise.
No repeatable experiments show flames can go down shafts.

NIST has no evidence the steel reached these temperatures.  See:  www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/
Falsifiability.pd

Here is Leslie Robertson's full quote on BBC:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707.  The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again.  First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier.  But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy.  Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. [Sic; actually triple velocity means nine times the kinetic energy.]

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered.  But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully, fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft.  Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two. [19]

According to the lead WTC engineer John Skilling: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
See: community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/
archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698#loop

The long-span trusses in the WTC Towers created vast open spaces on every floor. You can see this for yourself in this photo of the WTC Towers when the sun shined through them.  This is an unprecedented design, much airier than any skyscraper ever built before. Those long trusses experienced thermal expansion to a degree never before seen in an office fire, which triggered inward bowing  to a degree never before seen.

More on inward bowing:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8505476&postcount=33

Here is a great computer model of the collapse of the towers:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_J7ak_IZXk

Other factors to consider: More fuel exploded outside South Tower; Column strength stronger at lower levels. Fires were clearly more severe in North Tower.

There were 6 floors of fire in WTC2 and 8 floors of fire in WTC1.

The piles were evidently very hot after the collapses. See:
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

The outward velocity of debris was very great.  See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A

Perhaps not, but demolition devices were clearly placed further down.

Maybe not, but there is stronger evidence of explosives at lower levels.

See point 29.
Other factors to consider: More fuel exploded outside South Tower; Column strength stronger at lower levels. Fires were clearly more severe in North Tower.

Firemen remarked on how odd it was that 3 months after the collapse, the rubble was still so hot.

The collapses initiated at floors with minimal damage.  See point 9.

Part 2:

Although Richard Gage said "total" dismemberment, it was a figure of speech not ideal for use in a debate. (Californians use the word "totally" a lot).  Terms like "total", "none", "never" and "always" are too easy to defeat with one example.  Ok, let's say there is still abundant dismemberment - more than would be expected from a natural collapse.

The buildings were clearly destroyed beyond repair.

Protec controlled demolition company says this does NOT look like a controlled demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/
Article-WTC STUDY 08-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

 

Minimal damage not only happens in classic controlled demolition (see
videos in reason #45 for examples in which there's minimal damage to
adjacent buildings in several cases of collapse by fire). But regardless
of that, it wasn't the case for the collapses that happened in 9/11. All
7 buildings of the World Trade Center complex were completely destroyed,
and then several more were severely damaged, some beyond repair,
including the Verizon building, which suffered damages that cost more
than 1 billion dollars to repair, and the Fiterman Hall building at 30
West Broadway that was affected beyond repair and had to be demolished,
both examples being the result of the collapse of WTC7, despite the
claim of being "controlled".

Fiterman Hall damage:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/
WTC30WBroadwayDamagefromWTC7.jpg

Verizon building damage example:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/
WTCVerizonBuildingDamagefromWTC7.jpg

Article relating the demolition of Fiterman Hall and the preparation for
the rebuilding:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-23/news/
17939336_1_fiterman-hall-manhattan-community-college-dust-and-mold

Could the damage be due to an error in the execution? Such an error is
not frequent in known controlled demolitions. The case for a controlled
demolition, therefore, is weak.

Also, except for some more subtle details such as the fall of the east
penthouse a few seconds prior to the fall of the façade and some more
subtle ones, the collapse happened to actually look like a classic
controlled demolition. It would be a silly thing to do to make it look
like that instead of something with a less obvious look, like in the
case of the towers, which started to fall from the top down, something
that is very unusual in demolitions

Dust is common in any building fall, no matter the cause. As
stated in Reason #45, these are not characteristics unique to
demolitions, and therefore are not in any way hallmarks of explosive
demolition. The same examples from Reason #45 exhibit such dust clouds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-6Sp7mKlQ

These collapses by fire also exhibit: Sudden Onset of Destruction
(characteristic #1 purportedly unique to explosive demolitions),
Straight-down, symmetrical collapse onto the footprint (#2), Minimal
Damage to Adjacent Structures (#6), Enormous clouds of pulverized
concrete (#8).

The collapse of the TU Delft architecture faculty building also
exhibited clear "squibs" (#9), see this image:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/
bouwkunde-explosion.jpg

No, it is not impossible.  The demolitions were covert and set up to avoid effects from the planes and fires.  See:
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access

In addition, the link above right asserts explosives "two orders of magnitude," or at least 100 times more energetic, than regular CDs. This is a mind-boggling and unsupported claim. Same with the claim that the explosives could have been disguised as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles. There is no evidence for such a supposition.

I admit that "nothing is impossible,"  even the existence of unicorns. A better way of saying my original reason in the box above may have been, "The term Controlled Demolition by definition means that variables are eliminated, so that term contradicts the fact that variables like plane crashes and unfought fires added enormous random elements to the destruction of the Towers."

Tom Sullivan also agrees that fires could not have caused what we saw.  The demolitions were evidently successful.

There was no "raging fire and jets crashing" at 5:20 pm  when WTC 7 collapsed.

