Chris Mohr
Natural Collapse Advocate

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.

Here is how the boxes below are organized:

Left Top Box: Chris's rebuttal to Blueprint for Truth (238 reasons in all) unedited, directly from the videos

Right Top Box contains the Controlled Demolition Advocates Response.
Left Bottom Box: Chris Mohr's response to what was said in the right top box Right Bottom Box: Final Remarks from Controlled Demolition Advocates

Controlled Demolition Advocates

Click here for Introduction to the Debate

235+ Points from the Video

# Reason by Chris Mohr Responses
Section 1 The Twin Towers  

Part 0:

Introductory Video - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
The introduction to Chris Mohr's rebuttal to Richard Gage's 9/11 truth controlled demolition theory. Unifying remarks; opening your mind; beliefs, expectations and truth. Produced by Chris Mohr. Twenty 5-to-15-Minute Video Segments; Dozens of 911 Mysteries Solved.  Discussion welcomed at

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 

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.

Part 1:
What Initiated Collapse of Towers? - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 1 of Chris Mohr's 9/11 independent investigation of and rebuttal to Richard Gage's controlled demolition theory: a likely collapse scenario for the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

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:

Dozens of Civil and structural engineering organizations worldwide in support of NIST Report and how their policies were changed by it:

Thorough explanation of many aspects of WTC Collapses:

Ryan Mackey: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking”:

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: 55:00


  The pre-9/11 bombing and the earlier fires were in no way comparable to the massive fires set off by two large jets full of fuel crashing into the WTC Towers on 9/11! The jet fuel and huge flames burned off within the first 20 minutes
and cooled to the point where Edna Cintron could stand where the plane impacted WTC 1.
1 Planes Hitting at 450-550 mph Frank DiMartini, Construction Manager of the WTC, said it was designed to withstand a fully loaded plane impacting, even several.
Planes hitting their targets so accurately, at such speeds, by beginner alleged pilots, suggest computer assisted remote control should be investigated.
The buildings did withstand initial impacts but were further weakened by fires. The buildings were approximately the width of a runway, so it didn't need a lot of skill to hit them by people who knew how to land; one of the hits was sloppy. Frank DiMartini: see reason #3.

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. 
"I couldn't do it" - fight instructor and seasoned pilot Adam Shaw

See #18 re Leslie Robertson's statement that buildings not designed to withstand ensuing plane fires. The Towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707 traveling at 600 mph per John Skilling.  He stated that the problem would be that "the fuel would dump into the building - but that the building would still be there".
2 Planes steeply banked, max damage


Wings tilted, distribute damage across several floors, enabling more supports to remain on each floor
The tilt over three or so floors still meant that the peripheral columns were cut in the impact zone of several floors. It matters not which floor the cut was in. WTC 2 tilted, then "magically" righted itself. This can only be done with explosives, changing the detonation timing with computer assisted accuracy.
3 282,000-lb Planes See #1: Frank DiMartini
WTC 1 and 2 withstood impact and stood for about 1 hour
Frank DiMartini died on 9/11 and cannot comment on the buildings’ collapses after the fact. He was a construction manager, not a structural engineer, so he was repeating what he had heard. Leslie Robertson explains this much better (see #18).

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.


The steel on a single floor of the tower weighed ten times as much as a 767. See:

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.

4 60% of columns on crash side destroyed Only the exterior walls. The inner core was not damaged significantly, which bore most of the weight.

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.

“While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.” – Thomas Eagar. See:
5 Fire Insulation Stripped Off
Steel pans don't melt, even with no insulation
It is debatable whether or not the insulation was stripped of significantly.
The towers fell, obfuscating the evidence.  No one knows for sure.
Steel didn't need to melt in order to be weakened. NIST conducted conservative simulations to determine the damage to the core insulation. Large aircraft had bulldozed itself and all the office partitions and contents across the impact zone, destroying core column insulation.

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": 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.

This has not been proven. See:
6 Cutoff of Water Sprinklers


The cutoff of the water sprinklers is suspicious, considering that the WTCs were carefully designed so they would work.  Regardless, the fires went out, even without water.  We see people, including Edna Cinton, standing where the fires started.
Sprinklers not designed against loss of pressure due to a plane cutting pipes. Innuendo: what exactly is being asserted by the statement that "The cutoff of water sprinklers is suspicious"? The fireball was immense, started in many places at the same time. The planes moved the burning materials towards the opposite side of the building, that's why the fires didn't last long at the hole where Edna was seen. The fires were terrible for Edna and others:

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!

According to NIST, the sprinklers wouldn’t have made much of a difference anyway. See:

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.

7 Collapse Safety Factor of 3 Reduced


WTC was built to support 5 times, not 3 times the load, on the perimeter columns.
Richard Gage says “three to five times” the load. One floor collapsing generates 30 times the force of a static load anyway, so the 3x vs 5x safety factor argument is irrelevant. There was a safety factor of 3 for the core and 5 or the perimeter.  See:
8 Eccentric Load on Surviving Beams


The surviving beams, those that were not hit by the plane, were still strong enough to bear the weight of the floors above, for about an hour for both WTC 1 and 2. 
My mistake: should read “eccentric load on surviving columns.” Also: The remaining undamaged columns were sufficient to support immediately after the impact. They deteriorated due to fire damage. Only the exterior walls. The inner core was not damaged significantly, which bore most of the weight.
See point 4:
9 Structural Damage Throughout Building


There was only structural damage on the top floors.  The floors below were in perfect condition with their full strength, stronger towards the bottom.
Admitted, the strength of the lower tower is not relevant. The mechanism of collapse progression is relevant at the point of initiation. The collapse initiation on  floor 98 of the North Tower was the top floor to be impacted by the plane and had severe fire and heat damage by the time collapse initiated.

The collapses initiated at floors with minimal damage.

10 Fast-moving Fires on all four faces in 15 minutes


Yes, they moved fast from one place to the other, and were going out fast too, from where they came from.
The fires expanded from four floors to at least 14 floors in just over an hour, causing ever-growing smoke plumes visible from space. Heat energy equivalents: jet fuel = 301.7 tons of TNT; office contents WTC I = 1,900 tons (1.9kt) of TNT; WTC 2 = 717 Tons (NIST NCSTAR 1). Total heat energy of the tower fires was around ¼ the heat energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

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

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
11 Smoke quickly choking occupants on top floors


Yes, as the fire was starved for oxygen, there was mostly smoke.
Oxygen paths included hundreds of windows blown by the fireball and impacts, elevators acting as chimneys etc. It's true but irrelevant to argue that "smoke doesn't cause a building to collapse;" when smoke is easily visible from space 45 minutes after the crash, it shows evidence of a raging and growing fire. Smoke doesn’t cause a building to collapse.
12 1000 Windows Break out; 12000 sq ft ventilation


Windows breaking out is an indication of an explosive force from within.
The window breakage started at time of plane impact; fuel explosions and worsened with fires, and is documented over time. Surely you are not suggesting controlled thermitic explosions were precisely timed and controlled  amidst the 1400+ degree fires over the course of an hour before the collapse?

Perhaps, similar conditions have occurred in other skyscraper fires.

13 Explosions Radiating Every Direction


Yes, explosions radiating in every directions means explosives were used.
For sounds of explosions this should be used:

This is why I say "watch the video;" I am talking about the initial fuel explosions from the two aircraft only. My point: we see the explosion coming OUT of the building, but that explosions radiated in every direction: up, down, sideways, forwards and backwards, the fastest start to a huge fire in the history of high-rises.  It didn't cause the collapse. Generally, Explosions =/= explosive demolition: this will be dealt with later. Initial explosion didn't cause collapse.
14 90,000 Liters of Jet Fuel


Regardless of the volume, the jet fuel burned off within the first 15 minutes.  So what is the source of the "intense heat" after that?
Fires started by jet fuel and continued with millions of sheets of paper office furniture, carpets, curtains, upholstery, etc etc etc Wrong.  Each plane contained less than 10,000 gallons of fuel.
15 Fires Radiate to All Four Faces Within 15 Minutes


Yes, the fire migrated, but was not on all four faces simultaneously.  They burned out enough that people could stand there, such as Edna Cintron.
Many reports confirm fuel went all the way down to the lobby and basement. Freight elevators also went all the way down. A big mass of fuel falling from that height could easily break the elevator doors. That could also explain many explosion reports. Attempts by 9/11Truth to minimize the fires contradict the testimony and photos from that day.