There were explosive sounds from the Tower collapses.  See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EseUt2LUan4#t=11m0s

The argument that there were so many explosions that they sounded like a
continuous noise does not make sense. The kind of explosions necessary
to cut steel, for which explosives much stronger than TNT are needed,
like RDX or HMX, would have deafened everyone nearby. This video shows a
reporter very close to WTC2 at the moment of its collapse, whose voice
can be clearly heard  above the collapse sound, something that would
have been impossible if these were actually such explosives. He's one of
the hundreds of people who would have been deafened. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IvicKnhANs

Another one is David Lim. Lim was a Port Authority Police Department
(PAPD) member, and part of a small group of people who were inside the
North Tower at the time it collapsed, and survived. Neither he nor
anyone in the group was deafened or dismembered by any explosions.
Instead, he told the 9/11 Commission how he heard the floors pancaking
and the wind caused by the compression pushing down as the tower
collapsed. David Lim's testimony is here:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing1/
9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-03-31.htm

The relevant excerpt:
"And you could feel the wind of pushing down as they were compressing
through the building, you could hear the sound. It was like an
on-rushing locomotive or an avalanche. You could almost feel the sound
of the floors pancaking on top of each other as they were collapsing."

 

The ejections from the Towers do have discernable patterns.

The squib ejections increase their volume and speed over time. That can't be the effect of an explosion, whose expansion stops basically immediately, and the ejections from explosions don't increase in intensity.

The "discernible patterns" are not claimed by everyone: Gage tells us the squibs came from between the columns, then David Chandler shows squibs coming right out of the corner columns. Some 9/11 Truth posts say the squibs may be explosive charges accidentally going off at random while others say no there is a pattern to them. Their patterns look mostly random to me: one on this floor, one from an entirely unaligned window on another floor, etc. The exceptions are the squibs running down the corners just below the collapses, which David Chandler points out and which look like the moment of destruction of the columnar support and air/dust consequently being pushed out of that floor a small fraction of a second before it is engulfed by the rest of the building.  Recently another pattern has been pointed out to me in the squibs: they were aligned with corridors within the core, where dust may have been pushed from the upper floors during collapse via stairwells, elevator shafts, ventilation ducts and more: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8437599&postcount=5906

These are squibs at points where 1/2 million cubic feet of air per floor are being squeezed out of the building at up to 14 floors per second during maximum collapse velocity. Where did all that air go if it didn't "pop out" through all this squibs?

See also assertion #3 here: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

For sounds of explosions this should be used:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/
574-faq-7.html
Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds.  See and listen for yourself at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

My claim of 140db sounds from 1/2 mile away comes from the NIST Report and is true of traditional controlled demolitions. If 9/11Truth asserts that there MAY be quieter explosives, we need some strong proof that thermitic materials were used (there is no physical evidence of tons of thermitic materials being used), and some quantifiable statements about how much the volume can be reduced, etc. In addition, how can "quiet" explosions cause alleged lateral ejections of steel up to 600 feet (I doubt this even happened but Gage claims it did)? Do the articles about quiet thermitic explosions deal with this question? In other words, this claim is highly speculative at best.

Explosives act by overpressure, which produces both their destructive power, and the smoke/dust ejection. Reduced noise -> no squibs. Squibs -> deafening loud noise at that very instant (plus the sound propagation delay). Also, the claim that the building can resist the impact of a plane, severing many columns, but not an explosive cutting charge centered in a a squib's small area and cutting probably just one column makes no sense.

More on explosive sounds from a CD company: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Richard Gage tries to have it both ways with quiet and loud explosions. Here is a recent debate that points this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk

They can't tear down the world's tallest buildings in secret in an entirely new way while a raging fire is going on, tossing in two crashing 767s to randomize structural damage and make the feat even more virtuosic.

There are demolition experts who believe the Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with explosives.  See:
www.DemolitionExpertsQuestion911.blogspot.com

Not only has no CD company come out in support of the 9/11 Truth theory, Protec went to the trouble of explaining in detail why the collapse of the WTC Buildings was NOT a CD: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

The stronger the materials, the more resistant they are to collapse.

On 9/11 two jets crashed into the two World Trade Center towers, and stood for nearly an hour with no problem holding the weight above.
The fires were only "massive" for a few seconds.  They cooled off enough for people (such as Edna Cinton) to stand in the very places the fires started.

The mechanism of collapse is well understood and doesn't rely on high temperatures everywhere.

Leslie Robertson, principal designer of WTC towers, has stated that the towers were designed to withstand plane impact (which they did) but not the ensuing fires from all the fuel in the jets.

The fires were massive, kept growing in size, and were terrible for Edna Cinton and others at first she could stand at a cooler side of the fires because the planes had pushed the combustibles towards the other side of the building, but eventually conditions became unbearable for her, as I have said before:
11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/08/le-vittime-dell11-settembre-i-suicidi.html.

A major controlled demolition firm weighs in on the "never before" claim: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Deft University

The collapse of the Delft University is similar to the WTC, but the differences clearly outweigh the similarities.
See:
911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/
chrismohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html

Most notably, most of the building was still standing after the fire and collapse of one section.

I never said "freefall," I said "very fast," which also describes the WTC Tower collapses which were also nowhere near freefall (more like 70%); I acknowledge that the whole building didn't collapse, but assert that the part that did collapse fell straight down mostly into its own footprint; and I call Delft a tall building, not a massive skyscraper. In addition, if Delft collapsed more slowly, that may be because the concrete and steel structure offered more resistance than the steel-only structure of the Twin Towers, and there was less weight bearing down on them and therefore less dynamic load. I believe the comparison is valid and teaches us something about how collapsing buildings (or big parts of them, in the case of the multi-parted Delft Building) behave. In my video I predict that 9/11 Truth people will look for dissimilarities and deny my comparison, and they did.

I acknowledge that the building did not collapse globally in my video, yet this fact is still being used as an argument against any Delft comparison. This misses my point about what did happen in the part of the building which did collapse.

None of these structures are fair comparisons to the WTC buildings. See:
citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/
2011/06/otherbuildingcollapses-1.pdf

The above paper by Adam Taylor includes a building by building comparison of:
• Site and Sound Theater
• McCormick Place
• Kader Toy Factory
• Mumbai High North Platform
• Interstate 580
• World Trade Center 5
• Dogwood Elementary School
• Windsor Tower
• Faculty of Architecture Building

Windsor fire mentioned above right as an example of a building that did not collapse due to fire: unprotected steel columns buckled in fire: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7597805&postcount=2898

More videos of collapses by fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-6Sp7mKlQ - all these examples feature: Sudden Onset of Destruction (point 1), Straight-down, near-symmetrical collapse onto the footprint (2), Minimal Damage to Adjacent Structures (6), Enormous clouds of pulverized concrete

Balsa wood tower demonstrates simultaneous collapse of supports: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk

See point 57.   CitizenFor911truth.files.wordpress.com/
2011/06/otherbuildingcollapses-1.pdf

We certainly did not see that the concrete held together at the WTCs on 9/11.  It was pulverized into fine dust, from the pre-planted explosives.

Suggested point #61: Sagging Steel beam in a regular fire
See point 60.

Sagging and weakening steel DID cause the buildings to collapse for the first time: the other high-rises that stood through fires all had concrete reinforcement; none of the high rises had very long-span trusses for large open spaces (in fact, in a major fire in a big store in the Sofa Superstore in South Carolina, expansion of long-span trusses was given as a reason for the ceiling collapse); none were hit by a large jet full of fuel at 500mph; all or almost all were fought by firefighters, etc. Traditional fires in traditional skyscrapers make for false comparisons. This was a first in many ways.

Steel does have somewhat lower conductivity than other metals. But compared to non-metallic material its conductivity is high. NIST evidently did not correctly factor steel conductivity in their simulations. See:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
index.html#conduction

True. But the fires in the Towers appear to have been less severe than the fires in other skyscrapers that didn’t collapse.

Steel can fail from fire, but it has never caused the total collapse of a steel skyscraper.

More importantly, I asked this question (above) of Richard Gage and he said that fireproofing makes steel "indestructible in fires." My followup question: so do you oppose the extra safety regulations suggested by NIST and implemented and approved internationally by fire safety organizations? Yes, he said, they are a waste of money. "That really scares me. I think my life and the life of everyone in this room is worth the extra fire protections NIST has advised." This I consider the low point of our debate.

An example of how fire safety experts are using the 9/11 catastrophe to create safer buildings:  http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/structdesfire.htm

They accelerated at 2/3 free-fall. The acceleration shows that some sort of external force removed the column strength. See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk

Here is an analysis of the inaccuracies in David Chandler's explanations of the physics of the WTC collapses:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm

Dynamic Load 31 times greater than static load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SozKaHYD85Q

Here's another video showing how and why the buildings collapsed fast but less than freefall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2cvW2YfvfM&feature=player_embedded

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8380815&postcount=5543

The 'Missing Jolt' paper has been rebutted many times. In simple terms it is wrong because it is premised on a misapplication of Bazant's explanations of theoretical models and applies the model to the real event outside the validity of Bazant's assumptions. Setting aside the false relationship to Bazant and NIST claims the central error in Missing Jolt is that it assumes that columns of the top portion of tower fell through a gap and should have landed on the lower portion of the column below. That is wrong - a misuse of Bazant's assumptions for a theoretical model which is not valid when applied to the real event in the way claimed in 'Missing Jolt'. It is wrong because when the tower top portion started to fall the top portion column ends were either already past their complementary lower part and too late to impact onto it or were portions of buckled failed columns which would not impart significant jolt inducing resistance of they did contact. And such contact would inevitably end up in a momentary 'glance off' contact.

The force of that first "jolt" hitting whatever portion of thee lower portion of the Tower it hit would slow the descent only a little bit more than a house of cards would slow down my fist! The deceleration from the collision would not be measurable using the observations graphed into Figure 4. It's like a digital CD, with a series of imperceptible "steps" representing the music; at 44,000 "steps" a second the ear hears the "curve" of the original sound. The sudden decelerations along the acceleration curve are happening over ten times a second as floor after floor very quickly break under the strain.

I hate to bring up the "peer-reviewed" argument again, but here is another example: Bazant's papers were peer-reviewed. The NIST Report was peer-reviewed four times and re-tested many times thereafter. "Peer-review" is not just a badge of honor or a club for me to use against my opponents; it means that the paper has at least enough credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community. In Bazant's case, some of what he has written has been supplanted by more thorough research by NIST and others, so people on both sides of the argument do believe there are flaws in his work. But this "missing jolt" rebuttal article (above right)  on the 9/11 Truth link) has no  "peer review" at all, except maybe on some debunker blogger posts!

Yes. See:
www.sealane.org/writings/newSTCsub.pdf

The impact may have affected the way the top fell. But it is what happened below that is significant.

No, they wouldn’t. See:
911research.wtc7.net/faq/
demolition.html#positioning

The explosives could have been set to avoid the areas where the plane struck. Also, see point 9.

: Patents for thermite bombs give little in the way of valuable leads:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231441&page=11

Toppling can produce a lateral force that increases as the center of mass is laterally displaced from the fulcrum.

The lower sections didn’t start to collapse until the upper sections were destroyed.

Ryan Mackey: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking”: https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey

Tilts often happen in demolitions. See:
www.youtube.com/playlist?
list=PL4B4EE5DA2B118EAC

Gage claims "symmetrical" collapse, but if the three WTC collapses were symmetrical, why did all this happen?

WTC 3 : The structure was destroyed on September 11, 2001 in the collapse of the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center.

WTC 4 : It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished ...