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

16 Jet Fuel in Elevator


There is no evidence that jet fuel went down the elevator shafts to any great degree.  The elevator doors would have been closed.  The shafts are staggered and don't go all the way to the ground, except for the elevator for tourists.
Many reports confirm fuel went all the way down to the lobby and basement. Freight elevators also fell all the way to the basement. A big mass of fuel falling from that height could easily break the elevator doors. That could also explain many explosion reports. The NIST Report reports on a survey that shows large numbers of escapees smelling kerosene in the stairwells. With over 90,000 liters of fuel there was plenty to trigger a huge, hot explosion as well as  fires in both the impacted floors and down the elevator shafts. These were jumbo jets with almost-full tanks ripping into buildings at 500mph causing unprecedented damage.

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

Which means there was less fuel at the impact zones to fuel the fires.

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


17 Thermal limit of steel 750º


Edna Cinton and other WTC employees were standing in the spot where the plane entered the building.  So there was no 750º heat for long.
The plane pushed debris away from its own entry point at 500 mph so fires were less severe there. Edna's horrible death is already covered above in #6.

NIST has no evidence the steel reached these temperatures.  See:

18 Leslie Robertson didn't design WTC for fuel explosion


The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner at the time.  This includes seats, luggage, and fuel.  Edna Cinton was standing at the site of the plane impact, so there was not such a hot flame.
Robertson said the effects of subsequent fires were not contemplated. In
Archives/7344.aspx he writes: "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."  Skilling's statement that they calculated the structure "would still be there" was borne out, for awhile. Mr. Skilling never claimed that the Towers would remain standing indefinitely, particularly given the fires and the impossibility of fighting them.  The fires turned out to cause too much damage for the structure to withstand, which is what ALL these papers and people have said:

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.”


19 What We See Outside Is Small Part of Explosion
1:17 Numerous testimonies about explosions
What We See Outside Is Small Part of Initial Explosion when planes hit. (clarification). The video from the Purdue study (see my video #1 here) shows that their computer model  accounts for explosions radiating in every direction, a phenomenon which is also mentioned in the writings of Eduardo Kausel, NIST and others. Plus, any explosives expert  will say that barring shaped charges or other directional devices, explosions naturally radiate in every direction. Explosions radiating in every direction is the default; 911Truth people must show a mechanism for this NOT happening if they don't believe that the heat and energy of these fuel explosions radiated into the building. If we can’t see it, how do you know?
20 Jet Fuel Explosions on 77th and 22nd Floor of Lobby from Elevator Shaft Which means there was less fuel at the impact zones to fuel the fires.
Point 16 for more
Point 16 covers both of us. This is just one example of explosions caused by something other than bombs or pre-planted incendiary devices. Explosions of some kind in building fires are the norm, not the exception, as we will see below. Yes, there may be explosions, but not in the number and duration that were heard and felt by witnesses, firemen, and main stream news reporters.
21 Fatal Fireball in Lobby Due to Elevator Fires Fireman described lobby as looking like an explosion went off.  Shrubbery in lobby showed no sign of flames.  There was no driving force for fire (which rises) to go down 75+ floor.  The elevator shafts in the WTC were staggered, so there was no direct access to the lobby.  Fuel going down the shaft would decrease from the fuel needed to weaken the floors above.
The driving force for fire (which rises) to go down 75+ floors was gravity. Jet fuel is very dense, known as "blue gunk." Which means there was less fuel at the impact zones to fuel the fires.
Point 16 for more
22 Inward Bowing of Perimeter Columns
There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
Points 22, 27 and 28 are quite similar
There is abundant evidence that fire can cause beam sagging of beams and subsequent inward bowing of columns not only from NIST but also the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, The University of Hawaii, Purdue University, etc. There are also abundant photos of sagging steel beams from fires in my own YouTube videos. The 9/11 blogspot (above right) offers a highly speculative hypothesis for thermate causing the inward bowing. But Richard Gage told me personally he believed that nanothernmites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7 to create explosive and implosive collapses respectively.

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:

First inward bowing was reported.
Then outward bowing.
The Official Theory cannot have it both ways.


23 Huge Temperature Differentials along Individual Beams
2750º Steel Melts
2012º Colin Bailey, max fire temperatures
1500º F max temp of hydrocarbon fires?
1800º max temp of WTC fires (NIST)
1400º max temp of WTC fires (Thomas Eagar)
800-1500º jet fuel burns
1100º-1200º, steel loses 50% of its integrity
1000º Steel begins to glow red
800-1000º steel girders are routinely bent 
750º thermal limit of structural steel 
572º steel loses resistance to distortion (creep strength) 
300º steel will begin to expand in length
14 railroad tracks need expansion protection
90,000 Liters of Jet Fuel Regardless of the volume,
the jet fuel burned off within the first 15 minutes. So what is the source of the "intense heat" after that?

90000 liters is equal to 23,775.48 gallons (US)

It was only about 10,000 gal of jet fuel per tower
NCSTAR 1-5 pg xlix
Only 40% of that was available for combustion.
NCSTAR 1-5 pg xliv
It burned off in the first few minutes
NCSTAR 1-5 pg 1
The heat energy came from the office materials/contents - the jet fuel's role was to quickly start large fires on several floors. Again, there is abundant evidence that the steel reached high temperatures, enough to cause it to lose structural strength and begin to sag. NIST has no evidence the steel reached these temperatures.  See:

See point 17 for more
For fuel estimates see my correction in Box 16. I took an early estimate from a paper by Eduardo Kausel which was later supplanted by NIST's, but the process--of the major jet fuel explosions starting the fire and flammables in the building causing it to continue--remains valid. There were flames after the jet impact, but they died out and the area cooled to the point when people such as Edna Cintron could stand at the point of impact.
24 Bright orange flames in tower: evidence of 1800 degree fires Yes, so something other than jet fuel was burning.  Jet fuel burns at only 500-599º
That "something other than jet fuel" was an office fire with office combustibles, which can get up to 1900-2100 degrees F  (See my video here for more information on Alan Firmage's assertion). If 911Truth is saying thermitic materials were burning at 4500 degrees well before the collapse, the fires would glow blindingly white not orange, and the thermite would burn brilliantly for less than a minute then go out. The thermograms in the 9/11Truth YouTube to the right did NOT show 4500-degree temperatures where the thermite was supposedly going off! Can a hand-held infrared device measure temperatures inside a 110-story building with one acre of enclosed steel structure per floor? Thermo grams show low temperatures.
See point 17 for more
25 Major Fires in multiple floors; smoke rising hundreds of feet up We differ on the word "major" fires.  There were in the first minutes of the plane hitting.  But the fires were burning out, causing smoke.  Smoke is relatively cool, and has little impact on the steel and concrete.  Indeed Edna Cintron and others were seen standing where the "major fires" supposedly were.
The fires got much worse as time passed, see e.g. or /NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27cropped.jpg and discussion on Edna Cintron in #6.
NIST has no evidence the steel reached these temperatures.  See:

See point 17 for more
26 Lattice of Inward Buckling of Perimeter Columns by 55 Inches The inward buckling can be explained by the effect of explosions of the horizontal beams.  This would cause the perimeter columns to fall towards the center. Workers such as LVI Services (for asbestos reduction) had access to them above the ceiling panels by night, and on unused floors by day, and had the opportunity to plant explosives and remote controlled detonators.
27 Sagging Steel, Inward Bowing Breaks Connection There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
Points 22, 27 and 28 are quite similar   See point 22.
Sagging steel can be seen in many regular office fires, including One Meridian Plaza, where photos show profound sagging. . A regular campfire can cause a railroad track to bend in half, see Sherman's Neckties on YouTube: Experiments done show steel sags minimally.  See:
28 Heavy Bowing 1 Min Before Collapse There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
Points 22, 27 and 28 are quite similar  See point 22.
Repetitious responses add nothing to the debate..

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

Computer models are basically cartoons.  They can be created to show anything, even King Kong causing the collapse. So we should focus on studies that use actual materials.
29 The building with twice the weight above crash site collapsed twice as quickly.