WTC 5 : It suffered severe damage and partial collapse on its upper floors as a result of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The entire building was demolished by January 2002

WTC 6 : Debris from the North tower fell on and around 6 WTC, digging a deep crater into the building's basement, setting it alight. The building's ruins were demolished to make way for reconstruction.

Visual evidence of no lateral ejections but rather walls falling outward 600 feet: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7525104&postcount=2430

Another picture of no lateral ejection: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7526236

A detailed explanation of the perimeter falling 600 feet away:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc2-perimeter-action-recorded-t167-150.html

Picture of wall section peeling away: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7551253

Wall peeling away videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7GWYK5AMKY

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7523908&postcount=2397

   (at the bottom of this post click "Close This Window" to get much more information and many more photos offering evidence of this centrally important claim).

was 88

This is suspicious because the collapse was encountering increasing resistance, because the lower floors were constructed to be stronger, to hold the greater weight above.  The top floors were weaker than the bottom.

was 87

So this wind blew 4+ ton steel beams and columns over 500 feet away?

As a result I need to withdraw the "wind did it" claim as an inferior explanation of the phenomenon of steel beams lodging in nearby buildings.

The columns don’t appear to have flexed outward. They shoot out in a horizontal direction perfectly straight.

IF Lateral Ejection Happened, here is how gravity could have caused it:

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jlDghGhVhWk#!

The ejections do seem to have a discernable
pattern. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

Some of them happened before. See point 52.

Not true. See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64rlnaCqY8

There was no need for thermite at the top.  The effect was carefully planned to look as if the top section was a "pile driver"

MIT Review: Military Reloads with Nanotech - Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier.   It doesn't take as much explosives as it used to.

Parts of the debris evidently were extremely hot right after the collapses. See:
911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/
GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf pg. 27

True. But the heat from the dust clouds may have not only been caused by the fires.

Collapse videos of WTC Buildings, none with loud explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5tNhnTBzSyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFSF2VyaoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XH_Lv_sevwY#!


And what about WTC1 and 2? We have numerous 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o


http://youtu.be/smreRx51cus
 I hear a steady rising progressive rumble turn into a roar. This is not what any explosive demolition sounds like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28

Explosion misquotes: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

Summary of NIST’s estimates of explosive sounds: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7420118&postcount=1270

No explosions as Building 7 collapses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo

Sounds of explosions in other fires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizurbqG50U#!

Landmark Tower explosive collapse audible from 1/2 mile away even with helicopter noise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhaTHN3McXY&feature=player_embedded

On 9/11, Hursley Lever said he heard an explosion and then said it was probably a transformer exploding:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q

Explosions in fires: here’s one caused by a huge backdraft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nItMYK-1vBM

1. Barry Jennings didn’t sustain any blast injuries at all, how is that possible if he was truly caught in such a huge explosive blast?

2. What explosives can destroy heavy steel and concrete but not even destroy someone’s ear drums?

3. What kind of demolition works by setting off an explosive and then 7 hours later the building collapses?

4. Why weren't there any sounds of detonations caught on tape when the buildings collapsed despite them being in the right position to do so?

Here is more information about the "explosive" qualities of nanothernmite: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7002403

Protec was working other jobs in Manhattan on 9/11. They had seismic sensors already set up. Those sensors were recording throughout the day.  They recorded the planes' impacts. They recorded the collapse of the buildings. If there had been any explosions to sever any buildings columns, there is no way that those recorders would have missed them.  And yet ... nothing recorded.

And the explosive sounds they might create can easily be mistaken for explosives by the untrained. Other examples, including  Wind sounds compared to explosions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJKY_-wf_HE&feature=plcp&context=
C39a72dcUDOEgsToPDskJjtZpwUESPZHURCKPJ7K3d

How much energy in the Tower fires? The jet fuel had the same heat energy as over 310 tons of TNT. Burning office contents in WTC I added up to the heat energy of 1.9 kilotons of TNT; in WTC 2 the heat energy equaled 717 tons of TNT. That's the total heat energy of around 3 kilotons (3000 tons) of TNT when you add all three together! Once you get into kiloton measurements you are in the range of small nuclear weapons for heat energy.

A controlled demolition firm has this to say about molten steel at WTC: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Molten steel/metal reports from regular fires are common: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8555154&postcount=127

Dave Thomas creates iron-rich microspheres with cigarette lighter (not identical to iron-rich spheres at WTC debris but a simple demonstration of how there is nothing unique about these spheres in regular fires): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys&feature=player_embedded

Also:
Fireman: "molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you are in a foundary...like lava, a volcano"
"The fires got very intense down there actually melted beams, where there was molten steel that was dug up."
"Fused elements of steel, molten steel...like a chunk of lava"
Ken Holden, NY Dept of Design and Construction Director: "under ground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped" on CSPAN
A cross was melted together by the intense heat.

The chief designer of steel buildings must know about how steel behaves at all possible temperatures.  He was the structural engineer for the U.S. Steel Tower in Pittsburgh in 1970.  So now he suddenly doesn't know steel?

After changing his story to go along with the official "weak" WTCs, rather than being shunned for "faulty design", Leslie Robertson Associates, has been thriving, awarded numerous multi-million dollar projects worldwide, many in Dubai, Saudi Arabia (thankful for US invasion of Iraq) such as the Emirates Headquarters, Canal Point, Nakheel Tall Tower.  In addition he designed 101 floor Shanghai World Financial Center in 2002.  LERA was awarded the contract for rebuilding of the WTC Freedom Tower!

If he was such a "bad designer" of the first WTC buildings, why was he repeatedly chosen again from the competition by Larry Silverstein?  Why did he receive the ASCE award in 2003 for lifetime achievement, and Doctorate from Notre Dame in 2003, and become a millionaire, if his design caused over 3000 deaths?  Which is he, a good or bad designer?  You can't have it both ways. Or is he bad when it is convenient to be bad, otherwise he can do no wrong?

even if there were molten steel in the basement it could not have been the molten "steel": from the level 80 cascade event. No way it would fall, reconstitute into separate heaps in the basements AND remain molten weeks later.

The ad hominem attack against Leslie Robertson is abhorrent to me. You use innuendo and questioning, a kind of passive "Just asking" stance. If you have evidence against him besides the fact that he retracted his original "molten steel" mistake (and explained that he is not a metallurgist), state your charges publicly and be prepared to defend against a slander charge by proving your statement to be true. No respectable journalist would author such innuendo and no legitimate editor would ever allow such material to go to press.

Thermite also burns very very brightly, and would be a blinding series of flashes for 15-45 seconds throughout the buildings during and after collapse, globally:

Here's a video demonstration of thermite. Note that it burns extremely brightly, shining through smoke, and it burns a good 15-20 seconds or so, so it would shine like the sun in the debris pile even after the chaotic collapse, making a coverup of the thermite impossible. It also shows you the kind of residue it leaves behind (a whole mess of aluminum oxide, which was not found in the WTC debris pile):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&
v=rdCsbZf1_Ng#!

Much of the fuel was actually recovered at Ground Zero. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/
GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf pg. 70

10-12 stories?  Where are they in the photo of the remains of the WTC lobby (see left)?   Are you counting the basement stories below ground?  The debris pile is not even higher than the vertical support columns of the lobby level, which was about 2 floors in height. 

Iron-rich spheres can be created at room temperature by exposure to sea water!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925838808006567

Micrograph from article http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/nastenka/#spheres.jpg

Oxides created on stainless steel when heated to 750C: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010938X11000485

Photos: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/nastenka/#whiskers.jpg and http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/nastenka/#whiskers2.jpg

Leftysergeant also argues that sulphuric acid itself could have been the cause, as there were quite some plausible sources:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...26#post6580126

And the case for thermate is much weaker:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...30#post6543430
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...76#post6546476

This cannot account for the abundance of spheres found.
 

  Remember, it is COMMON to see molten metal in fires and also EXPECTED to be there. You say, yes but they also reported molten steel!!! Once again, people reporting melted steel in fires is COMMON, why should it be remarkable that we hear the same reports on 911 and how would they know the difference? Two metallurgists I have talked to personally say they can't eyeball molten metal and ID it correctly, how can laypeople do it?

If the debris were quickly removed and destroyed to cover up all the evidence, then how do the steel samples showing intergranular melting and also the "meteorite" exist in the first place? Why weren't these pieces removed and destroyed? Instead the "meteorite" was in an official museum/memorial for anyone to visit, and the sulfidized steel was written about in the FEMA report complete with pictures recommending further study! Then at the request of FEMA WPI then publicly studied and published a paper about it. Does this seem like something you'd do with evidence that supposedly proves that impossible temperatures only explained by nefarious substances (like thermite) existed on 911? But apart from a few 9/11 truth activists, who else has shown any interest or concern in the sense that they think some nefarious involvement must have been needed in regards to these steel samples or the reports? If they don't care because they know no engineers or scientists will actually follow any of it up, then why make all this other stuff public and why would they have removed the pieces of metal truth activists say were removed, if no one cares about it?

Steel columns showed evidence of attack at the weld connections.

Copper would only be found in the use of conventional explosives, not thermitic explosives.

Much of the Towers were reduced to shrapnel.

This just in: Rich Lee, coauthor of the RJ Lee Report that mentions iron-rich micropsheres, clairified their report in February 2012 in a personal letter, saying "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee"

The iron constituents from fly ash are an oxide rather than elemental iron.

Actually, is evidence of fires approaching 1800 degrees. But there is also evidence of higher temperatures as well. See point 142.

The iron constituents from fly ash are an oxide rather than elemental iron.

Actually, is evidence of fires approaching 1800 degrees. But there is also evidence of higher temperatures as well. See point 142.

WTI Metal Processing Institute Explains Eutectic Sulfidized Steel in Building 7:

http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Research/MPI/News/aninit697.html

More explanation of eutectic steel: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7510267

A major controlled demolition firm found the claim of fast debris removal false: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

NIST does not ever anywhere in the final report actually provide evidence for the plausibility of the alleged 6.25 inch displacement of the girder that allegedly started the collapse of Building 7.
 

an important element that Cole left out in his experiment was water. See for example:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...62#post6610562 where Dave Rogers says: "The source of the corrosive agents may be gypsum from drywall in the building rubble, which is known to decompose at these temperatures and release oxides of sulfur, which will mix with water to produce sulfuric acid."

Leftysergeant also argues that sulfuric acid itself could have been the cause, as there were quite some plausible sources:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...26#post6580126

And the case for thermate is much weaker:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...30#post6543430
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...76#post6546476

Gypsum can and does create sulfur dioxide when burned in an incinerator (see point 155 below). So we know this is possible. The process may well take more than 24 hours. The eutectic steel may have taken a week or more in the hot debris fires to have become corroded in this way. The edges of the steel are thin, sharp, and ragged, just as you get from acid or electrolytic corrosion. Cole did some great experimental work but jumped to the conclusion that his one experiment can prove that eutectic steel cannot be created in the debris pile.