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

The rebuttals above right may well be factors to explain a natural collapse but are irrelevant to any discussion of their belief in controlled demolition, which could have been set to go off at any time.  
30 10:20 a.m.: NYPD aviation-- "the top of the tower might be leaning."  See point 22.
There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
The alternative theory of controlled demolition via thermitics requires the leaning of the tower minutes before collapse to be caused by a series of pre-collapse demolitions with no brilliant lights or any other signs of thermites being set off. The leaning of the tower and the transit put onto Building 7 showing leaning of that Building long before its collapse show a progressive structural weakening taking place as the fire did its work. If there was leaning, then why didn't WTC 7 topple over to the side?  It came almost directly straight down.  You refute your own argument.
31 A minute later, North Tower "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south." See point 22.
There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
  Repetitive rebuttal syndrome! Same link over and over for different aspects of the collapses. The link doesn't even address many of these points, all of which are evidence of buildings in escalating structural distress. This is a narrative of what was observed prior to collapse, and all of these show evidence of major fires, structural weakening, etc.  
32 At 10:28 a.m.: "the roof is going to come down very shortly" The North Tower collapsed seconds later. The roof of the top 10-20 section of floors would collapse the next 10-20 floors, but not the 70-80 floors below.
As long as the total weight and momentum above floor "x" exceeds that single floor's load-bearing capacity, floor "x" will collapse. Then, when the full momentum of the top of the building hits floor "x minus 1", that floor collapses. ROOSD (Runaway Open Office Space Destruction) + core strip down + perimeter peel off (in roughly that order) explains the collapse after initiation begins. Perimeter peel off was much later than "floor by floor". See point 22.
There is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this. Issue addressed in detail here:
33 Richard Gage claims that near the end, "The fires were diminishing severely." But they grew from 3 to 14 floors in less than an hour. Fireman reported "We've got two isolated pockets of fire!  We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
911Truth YouTube Quote-mining: On floor 78 of WTC2, the NIST report shows two isolated pockets of fire. The inferno was in the several floors above floor 78.

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

34 Hat truss near the top held up core momentarily, then dropped and dragged antenna down with it Antenna could not fail without failure of the core first.  See:
  The hat truss just below antenna took on so much weight from the compressing core and perimeter walls it collapsed, causing antenna to drop. NIST did  not discuss the antenna drop; it did discuss the behavior of the hat truss in detail. The motion of the hat truss, supporting the antenna, is for all intents and purposes equivalent.: page 101  
35 If thermites at the top, then no one could have walked on the debris pile Even steel toed boots were melting within hours at Ground Zero at 1100º degrees.
FDNY first responder Vincent Palmieri reports that a few boots were destroyed by heat when firefighters walked on hot spots, but not that often. Photos of first responders walking on debris contradict claims of tons of thermitic materials being used extensively enough to pulverize most of the concrete on every floor. The "thermal hot spots" shown in the NASA images were personally studied by Palmieri himself and others on a daily basis so the firefighters would know where not to walk, and show maximum temperatures of 1400 degrees F, or only half the temperature needed to melt steel.

The piles were evidently very hot after the collapses. See:

36 In classic controlled demolitions, no smoke comes out the top The Towers were not classic demolitions, but still controlled demolitions, regardless.
  Richard Gage says in Blueprint for Truth that there were explosions coming out of the top of the building. He also says that the WTC collapses show all the signs of a classic controlled demolition, except in those instances where they do not. The unsupported assertion above is unrefutable and meaningless.  
37 People on top floors suffered smoke inhalation because hot smoke rises Hot smoke doesn't cause a building to collapse.
Nobody denies there was a lot of smoke on 9/11.
  This point needs to be taken in context of my video as evidence of rapidly growing fires.  
38 Smoke and dust had no significant upward velocity Videos show steel beams and concrete dust ejected upwards and outwards at speeds about 60 miles per hour.
They show dust being ejected from the building downwards (but faster building collapse makes it look as if it went upwards). They also show aluminium cladding flying, not columns. The YouTube video (right) shows a massive perimeter column peeling away like a banana peel, not massive horizontal ejections. Horizontal ejections, when they occurred, are explained here: page 92

The outward velocity of debris was very great.  See:

39 How is "Smoke rises" proof of a CD? It may not be (by itself), but there are several other pieces of evidence that are stronger.
40 They took the towers down using demolition charges on the roof?  This is not a main stream 9/11 Truth hypothesis.  Perhaps some were on the roof.  But most Truthers posit that demolition charges were placed on many floors in the World Trade Center, possibly every floor, or every-other floor, then detonated in sequence by wireless computer control.
Richard Gage talks about explosives going off straight up from the roof. I am rebutting his claim. Further down, how can sensitive wireless computer control be accomplished in a raging fire and in the aftermath of two jumbo jet crashes? Shaped charges are sensitive to geometry and would go off in uncontrolled fashion in high-temp environment. Collapse initiation just above crash site, enormous heat there.

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

41 Mild smoke ejection at the top not indicative of explosions

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

  Again, this is a rebuttal of a Gage claim. Explosives used in CD are accompanied with smoke ejection.  So smoke ejection at the top is indicative of explosions. 
Fires on the floors below, would eject smoke from those floors, not from the top.
42 2x Weight Above crash site fell 2x as fast.

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.

  Again, this sounds like support for my position: differences in severity of fire, sizes of explosions, etc. would make no difference in a controlled demolition.  
42a Collapse Onset Bellows Effect: ½ million cubic feet of air/floor pushes massive influx of oxygen on fires, creating large "ring of fire" around the building The ring of fire was likely from the fuel.  However, if these fires were being smothered, then where did the heat come from for the 99 day fires in the debris?

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

  220 acres of office paper, furniture, drapery, rugs, 3600 car tires and gasoline etc provided a staggering amount of fuel. The tube within a tube design of the columns meant oxygen could be brought into the debris pile like thousands of straws. The greatest building collapse in history certainly surprised everyone, even firefighters. But not one firefighter on duty at FDNY out of thousands on the force today has stated that they thought the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.  
43 NIST: "No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11."
The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage. Issue addressed in detail here:
Just 15 lightweight stories" equals some 120 million pounds! The premise that strength of core columns was relevant is false. It was overcome by a cascade failure in initiation. Then the "it's never happened before" is illogical: no ship the size of the Titanic had ever sunk before either! The collapses initiated just above the crash sites where fires were raging and unfought. We all agree that other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire alone, but this is by no means the only "first" that day.

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.

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

44 13 Story High Façade... Why Didn't Nanothermites Pulverize This? At the bottom of the WTCs, there probably was no need for explosives.
No need for thermitics at the bottom? Then why do some claim that smoke coming from the bottom of the WTC Towers is evidence of thermitics? Which is it? William Rodriguez tried to testify before the 9/11 Commission that there were explosives in the basement (below the 13 story facade), but was not permitted.  It would have been most difficult to plant explosives there, with so many employees and visitors in the main lobby.  There was no need to pulverize the 13 story facade.
  False. William Rodriguez did testify in front of the 9/11 Commission and his testimony is available in the form of a Memorandum for the Record (MFR). .  He's changed his story many times: first he says that what he heard was "not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way" (he's in the record saying that on the same day, Sep 11 2001, and there's a video in youtube and a transcript in the CNN site - not sure I can find the video again; transcript here:

After that we have his testimony to the 9/11 Commission (linked above, in which he said he heard explosions, NOT that there were explosives). By the way, a typical argument is that his testimony was under closed doors. But that was the norm, not the exception: "During its investigation, the commission staff conducted over 1200 fact-finding interviews-the MFRs [Memorandums For the Record] are summaries of these interviews." (emphasis mine), yet: "The Commission held 12 public hearings during the course of its investigation, convening for a total of 19 days and receiving testimony from 160 witnesses." So, 160 interviews held in public of a total of 1200 fact-finding interviews. Obviously the norm was to hold the interviews closed; an obvious reason that comes to mind is that it would take a lot of resources to hold 1200 interviews in public, with the recorders and the press.

After that we have the transcript of his interview with NIST, a very interesting one because he explains what he heard as the elevators hitting the ground, something that he doesn't talk about when he tells his story during his shows. And it doesn't mention explosions. Transcript here:
Public-Transcript-021204-Final1_withlinks.pdf pp. 70-71. (Note: there is a transcription error mentioning 58th elevator when it actually was 50A - probably a phonetic mistake during the transcription).

And he has since then repeatedly stated that he never said there were bombs, just explosions (including in a personal email to me in Spanish), something that is refuted here:

Bottom line being, he did get to testify, but his story has changed so often and there are so many proven falsehoods in it that he isn't a credible witness.

Part 2: Thumbnail

Richard Gage's 10 Reasons for Controlled Demolition etc. - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 2 of Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal (not debunked) to Richard Gage's controlled demolition theory. An independent investigation of Richard Gage's ten reasons for controlled demolition.
45 Total Dismemberment of Steel Structures DID NOT HAPPEN see slide

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.