Part 11:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1aWsQLqG54 - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part B of the investigation of alleged thermites/thermates/thermitics in the World Trade Center dust. Go to Part A for introduction to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP8t45iGn8E Was explosive thermitic material really found in the World Trade Center dust? A challenge to submit the dust samples to an independent dust analysis lab for testing.

For more info on the "peer-reviewed" aspect of the Bentham thermite paper, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUGnKCPXQ7w
&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 Update: On February 29, 2012, Jim Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants released a preliminary report about the red-grey chips in an independent analysis he did (a study I organized and which was financed by several 9/11 Truth activists as well as natural collapse advocates like myself):

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

This preliminary report was responded to with a scathing and grossly inaccurate ad hominem attack by Kevin Ryan, a signatory to the original thermite experiment:

Attacks against Jim Millette and Chris Mohr and Chris’s responses (down the page):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86

However, these materials would have chemically fused together due to random events such as fires and collapse. Some mechanism was needed.

The chips cannot be paint. See: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/
2011/04/debunker-debunkers-exploding-paint.html

Chris Mohr has organized a replication study by James Millette PhD
Dr. Millette did NOT find thermitic material    Feb 2012

There is a long-running argument about iron-rich microspheres. Look it up on JREF. Rich Lee of RJ Lee personally weighed in and wrote a letter saying iron-rich spheres don't have to be created at over 2800 degrees F, so the RJ Lee study can't really be used to argue in favor of those super-hot temperatures any more.

Here's why Millette didn’t replicate Bentham DSC test: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8261868&postcount=4457

Response is still in progress.  Here are some initial thoughts:
Dr. Millette's paper does not show the specific locations the WTC dust was taken from, as Drs. Harrit, Jones, Farrer et al did. 
Dr. Millitte does not describe the storage conditions at his company, MVA Scientific, so we can be sure we are comparing "apples to apples".

We are waiting for Dr. Millette's next report regarding iron microspheres.

911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/03/
millette-versus-harrit-et-al-mek-test.html)

Mark Basile is in the process of writing a paper about his study of the WTC dust.
Mark is also finding an independent lab that is agreed on by both sides, such as www.EMSL.com to study the dust.

Bin Laden told Ummat (Pakistani Newspaper) he was not behind the attacks and said "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States..."
http://www.unknownnews.org/OsamaInterview.html
http://firstcontactradio.com/blog/?p=291865

"Confession Video" looks like a fake Bin Laden, too fat, right handed (he is a lefty), wearing a ring (very devout Muslims don't), and the conversation is not definite as a confession.
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html

This does not mean the Towers were not demolished. See: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/
alleged-911-plotters-offer-to-confess.html

That may indeed be an appropriate term.  The real Bin Laden reportedly died of Marfan Syndrome in December 2001.
Fox News December 26, 2001
InfoWars
DailyMail.co.UK Mail online
GlobalResearch.ca
CorbettReport.com/osama-bin-laden-pronounced-dead-for-the-ninth-time/

Those who wanted to set up and blame Bin Laden as the patsy, would have created such videos as "proof".

Agreed.  Some Muslims do wear rings.  Bin Laden did not, however.

In the "Bin Laden Confession Video" he never comes out and says he did it.  He only said it was good.

Chris admits that NIST did not explain the collapse of WTC 7:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=
8114716&postcount=3680

1.) Very loud deafening unmistakable explosions immediately preceding the collapse. [Gage can show only random, local explosions with no apparent further effect, none deafening as no survivors were rendered deaf]

2.) An easily detectible and logical  pattern of squibs, if they appear. [Squibs look random]

3.) Physical evidence of explosives in the debris pile (receivers, wires in most cases, chemical evidence at the ends of the broken steel columns, etc.) [thermite in dust experiment has been thoroughly rebutted above; not one demolition expert found a single piece of evidence of controlled demoltion after months of debris-sifting]]

4.) Physical evidence of preparations for controlled demolition in advance [burnt-metal smells, walls smashed out, noisy preparations that would make work in the WTC buildings impossible)

Much less info can be gleaned from studying the collapse itself. Gage and others point to events in the collapse itself as if that is where much of the most important evidence lies (freefall Building 7, straight down collapse, lateral ejection of heavy objects, etc). To understand all the accusations brought out by 9/11 Truth people required that I expand my research beyond the contents of the NIST Report. But  NIST did not have any technical reasons to carefully study the collapse itself. Nor could any computer in the world model all the data involved in a chaotic collapse. I no longer accept the notion that this is some kind of failure on the part of their research.

Explanation: For more introductory info watch this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&
v=PqS1jaK2fvo

An independent investigation of the Building 7 Collapse: http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/
Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

NIST describes the multiple stages of Building 7 collapse (interpretation):

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8170339&postcount=3946

What caused early motion (see the graph linked here) of Building 7 if descent were caused by an explosion?http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8360703&postcount=5499

CTBUH Opinions of 9/11 CD Theories: 

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7496466&postcount=1744

WTC 7 Much bigger fires on south face
Building Seven: Another Raging Fire Picture

Building Seven: Another Raging Fire Picture
An excerpt can be pulled from here.. best again in my opinion to provide the link too.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/01/jim-corr-omits-info-about-roaring-fires.html
I think with the squibs you could find most answers in that article I sent too.

This was likely caused by negative air pressure, not fire. See: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/
what-does-building-engulfed-in-fire.html

Firefighters combing through cool debris shortly after 9/11:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJTgUPSxnw&feature=player_embedded#!

NIST's Damage and Fire Estimates Very Conservative: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8345517&postcount=5346

Symmetrical collapse rebuttal: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7402494&postcount=413

Building 7 asymmetrical http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

At 6:14 see building collapse backwards into most damaged section: where are loud explosive sounds in any of these?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&t=45s

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7402496&postcount=414

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7402496&postcount=414

This bridge is in no way comparable to the Towers and Building 7.