The term "total dismemberment" is not some California figure of speech. The slide presentation (see )
enumerated a series of characteristics purported to be the result of
applying the scientific method (see ).
A figure of speech such as the use of the word "total" has no place in an
argument claimed to be scientific.

The ten characteristics shown in the slide above are presented as
characteristics that are only attributable to controlled demolitions,
and there is another bubble claiming that there are "NO Characteristics
of Destruction by Fire". That claim is false. Many of the
characteristics that are presented as evidence of explosive destruction,
actually *do* happen during collapses by fire, and therefore weaken the
case for explosive destruction, and strengthen the case for collapse by
fire, making the slide highly misleading.

One such example is the dismemberment that is the object of this Reason
#45. Some buildings that collapse by fire do suffer total dismemberment,
and as you point out happened with the towers, they are also clearly
destroyed beyond repair.

Following are three examples of destruction by fire that meet the
characteristics of suffering an abundant dismemberment of their
structure, and that are clearly destroyed beyond repair:

They also exhibit many of the features that the presentation claims are
characteristic of explosive destruction, as we will note later, thus
proving that these are NOT evidence of explosive destruction at all.

And also some characteristics purported to be direct evidence of
explosive destruction, are not seen in any explosive demolition at all.
For example, sounds and flashes (#7) that are actually NOT synchronized
nor happened at the time of the collapse, as was the case.

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


46 Minimal Damage to Adjacent Structures????? not true!
Major damage picture
Only happens in classic controlled demolition.  Richard Gage acknowledges this fact in his presentation.

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:

Verizon building damage example:

Article relating the demolition of Fiterman Hall and the preparation for
the rebuilding:

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


47 Dust Clouds Common to Controlled Demolition and Natural Collapse This feature is common in demolitions, and given that the Towers exhibited other characteristics of demolition, then it is more likely that demolition is what occurred.
The Towers exhibited characteristics of both demolition and natural collapse in multiple ways (see #46). My point here is that large clouds of dust cannot be used as evidence of controlled demolition any more than a car driving down the road is evidence that the car is stolen: both stolen cars and cars driven down the street by their owners can behave in the same way!

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:

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:

48 By Definition Controlled Demolition Impossible With Variables Like Plane Crashes and Fires Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables.  But the demolition was controlled as much as possible.  It seems that too many explosives were used, to make sure the WTCs collapsed.  But the perpetrators ended up making it too obvious that it was a controlled demolition. The word "impossible" can only be verified by experiment.  Landing on the Moon was once thought "impossible".

No, it is not impossible.  The demolitions were covert and set up to avoid effects from the planes and fires.  See:

Given the absence of very loud explosive sounds during the collapse (which are the true hallmarks of an explosive controlled demolition), the claim of too many explosives is groundless. Natural collapses are expected to damage adjacent buildings as the collapses of the towers did, destroying other buildings. The definition of a "controlled demolition" contradicts the extremely random forces at play on 9/11: uncontrolled and unfought massive fires, large jets flying 500 mph into the Towers, etc. This is not "controlled as much as possible."

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."

49 Tom Sullivan: Very Hard to Make It Perfect Under Best of Circumstances Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth.  He believes the WTCs came down by CD.  The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective.

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

I know Tom Sullivan believes in controlled demolition on 9/11. But Tom Sullivan said to me in an email, “Not getting this critical timing right results in a hung structure, meaning floors and entire sections to not collapse but rather pile up.... It is very hard indeed to get these buildings down in a controlled manner under the best of circumstances when everything is studied and indeed controlled.” How is CD possible amidst a raging fire and jets crashing at 500 mph? Sullivan's own email clearly states that all the variables have to be carefully controlled in any successful CD. This is based on his experience rigging buildings for destruction and seeing how precisely everything was prepared. His own statement makes it hard to imagine that all these random elements can be accounted for in a CD. Tom Sullivan said that rigging a CD takes very precise timing.  The means it is much less likely (not more) that a fired induced collapse, acting randomly, could make the columns of each floor collapse at precisely the right time. 

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

50 Explosive Sounds In Controlled Demo Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds.  See and listen for yourself
For sounds of explosions this should be used:

There were explosive sounds from the Tower collapses.  See:

Explosions in fires do not equal explosives! In the location and time of the boom heard in the first part of the video is analyzed. In fires, explosions and explosive sounds are common. But the kinds of deafeningly loud, logically-ordered explosive sounds common in controlled demolitions are not heard in the Towers' collapses. It's not the same as a real CD!

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:

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:

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."


51 Squibs Appear in Logical Patterns Squibs are covered in this article.  Logical pattern suggests pre-planning.

Points 51 and 52 are similar

The ejections from the Towers do have discernable patterns.

My original point is that the squibs appear to be random. The words "Squibs Appear in Logical Patterns" refers to a claim in my video that in a real controlled demolition, that's how squibs generally appear (if they appear). However, there are complex patterns in where the squibs appear within the apparent randomness. I still maintain that the patterns are discernible only after extensive study, whereas the squibs in a real CD are neatly aligned and go off in an easily discernible fashion.

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:

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:

52 Squibs Appear Before Collapse Squibs are covered in this article, showing they should not be visible.

Points 51 and 52 are similar
  To clarify my point: in a controlled demolition, squibs appear in an orderly vertical progression and then the collapse happens. In the Towers, the Towers begin collapsing and random-looking squibs appear as the Tower goes down, probably due to air pressure (piston effect). The claim in the 9/11 Truth article (upper right) that "Massive air pressure ... would have broken most or all windows" is simply false: once the first, weakest window blows out, air pressure on that floor drops dramatically. There is also a claim that the "dust" ejections must be pulverized concrete, an unproven assumption. Video "evidence" of squibs before the collapse are just below (and likely well within) the fire zone.  
53 If lateral ejections from controlled demolition, then ½ mile away you would hear deafening 140 db sounds Not necessarily.  The sounds could have been reduced with the use of alumnothermics.  See:

For sounds of explosions this should be used:
Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds.  See and listen for yourself at

The video does not show "many people". There was extreme media coverage on the WTC and nearby streets before the collapse of WTC2 and that video shows almost all the existing material regarding sounds of explosions. Explosive sounds are normal during fires; they were also reported during the Windsor building fire in Madrid and countless others.

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:

Richard Gage tries to have it both ways with quiet and loud explosions. Here is a recent debate that points this out:

54 All six companies in the world that can bring down tall buildings dismiss this theory.

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.

Danny Jowenko, one of Europe's leading controlled demolition experts, says that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a controlled demolition.

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

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:

Part 3: Thumbnail History of tall steel frame buildings destroyed by fire - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 3 of Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 video Blueprint for Truth looks at the assertion that "no tall steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire," but the 2008 Delft University Tower fire-induced, fast collapse mostly into its own footprint proves "it ain't necessarily so."

CORRECTION and CLARIFICATION: The Delft University Building was a steel-reinforced concrete building, not a steel-framed building. As the initial report stated, "The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so." Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings, but buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials (this a paraphrase of a structural engineer talking about the collapse of a large steel-frame structure back in 1967).
Yes as you said:
"Steel-reinforced concrete buildings are even MORE resistant to fire than steel framed buildings."
But it does not follow logically that:
"buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials."

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

  Buildings can collapse in fires, regardless of materials (this a paraphrase of a structural engineer talking about the collapse of Robert Behrining back in 1967, not a claim of logic on my part: see point 64 below). When my opponent says, "the stronger the materials, the more resistant they are to collapse, I agree. And steel-reinforced concrete (Delft construction) is more resistant to collapse than steel spray-painted in fire retardant (WTC Buildings). So we agree that Delft demonstrates an even stronger construction collapsing!  
55 There has never been a tall building where a large jet with 98,500 liters of exploding fuel hit at over 500 mph creating massive fires where softened steel has had to hold up 180,000,000 pounds above it. There were less than 10,000 gallons in either case.  The Towers were designed for airplane strikes.  See:

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:

A major controlled demolition firm weighs in on the "never before" claim:

56 The World Trade Center Towers dispensed with heavy concrete reinforcement because its weight would have made a 110 story skyscraper unsound. Instead the builders used a spray on fire retardant. See point 5.
This has not been proven. See:
  This is not a response to what I said. Traditional heavy concrete reinforcement of the steel columns and beams was not used. Spray on fire retardant was used instead. That fact probably made the WTC Towers more vulnerable to destruction by fire. The article is an attack on the NIST Report's claim that fire retardant was sheared off during the plane crashes because not enough energy was available in a jumbo jet crashing through beams and columns to strip off insulation. This is not only irrelevant to what I said, it is illogical. The author is asserting that the insulation was not stripped off even though 15% of the outer columns were completely destroyed as well as many beams.  
57 Tall Steel Framed Building's Very Fast, Almost Symmetrical, Collapse into its Own Footprint after coffee maker fire 


Deft University

The collapse of the Delft University is similar to the WTC, but the differences clearly outweigh the similarities.