It is an awesome bridge though.

The upper sections of the WTC buildings were clearly destroyed before the lower sections began to give way.

What do you mean by outer core columns? The perimeter columns on WTC1-2 were peeled off. The core columns were stripped of their beams. WTC7 a different scenario. The article you link above right is not about Building 7. The hat truss in the South Tower is believed to have shifted loads as long as it could until it collapsed. This is part of the common narrative of natural collapse and does not show evidence of CD.

No one is saying that is what would have happened.

Explosions were heard and recorded. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

Squibs did shoot out of the building. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqSEfDxuoYg

There are huge clouds of dust from the concrete, gypsum, and other materials.  Sadly, people were reduced to small particles.

WTC 7 fell pretty much into its own footprint, even if not perfectly so.  Aerial photos show that the Fiterman and Verizon buildings were relatively undamaged, even though they were about the same distance from WTC 1.

Protec Controlled Demolition company agrees with me (see question 2): http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Also see  http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7405709&postcount=628

The key point is that the buildings were dismembered beyond repair.

They may not all have been exactly 30 feet, but remarkably similar.
Nothing is ever convenient about a debris pile.

See point 172.
This was likely caused by negative air pressure, not fire. See: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-does-building-engulfed-in-fire.html

Even without Kevin McPadden’s testimony, we still have accounts of plans to bring Building 7 down. See: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/
2010/05/oh-really.html

Here's a less respectful video with more footage and information about foreknowledge of collaopse:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=player_embedded

Barry Jennings on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm: About Dylan Avery and Loose Change, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies… I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any…  And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."

In addition, he sustained no blast injuries at all; What explosives can destroy heavy steel and concrete but not even destroy someone’s ear drums? What kind of demolition works by setting off an explosive and then 7 hours later the building collapses?

Initially Barry Jennings and Michael Hess had the same story of explosions in the morning, prior to the afternoon collapse of WTC 7.  Barry did not change his story, and mysteriously died.  Michael changed his story.  At least he is alive today.
 

Who was this “engineer?”

Peter Hayden was Deputy Chief of the NY Fire Department and is only quoting "one particular engineer there" who was never named.  Why has this prognostic engineer not come forward for credit for his "prediction"?   Who was he?  Who did he work for?  www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=peter_hayden

More innuendo. "Plan and prepare ahead for breaking news" is standard procedure for  the media. For example, Media obituaries are written years before for most celebrities. Once predictions of imminent collapse came in, they planned and prepared, then mistakenly read the "did collapse" script instead of the "may collapse" one.

Firefighter Joe Torrillo knew buildings would collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTKROU4zhw&feature=player_embedded#!

: Firerfighters say building is leaning severely to the south.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tth4ZyUagT0

215

There was a good cover story, the largest elevator modernization project in history, by ACE Elevator, supervised by Stratesec guards.
There are many ways the explosives could have been planted covertly. See: 911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/
how-could-and-why-would-anyone-besides.html
Property Managers try to shield office workers from construction going on, and have developed procedures.  When that cannot be accomplished, they typically post a sign "Sorry.  Please excuse the construction.  Thank you for your patience, etc."

Here's an article that says it would take over 8,000 people to pull this off... http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/8157-high-ranking-american-british-and.html

And here is a lot more info with links about this conspiracy's size: http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

Here is a controlled demolition firm's opinion of the idea that first responders were in on the onspiracy: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Detonators and explosives would not be labeled as such.  They would be concealed in boxes, labeled "Maintenance" or "Elevator parts".

The firefighters were focusing on putting out the fire, and saving people.  They did not have time to take photos or videos, or look for evidence.

The new movie www.OperationTerror.com by Art Olivier shows that only about 20 people needed to be knowingly "in on it".

The rest of the people were simply following orders, or thought it was just a drill. Anyone who has been in the military knows that you usually just get an order, with no explanation, and are expected to "just do it" without question.

We do not propose that first responders were "in on it".

For the Twins there were only three places where explosive demolition could have been used to assist collapse

1) Pre weakening of core at low level. Didn't happen because the way the collapse happened.

2) weakening in he impact and fire zone. However how did they know where the plane would hit - so that leads to two scenarios

a) they didn't and therefore prepared many levels for demolition initiation so they could fire the one where the plane landed. Flaw - it needs all the unused and debris of used to disappear because thousands of witnesses in post collapse clean up.

b) Set up the demolition after fires started using volunteer suicide teams in asbestos suits working with fire proof explosives and ancillary gear in the actual fire.

3) "Squibs" to disconnect the outer perimeter. Not possible to sequence it at the rate the buildings fell. Plus not needed.

So all the talk about explosion noises and logistic possibility of secure installation is meaningless. There was no way the explosives were use (lower core) could be used (impact zone) OR were needed (perimeter peel off. So talking about the wrong sort of noises is a red herring.

So your innuendo accuses Ace Elevator, Securi Com [sic] and Marvin Bush of being in a conspiracy of mass murder (even though M. Bush was gone before his brother was even elected?

They are not yet “implicated.”
A new investigation will officially determine who is guilty.

While I have been respectful in asking some hard questions about a new investigation, others have not. There are so many contradictory hypotheses about 9/11 I can't possibly keep track of them, much less answer them all. Here is an admittedly less-respectful summary of some of these contradictions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8707820&postcount=108  Again, which theories get investigated?