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

  The rebuttal article above right didn't link but if you google keywords "Chris Mohr rebuttal smells" you'll find that the author asserts I am making a false comparison between Delft and WTC:   "Mohr characterized the TU Delft collapse as "very fast, almost symmetrical, and into its own footprint". Really? It was about 1/4 of the height of WTC7, and1/8 the height of the twin towers, and collapsed no where near a free fall rate, and it was only one wing of the building ... how exactly is this proof that a massive skyscraper can undergo a progressive, global collapse at basically free fall? "

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.

58 Steel Frame Structures Collapse in Fire:
In 1997 the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania 
In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes
Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed in 1997
The Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, completely collapsed after burning for two hours
Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes
Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC, long span roof trusses
WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911. 

None of these structures are fair comparisons to the WTC buildings. See:

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

  Adam Taylor's article (above right) is the best false-comparison argument I've ever read in defense of the 9/11 Truth position. And he is right: there is no perfect comparison available anywhere to the collapse of the WTC Buildings. He acknowledges similarities between Delft and the Towers but then goes on to cite the differences. He acknowledges a fire-induced partial collapse of WTC5, which implies that he accepts the possibility of steel-frame structures losing structural integrity in fires. But Richard Gage said in our debate with him that fireproofing makes steel "indestructible" in fires. Gage seems to imply that steel has to almost reach its melting point of 2700 degrees before failing. That is not true, as my examples prove. Steel structures can collapse in fires and steel is not impervious to heat well below its melting point: that's all my examples prove. Delft had even better structural fireproofing than the Towers. WTC 5 had a partial collapse as well. Had I been debating Adam Taylor, I would have happily dropped all comparisons to other steel frame structures collapsing. I would have expected  him to drop all comparisons to high-rises that did not collapse due to fire and tried to get him to agree that no comparison is perfect. 9/11 was unique: buildings with modern long-span trusses subject to high expansion in heat, little structural concrete reinforcement, big jets crashing into them at 500mph with tons of fuel exploding, etc. So no, in some sense ALL comparisons are false, or at least incomplete.  If Adam and I could stipulate this, then we could look at the unique features of the Towers and what happened to them on that day and ask, do the NIST Report and the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers analyzing the collapse of the Towers make sense? I say they do and explain why in Part One.


Windsor fire mentioned above right as an example of a building that did not collapse due to fire: unprotected steel columns buckled in fire:

More videos of collapses by fire: - 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:


59 People Surprised By Steel Building Collapses Since 1900 (Unsinkable Titanic)! Yes, people can be surprised by any major collapse or structural failure.  There were technical design flaws in the Titanic which made it susceptible to sinking.  However, the World Trade Centers were designed to be extra strong, since they had never built such a tall building.  Indeed WTC 1 and 2 held up just fine for about an hour.

See point 57.

  I dealt with the link about building collapses in point 58 above. Again, in my debate with Gage he called these buildings "indestructible in fire." NO occupied building is indestructible in fire; ask any fire safety expert. The WTC Towers were strong all right: they survived the plane crashes (thereby saving thousands of lives) and collapsed only after the fires created further structural damage. A strongly designed building can buy escape time in a fire, but even the Towers eventually were no match for fires that ultimately gained the upper hand against the no-concrete, spray-on fire retardant, and the fireproofing destroyed by the jet crashes. Even the Titanic's failure was caused by "crashing into an iceberg and the subsequent taking in of water." Similarly, the Tower collapses were caused by "jets crashing into them and the subsequent fires." It's the "subsequent" parts that did both in!   
60 Traditional buildings : steel-reinforced concrete. In fires, steel bends and concrete holds it together.

Yet not a single 100% steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fires.

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.

  "Never Before" is an illogical argument providing no evidence. Every snowflake that falls has never before had the same structure; does that mean each snowflake cannot possibly exist? Plus, the concrete was used primarily for flooring, not for structural support. The whole point of Reason #60 here is to say that steel without concrete reinforcement (as was the case in the Towers) will be free to bend more without the stabilizing power of reinforced concrete. There is NO physical evidence for the bold (and I believe patently false) assertion of pre-planted explosives.  
61 Intentionally left blank Yes, the 9/11 Commission intentionally did not cover WTC 7.
What about the redacted blanked pages in the report about Saudi Arabia?

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

  You are rebutting a blank box! No comment.  
62 Vincent Dunn has "seen twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. Steel tries to expand at both ends, when it can no longer expand, it sags..." True. But, steel sagging and weakening has never caused a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse.
  "Never Before" is as illogical here as it was in point 60 above. When I was 17, I had never kissed a girl. Based on a lifetime of no kisses, I was beginning to feel I would never kiss any girl. But a month later, I kissed a girl for the first time. Happily, I learned that the "never before" canard did not apply!

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.

63 Barehanded Guys Bending Steel Around a Tree (Sherman's Necktie)

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:

  According to the linked article above right, NIST "used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model." Since the conductivity of steel is well known, extensive experimentation may not have been necessary. And remember, I brought out this "Sherman's Necktie" video as a rebuttal to Gage's claim (which he offered NO experimental evidence to support) that the steel framed structure would provide a giant "heat sink" which would disperse all the heat almost instantaneously throughout the 110-story structure, thereby greatly reducing the heating of the steel. These video guys heating a piece of railroad track in a campfire and then bending it around a tree with their bare hands proves that 1) a regular campfire can create enough heat to cause steel to lose its structural strength and 2) that steel conducts heat rather slowly, or else those guys would have burns on their hands!  
64 Robert Berhinig, 1967: "steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of... fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel."

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

  Less severe? Not where the fires were, up on floors 80 and above: smoke increased in size and visible from outer space, hundreds of suicide leaps, the fastest-starting fire in the history of buildings with thousands of square feet igniting on multiple floors in the first few seconds. MIT Professor Thomas Eagar: “No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in seconds.... Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread... across... the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire.” NIST estimate of the energy of the fires started by the jet fuel explosions: The heat energy of the jet fuel, equal in heat to 315 TONS of TNT (joules can be calculated, the TNT to joule stuff) is VERY severe, 315 tons of TNT in heat energy was insignificant compared to the massive office fires of the WTC. WTC 1, 8,000 Gigajoules, and 3,000 GJ for WTC 2 - jet fuel 1,300 GJ, each plane. Meaning the fires had more heat energy than the jet fuel by a factor of maybe 7 or 9 times. The towers are the only buildings in the world where big holes for air were punched in, windows were broken all over the place, and 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel were used to start fires in two seconds on 5 to 6 floors in two of the largest office buildings in the world. Impacts rendered the fires systems, the water, inoperative.  Does 911 truth list the joules in the other fires? Please let us know if you have those figures for comparison with these other buildings, also keeping in mind that many of them were concrete-reinforced while the WTC Towers were not.  
65 If Steel Can't Be Brought Down By Fire, Why Bother With Concrete Reinforcement or Fireproofing of Steel Frames?

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

  "Never Before" logical flaw again! No one has ever won the big Powerball jackpot in my home state of Colorado either. Does that mean no Coloradan will ever win the Powerball?

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:

Part 4: Thumbnail Gravity, Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical and "Near free fall" collapse - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 4 of Chris Mohr's rebuttal to Richard Gage's controlled demolition theory investigates claims of near free-fall and symmetrical collapses.
66 Towers did not fall at almost free fall speed.  Yes, they were pretty close.  Just time them for yourself.   David Chandler videos:  WTC 1 and WTC 2  WTC 7

They accelerated at 2/3 free-fall. The acceleration shows that some sort of external force removed the column strength. See:

  To say they fell at near freefall or pretty close to freefall is like saying that a guy earning $67K/year is making "pretty close" to $100,000! The "external force that removed the column strength" was the fact that the mass in the building bypassed the columns and fell through empty space (path of least available resistance).  The mechanism of this collapse progression stage phase been explained by many researchers. The main aspect relevant here is that the mass of top section debris and accumulating sheared off floors fell down the open office space. This was the fastest moving part of the collapses. In fact it is identified as such by David Chandler in the first referenced video at about 5:15 Mr Chandlers conclusion from this evidence is not agreed but his evidence is perfectly consistent with multiple researchers findings of the phenomenon often labelled "ROOSD" Gravity makes the dynamic load increase by a factor of 30 times the static load of the building at rest, overwhelming structural resistance. The structural resistance still slowed the building's descent by 33% or so.

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


67 Towers provided structural resistance and fell at only 2/3 free fall: 180,000,000 pounds crashing down at 100+ mph. Where is the evidence that the tops initially fell at 100+ mph?  Also, see point 66.
  The evidence of 100 mph "top speeds" are in the videos, obviously. I don't even understand this assertion. At first they descended more slowly, then accelerated to achieve the observed 2/3 freefall. Perhaps there is confusion here about the difference between velocity and acceleration: a building collapsing doesn't accelerate to xyz, it accelerates at xyz.  What's the point of your re-rebuttal here? Is it that you think I meant that the "tops" of the buildings remained intact and immediately slammed down at 100+ mph? Of course they fell apart as they descended; they were partially broken up by the initial few floors' contact and apparently completely dismembered by the time they reached the ground (exactly where we don't know due to dust blocking the views).  The "top" became a disintegrating mass of fast-descending rubble destroying up to 12 floors a second (with structural resistance slowing it down to about 70% of freefall) at over 100 mph. Yes, see point 66 and my response.

Dynamic Load 31 times greater than static load:

Here's another video showing how and why the buildings collapsed fast but less than freefall:


68 Core with its extra structural supports came down last, standing 25 seconds. The core structure would always get detonated first or the building collapse won't work right. The 24 outer core columns evidently were taken
down first in the demolition. See:
  It's true that the core may well have initiated collapse first, pulling down on the hat trusses just below the roofline. But the core as a whole was also strong and ended up resisting collapse and standing longer than the rest of the Towers. In any controlled demolition, the core columns would be taken out top and bottom first or the demolition wouldn't have been successful. Clearly the bottom part of the core remained standing the longest, evidence of natural collapse and not CD. The gordonsite link (above right) makes bold assertions of controlled demolition "backed" by observations that fail to prove this assertion.  
69 Force equals Mass times Acceleration
10,000,000 pounds of force becomes 98,000,000 pounds of force in one second;
196,000,000 pounds of force in two seconds

Again, there should have been noticeable resistance, but there was none. See point 66.

  Yes, see point 66 and my re-re-rebuttal. This is a false strawman: people on both sides of this agree that the Towers fell at 2/3 freefall. No resistance (or no net resistance) would mean freefall descent. If there was no resistance as you assert here, what is the force that slowed them down to 2/3 freefall? The actual resistance is well understood --  the main components coming from the shearing of floor joist connectors in the OOS and shearing of horizontal beams in the core. Both these sources of resistance are much less than the columns in their original role (supporting 3x+  static loads) would provide, so the descent of the building was rapid.   
70 F. R. Greening: WTC buildings weighed 580 million pounds: WTC II: 180,000,000 pounds on top going 100mph, overwhelming resistance. The top of the South Tower collapsed at a faster
rate than what gravity could allow. See:
  This "white paper" (above right) contradicts over 100 peer-reviewed papers explaining that the dynamic forces of a gravity-induced collapse produces 30 times the load of the same mass in static equilibrium after only one floor collapses.  The paper linked above right desperately needs peer-review before there is any hope of it "bucking the tide" and winning the acceptance of even a significant minority of scientists. In the meantime, any physicist can look at this paper and check out the math. If you think this paper may have credibility, find a physicist at your local university and see what he/she says! You can also look through this list for peer-reviewed papers that flatly contradict this unreviewed paper's assertions:

71 7 to 14 times the structural load was on the buildings during the collapse.  There was never a dynamic load exerted on the
buildings. See:
  The claim that "there was never a dynamic load exerted on the buildings" means that once collapse began, there was NO downward force exerted. I have seen 9/11 Truth claims that there wasn't enough force to bring down the buildings, which is debatable, but I never dreamed I would see a claim that there was no dynamic load at all! Page 9 figure 4 of the "missing jolt" article (above right) the article claims that a single jolt is necessary for the collapse initiation proposed by NIST: "If the upper block, RB-12+, were rigid, as Bazant and NIST claim, the powerful jolt, required by  Bazant to generate an impulsive load and explain the collapses of the Twin Towers, would show itself as an abrupt negative deviation in the otherwise positively sloped and virtually linear velocity graph." This is simply untrue. For starters, NIST and Bazant aren't really in agreement. Secondly, with up to 14 times the structural load limit slamming onto the first affected floor, this is an order of magnitude (10x or more) greater than what the building was designed to hold. By way of comparison, you are one order of magnitude bigger than a housecat and hence vastly stronger. 

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!

72 In two seconds, free-fall is about 45 miles per hour. Did the Towers start out collapsing at free-fall?
See point 66.
  I don't know if the Towers started out at freefall. Perhaps they did for just that first floor before hitting the resistance of that floor; perhaps they started out (and stayed) at 2/3 of freefall. That's still 30mph, meaning the dynamic load far exceeds the structural limit of each floor.  
73 Average strength during collapse a tiny fraction of static strength "Toughness" = work required to fracture material Much less than the static strength of each member times its length See point 71.
  Point 71 does not address this at all.  
74 Can Explosives Right this 22º Tilting Top??

Yes. See:

  We saw this article before. Notice how all three buildings, to one degree or another, commence their collapses into their weakest points. This is most obvious in the South Tower when the top tilted strongly. The article has major flaws including the presumption that some form of explosive could apply a downwards force equivalent to 3G and remain undiscovered. That is wrong in at least three ways viz there is no practical way for explosives to produce such a force in the WTC setting of 9/11; even if it was possible it would be very visible and audible AND the base physics calculations are wrong. My question, can explosives right this tilting top, is not answered at all by this article. My question is this: once the top tilts like this, can explosives be deployed to instantly stop it from tipping further? Again, in my debate with Gage, he claims that the tilting top should have toppled all the way over and only explosives could have prevented this from happening. If so, how? There are two errors in Gage's claim. First there is no practical way to use explosives in such a dynamic situation - the same false premises I referred to above in reference to the paper. The second is more subtle and is the question of 'toppling' there does not seem to have been much research of the possibility but it appears that whatever forces were at play to cause toppling would have lost the race because the toppling effect was overtaken by the speed of descent. and that explanation is equally valid to both sides of our debate.  I can't see a way to do such precise "righting" of a massive hunk of a building as it begins to tip over. The fact that the tilting top happened into its weakest point (as it did with all three buildings) is actually evidence of natural collapse, not CD.  
75 Top of the South Tower is tilted 22 degrees into the hole left behind by the plane crash. 

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

  I thought you were asserting that the building was sound and could not have fallen without explosives. Therefore where and how the collapse initiated is very, very significant... and it points towards natural collapse not controlled demolition.  
76 Explosives would be destroyed 

No, they wouldn’t. See:

  The counter claim was that fire would disable, destroy or burn the explosives - the reference paper chases a strawman - that the fires would initiate explosion which was not what I said/claimed. In addition the paper builds extra layers of improbable complexity onto the already strained claim. The idea that the impact point of the aircraft could be pre-determined with precision which introduces more complexity and requires either extremely skilled pilots or autopiloting which involves someone "on the inside" at both American and United Airlines. . Whilst there is no coherent claim for use of thermtics in any form, nanothermites ignite at well below 1000 degrees F, according to Tillotson (who wrote the first paper on nanothermites) and for that matter Niels Harrit, Steven Jones et al. in their 2009 Bentham paper. Even Tom Sullivan, former CD worker and believer in 9/11 CD, has emphasized how delicate and precise CD detonators etc are, all points which support my claim.  
77 Shape Charges Sensitive to Geometry

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

  Because collapse initiation was amidst the fire zone, this is not a realistic conjecture. It introduces extra complications which are extremely improbable to execute and keep secret. In fact the paper referenced in 76 lists the extra complications - readers will recognize the improbabilty of this scenario. Also, it is impossible to precisely predict the exact areas where fire of that magnitude will spread.  
78 Explosives burn, detonate or degrade in high heat.  Conventional explosives perhaps. But aluminothermic explosives can be made not to.
  The article linked above right says absolutely nothing about nanothermitics having higher ignition temperatures. The article leads of with the untenable implication that the speed of building fires is attributed as the cause of collapse followed by another false claim that nanothermites can produce explosive effects on a scale to cut steel columns. They cannot, to anyone's knowledge.   Tillotson's original 1999 nanothernmite paper actually talks about the inherent instability of nanothermites and the need to handle them carefully and as a result their limited usefulness.