Larry said "pull it, then we watched the building collapse".  Firefighters are not an "it" but a "them".  The word "it" is in the same sentence as "building".  The firefighters were already out of Building 7 in the morning, way before 5:20.  This is a lame excuse, mincing words, thought up and offered months later, after his spontaneous statement on PBS.  Deep down, most people feel guilty about something wrong, and often subconsciously give clues about their guilt without realizing it.

See: 911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/
possible-confirmation-of-pull-it-in.html

A major controlled demolition firm says they have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to describe the controlled demolition of a building: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

To "prove" he meant the building, you quote him as: "pull it, then we watched the building collapse" (emphasis yours). But his exact words were, "... pull it. And they made that decision to 'pull' and then we watched the building collapse". He was talking to one of the firefighter chiefs. "It" refers to the firefighting effort. "They" refers to the decisionmaking firefighters. It's a violation of journalistic ethics to accuse Silverstein of participating in the mass murder of thousands of New Yorkers based on this remark

As a journalist, if I found a remark like this suspicious, I would begin investigating it, but I would not publish anything until I had something concrete to report!

Any war is a plan to kill thousands of American troops, enemy troops, innocent civilians, and other "pawns".  Neo-Conservatives wrote in Project For A New American Century that it was important for the US to ramp up its military and be able to fight simultaneous wars - but of course not by themselves or their families.  Most of them were "chicken hawks" who never served in the military, but talk tough about war.  They protect their own all right - their safety, power, and profit from wars. In their sick minds, they felt they were "doing what is best for America" - to get public approval for the biggest military in history of the world.

This is not a left/right issue. Those corrupt enough would have executed the operation.

This explanation!:
1.) Faster-Than-Freefall Collapse of Building 7
2.) Stage One: east penthouse collapsed. 
3.) Debris fell inside building
4.) Debris pile spread out at bottom
5.) (top.) (Kink) columns about to snap. 
6.) Perimeter columns buckled, transferring loads 
Stage Two of Collapse: Gradual Acceleration Increase to Free-Fall + 
7.) An 8-story chunk of floors torqued down
8.) Clinging collapsing beams functioned as levers
9.) Leveraged faster than free-fall drop.
10.) Stage Three: Debris pile slows it down

This explanation does not explain the fast decent of the building, according to David Chandler and Tony Szamboti.

“Without interior structure, how would torquing from one wall to the other take place? If there is any reality to the slightly greater than g downward acceleration, it could be due to the fact that the interior got a half second head start. The walls would then be pushed down slightly due to the slow relative motion of the falling material. However, this effect would be very slight and the center of mass would still be in freefall. Remember that during the entire time of freefall, the west penthouse gains on the rest of the building only a distance equal to its own height. These low relative speed impacts would not significantly affect the outcome.” –David Chandler

“[F]or faster than freefall to occur what actually had to happen is that the exterior resistance was removed and then caused to accelerate at a faster than freefall rate due to a whip action by the already moving interior. The notion of negative resistance is a ridiculous contention by Mohr… Controlled demolition does not have to be done in a way which produces freefall acceleration, but it is the only thing which can remove all resistance simultaneously and cause it. Freefall acceleration is completely impossible in a natural collapse.” –Tony Szamboti

My response to David Chandler: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8094894&postcount=3490

>g descent is in no way a "ridiculous contention":

• The center of the building was falling.
• The center of the building has weight.
• The center of the building was attached to the exterior of the building.
• When something falls, it pulls on anything that is attached to it that is not falling.

What isn't known is the precise amount and location effect, but what isn't conjecture is that the effect exists and is non-zero.

Here's what a collapse can look like when there is no perimeter wall blocking the view: youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8&feature=player_embedded#!

When steel buckles it loses its strength very quickly:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg&feature=player_embedded

Building 7 faster than freefall crane video  in the crane video I linked above, which exhibited over-G acceleration.

An entertaining video (admittedly simpler than Building 7) showing a balsam wood tower where all columns lose strength almost simultaneously as broken columns shift their loads to other columns at almost the speed of sound. The structure collapses straight down and all-at-once:

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bgucy_b5FKk

Notice also at the end of the video, the dynamic load of the falling weight took a big chunk off the end of the table-top. That's an impressive example of the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Perimeter being yanked down by the core: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8386123&postcount=5577

Ryan Mackey explains internal leveraged collapse of Building 7: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8189906&postcount=4008

Another >g collapse explanation: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8191801&postcount=4041

Starting at post 4551, extensive graphs and data for many pages showing more precise measurements than NIST used to show faster-than-freefall acceleration of Building 7: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=114

Another diagram of the forces that could have created less than net-zero resistance in Building 7:http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8281591&postcount=4693

More evidence against simultaneous thermate being used:

The NW corner of the building was moving long before the global collapse of Building 7, making the theory of thermate destroying all the columns simultaneously impossible:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8358953&postcount=5474

1. (Richard Gage could answer this one.)
2. We need criminal investigators and scientists, not just politicians
3. It should be done with respect for civil liberties
4. The analysis of free fall at WTC 7 is scientific, for one.
5. No, just 911.  As the evidence comes out, the best theories will emerge.  (See www.911Theories.org )
6. If the other theories have merit, people will petition
7. In court cases, many have been found innocent, but that does not mean we should stop prosecuting crimes
8. If the commission did a good job, as the Challenger Disaster Commission did, most people will be satisfied.
9. This is a criminal case of mass murder, so the full force of the law should be used.
10. Good question!

Natural Collapse proponent
Chris Mohr

Left column

 Controlled Demolition Advocate
Rick Shaddock - first responder

Rick - Blue 

With help from many on JREF

Past responders

Adam Taylor Black text

Chris Sarns   Brown text

Ziggi Zugam