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


79 Detonators, receivers, wiring, connections between explosives are sensitive.  The explosives could have been set up with
wireless detonators. See:
  Wireless detonators are even more sensitive than wired detonators because they have to have radio receivers which involve more sensitive parts. Either way, no physical evidence was found by the thousands of first responders and debris removal people, many of whom were CD experts. Speculation about what could have happened is not being backed up by physical evidence that it DID happen.  
80 Demolition crews could not instantly right the 180,000,000 pound building top collapsing at high speeds in mid-course; collapse initiation in a raging fire See point 74. 
  Former controlled demolition employee and CD advocate Tom Sullivan told me controlled demolitions are hard enough "when everything is indeed controlled," which this is not--in spades!  
81 Lateral Force vs Gravity: Sideways vs Downward Forces

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

  This response is not in the context of my video, which talks about how in earthquakes, buildings have external lateral forces operating on them as well as gravitational forces. This was not the case on 9/11.  
82 Fast descent of building: collapsed to ground before time to tip over.

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

  Again, context problems here. In my video I am answering Gage's claim when he said: had the tilting top of the South Tower been the result of a natural collapse, it would have tipped all the way over. Since it didn't, Gage said that only explosives could have stopped it from tipping over. The claim is false for two different reasons. First reason: The situation is that toppling becoming downwards falling involved three mechanisms competing in speed and timing. The first mechanism which led in time was the cascading failure of the impact and fire zone which caused tilting of the top portion of tower showing that the 'low side perimeter' columns and the 'core' columns had failed first and the cascading failure was hastening towards failure of the 'high side' columns. At that stage some toppling movement became the second mechanism and it created a falling vector and a rotating vector of momentum. The downwards vector of the weight of top portion was far more than the remaining high side columns could support and the cascade failure cannot halt. So the third mechanism of gross vertical downwards movement commences. The downwards movement at such high velocity that it at least partially overcomes the toppling - simply put it is faster. And the break up of top portion and lower portion starts. So, as per your statement in 83 there was not much to keep toppling. And all that explanation applies equally to your claimed use of explosive or incendiary devices as does to my claim for no CD devices. The claim that it should have continued toppling is simply wrong for both of our claims - CD or no CD.

The second reason that the claim by Mr Gage is false is that there is no way that explosives could be used to stop toppling once started - as per my explanation at item 74. Reason #82 is a further rebuttal of Gage's claim. Even if there had been time it would have had to tip much further before tipping over because there are counterbalancing forces as well, see

Ryan Mackey: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking”:

83 Gravity overcame angular momentum and pulled it back.

Because the upper sections disintegrated as they fell, there likely was not much momentum to transfer in the first place.

  You may well be right that the top of the South Tower was falling apart and there was no intact upper block left to bring back to straightness after the first four seconds anyway.  
84 The crushed structure resists, reactive force will tend to keep the upper block centered. There evidently was no resistance see point 70. 
  Again, if there were no resistance or no net resistance there would be 100% freefall acceleration, not 70%. This is explained better in Ryan Mackey's White Paper, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"  
85 Towers rotated a few degrees, a gradual collapse mechanism. If all the supports had failed simultaneously in a controlled demolition, neither Tower would have rotated. 

Tilts often happen in demolitions. See:

  You're right. A better statement might have been, "Richard Gage claims that the collapses were symmetrical and that this is evidence of controlled demolition. But in fact, they were not symmetrical. Asymmetrical collapses are common to both controlled demolitions and natural collapses so this tells us nothing about why the buildings came down and Gage's argument is not only wrong, it is irrelevant."

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.


86 The toppling collapse theory requires crushing to be occurring on only one side, which is implausible. How was the upper section of the South Tower
supposed to symmetrically crush the lower
section if it was tilted 22 degrees?
  Good question. The problem is with two issues - 'symmetrical' and 'crush'. The word crush has been used in a lot of discussions from both sides but it is misleading in the setting of the real mechanism of collapse. It belongs in some abstract academic models but I am discussing what really happened. The problem is that the mechanism of global collapse involved very little 'crushing'. The primary mechanisms were shear off of the OOS floor joists with no significant buckling of perimeter columns as confirmed by visible evidence. The core end of those joists not visible but the mechanism of failure at that end would be similar. Meanwhile the primary mechanism of global collapse in the core was shearing off of horizontal beams. So not a lot of column buckling which would be associated with the concept of crushing applied to WTC Twin Towers. As for symmetrical crushing - the claim is undefined and I do not claim it was symmetrical. See Ryan Mackey's excellent explanation of this phenomenon in his White Paper, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking."  
Thumbnail Part 5: Lateral ejection of heavy objects and Squibs - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Chris Mohr's investigation of Richard Gage's claims of lateral ejection of large steel objects and squibs.

CORRECTION? Since putting this video out, several scientists have told me that there was NO lateral ejection of steel beams, that parts of the outer perimeter of the Towers peeled off like a banana and fell 600 feet away from the core before hitting WFC3. They have pictures showing debris underneath the famous pictures of the steel beams sticking out of the buildings to back up this claim (see this video:
and this post and several after: to get much more information and many more photos offering evidence of this claim).

This may well be the strongest argument against lateral ejection of steel beams: IT NEVER HAPPENED. The photos of steel beams in the buildings nearby are explained well in the videos above. Also see

Visual evidence of no lateral ejections but rather walls falling outward 600 feet:

Another picture of no lateral ejection:

A detailed explanation of the perimeter falling 600 feet away:

Picture of wall section peeling away:

Wall peeling away videos:

   (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).


There are many photos of the steel beams ejected laterally over 500 feet.


was 88

Building collapse accelerates, pushing air out faster, causing greater lateral ejection Many of the lateral ejections appeared above the
crush front.

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.

  I am now doubtful that air pressure could have caused lateral ejection of steel pieces; Major Tom (who disagrees with both me and Gage) has done some good research on this. Large sheets of perimeter columns peeled away and this explains the phenomenon much better.  

was 87

Lateral Ejection of Steel Beams Not a Sign of Classic Controlled Demolition... Very Little Lateral Ejection at First, Increases With Acceleration The Towers were not conventional demolitions.
This point is made by Richard Gage.
  I am rebutting Richard Gage's point because any explosive blasting steel beams 600 feet away would have to be very focused with blast containment devices (which were never found) and incredibly loud noises. Even then it would only be practical using 'low' explosives of the types used in quarrying - 'high' explosives of the types needed to cut steel are less effective at 'throwing' things. The implication that heavy steel members could be thrown long distances as a side effect of steel cutting operations has no precedent in any known kind of demolition. And that is the implied context of your claims. There is no physical evidence for either conventional or nonconventional demolition, in spite of the fact that hundreds of experts spent months combing through the debris.  
89 Hurricane Andrew: Impaled Plywood with winds ¼ the speed of wind from Towers' collapses

Plywood is significantly lighter than steel and concrete.  Wind has been clocked at 65 miles per hour from the WTC collapses.

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

  A better explanation has come along: again, see this video for details:

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.

90 ½ million cubic feet of air per floor at 12 floors per second The Towers were not air tight, so the air had
many areas of escape.
  All that air pressure doesn't explain the steel beam lodged in the buildings nearby, but it certainly explains the big horizontal plumes of dust coming out of the collapsing buildings. Two factors are relevant. First, it is well nigh impossible to utilize explosives to throw big heavy bits of steel And that is true even if it were the single focused deliberate intent. Second is the already explained reality that the 'spurts of dusty air' have the wrong profile for explosives - viz slow start-up building up in intensity. Explosive effects would be the reverse - fast start-up. And BTW dust ejections are common to both CDs and natural collapses (see Delft fire):


91 Bow-and-arrow effect when inward-bowing columns snap back and shoot "arrows" of steel

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

  See reason 90 above. And by the way, when I watch videos I don't see huge steel beams or columns shooting straight out horizontally. I do see a long part of the perimeter peeling off but not shooting horizontally; only small things going sideways occasionally.

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


The video you present by Dave Thomas is very interesting, providing 3 techniques for lateral ejection without explosives.
1. Ricochet - bouncing from a 45 degree slope.  The WTC beams were hard inelastic steel not elastic like rubber.  Even the a rubber ball in the video did not bounce laterally further than the vertical drop.
2. Bend & Snap - The WTC was not made of thin, elastic pieces of metal. Try these experiments with thick, strong steel beams and it would not work.  The beams that flew about 600 feet at about 60 mph, with enough force to stick into the AmEx Building like darts in a dart board, were intact, showing no signs of being snapped in two.  Bend & Snap may work sometimes ( but not with the WTC beams.
3. Sudden Release - sudden release of support of beam under vertical stress.  In the video the man releases the bottom support suddenly.  Since there was no huge hand at the WTC, what could release the support suddenly for a beam?   Explosives.
92 "Pinball" effect when steel falling outside vertically hits another object and deflects horizontally Again, many of the ejections happened well above the crush front and therefore could not hit other objects.
  Again, see reason 90 and the beginning of this section. Pinball effect can explain smaller ejecta but not everything that happened. All these are hypotheses which are superceded by the new information.  
93 Loud Explosions can't be Masked With aluminothermic technology, they can. See
point 53.
  My hypotheses re lateral ejection are based on the known physical properties of solid objects. Richard Gage, however, simultaneously claims "quiet" low-level explosive nanothermites which can instantly cut steel apart and hurl large steel beams 600 feet! There is no such thing as silent explosions which cut steel. In simple lay person language cutting explosions use sound waves to do the cutting. No sound wave == no cutting. Every known steel cutting explosion works by creating a supersonic pulse which creates an enormously loud sound. There is nothing in any article you have linked about this that shows that aluminothermic technology can change this known principle of physics  when it comes to hurling multi-ton steel objects hundreds of feet (which is a separate issue from cutting steel columns and beams). It is all innuendo and a huge leap of faith from an article that talks about potential uses for thermitics to actual application of such materials to create an almost-magical result.  
93a Reason for Natural Collapse: Random Squibs

The ejections do seem to have a discernable
pattern. See:

  Why are these patterns so random-looking? Real CDs show easily discernible patterns of squibs going  along straight lines. The patterns are discernible only via close examination of interior passageways etc. Can you show us even one known CD which has squib patterns like these?  
94 Squibs happened after collapse began. We see squibs occurring significantly below the crush zone.

Some of them happened before. See point 52.

  I'm glad you agree that this picture and others show squibs occurring after the onset of collapse. In known CDs, squibs occur and then collapse begins. The "squibs" shown in point 52 are so close to the fire zone it is nothing like the squibs we see in the picture above right. In fact I am being generous in calling these 'puffs of dusty air' by the loaded term 'squibs'. They are not 'squibs' for reasons given in several earlier lines. In addition, "Squibs" and other ejecta that travel at highway speeds rather than supersonic are not indicative of explosives.  
95 Survivors felt "hurricane wind" in stairwells. Explosives can also displace large volumes of air.
  Steel-cutting explosives do NOT displace large volumes of air, and other explosives would have created explosive sounds followed immediately by the air blast, which was not reported in that order.  
96 No structural deformations from squibs.

Not true. See:

  I should have said, "Generally, no structural deformations from squibs." What I mean is that most of the squibs I see just look like dust ejecting through broken windows but no destruction of the columns.  
97 Squibs Start Slowly Then Grow As Collapse Nears Perhaps the initial squibs were for initiation and
then the rate increased to quickly wipe out the
lower sections.
  You misunderstood the point, which is clearer in my video. I show a sample of a single squib which starts out small, then builds up in size and force, thereby behaving in the opposite way that an explosive squib would (big explosion then quickly petering out).  
98 By The Way: A 110-Story Building of 95% Air Would Leave a Debris Pile of 6 Stories if All Air Removed. Virtually all tall buildings are mostly air anyway.
  The only reason I made this obvious statement is because Richard Gage asserts that the debris pile was too small. The facts: several stories of the debris pile were underground, and a six-story debris pile is the maximum possible compression of a 110-story building with 95% air.  
99 If Squibs Premature Charges, Others Would Not Have Gone Off And Would Be Found Speculation. Just because they were not found doesn’t mean they weren’t used in the demolition.  It means they did go off.
  Yes, it's speculation... but based on Gage's extremely speculative assertion that the squibs may have been accidentally set off prematurely, my counterspeculation is that if Gage were right, then other squibs would have failed to go off. Then someone would have found an unignited "trigger" of some kind. No evidence has ever been found for exploded or unexploded triggering devices of any kind: wired, wireless, nothing. No remnants or evidence of charges. No evidence of steel being cut by explosives, Hundreds of CD experts hired to do debris removal because they know how to work through rubble safely turn up not a single shred of physical evidence of CD. THAT's the real issue here! All explosive devices leave residues. The idea that all of those alleged explosive 'squibs' would 'go off and disappear with no residue' is unrealistic.  
Part 6: Thumbnail Pulverizing concrete and Steel - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
An independent investigation of Richard Gage's claims in Blueprint for Truth of Pulverized Concrete and Steel 
New York Governor Pataki on CNN at WTC Ground Zero.
"There is very little concrete. The concrete was just, pulverized!"
100 Almost all physicists insist there was plenty of energy to thoroughly but gradually pulverize three-to-four-inch layers of concrete. Not all the concrete needs to be pulverized for it
to be a demolition
  Richard Gage asserts near-total pulverization of concrete, which did not happen (as you can see in my video Part 6 above). Obviously not all concrete needs to be pulverized for there to be a demolition. The amount of concrete pulverization is in fact irrelevant to CD vs natural collapse anyway, in spite of Gage trying to use this as "evidence."  
101 Gage says 110,000 kw hrs not enough energy to pulverize concrete, but it is more than a W-48 nuclear weapon See point 100.Not all the concrete needs to be pulverized for it
to be a demolition
  Once again, this is plenty of energy to pulverize a lot of concrete and bring the Towers down. The response above right is an evasion, not a rebuttal. In addition to the many published papers demonstrating adequate energy from gravity/momentum/increased dynamic loads to bring down the buildings, I personally talked with no less than 8 physicists one-on-one and asked this question of them. Every single one of them agreed that there was more than enough energy to bring the buildings down naturally. The thin concrete layers are no match for multiple floors of an acre of concrete and steel building coming down on them at over 100 mph.  
102 1,000 tons of thermite would blow the tops of the Towers hundreds of feet up There likely wasn’t that much thermite in the tops
of the Towers.

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"

  Correction of statements in box above right: There likely wasn't any thermite anywhere in the building. The bold assertion of how the effect was "carefully planned" does not meet any burden of proof or even evidence. I do agree that there was no need for thermite at the top (or anywhere). How does this negate what I said? I didn't make this up; I brought this up as a rebuttal:  Gage claims in Blueprint for Truth that smoke rises from the top of the building during collapses and claims this is evidence of thermitic materials on the top of the building. If it were there it would create a very different-looking building top.   
102a Dust cloud could not have expanded thermally 3.4 times of cloud would have been 1300º  
103 Most of the Concrete Pulverized: Nanothermites Exploding Every Inch?  Not every inch, but perhaps a good portion of it.

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

  This is a good article for everyone to read. It's very generalized, but it does show that a new generation of weapons could fit the description of some kind of nanoweaponry as Gage describes. So to take it out of the realm of speculation and to look for evidence,  I hired Jim Millette to find out if there are nanothermites in the WTC dust, and there are none. There is no evidence that any kind of advanced weaponry was used on 9/11.  
104 Rescue crews walked on cool rubble immediately. Hot nanothermites would make that impossible

Parts of the debris evidently were extremely hot right after the collapses. See:
pg. 27

  See video Part 8 below: rather than speculate, I found a firefighter/first responder from 9/11 who looked at NASA thermal images daily and used them to strategize firefighting efforts. He publicly testified that there was never temperatures hotter than 1400 degrees, and he needed to know! Gage has claimed thermitics were used extensively, top to bottom, to pulverize all that concrete. Much of the surface was cool enough to walk on immediately. Parts were hot; this is obviously true. So what? Fire brought down the whole building so the hot spots were very prevalent.  
105 Not All the Concrete Completely Pulverized. Large expanses of medium and small size concrete chunks in sandy concrete not fully pulverized True, but this is the case for controlled demolitions as well.
  Answer above right is a neutral truism and not a response to my rebuttal of Gage's claim that the concrete was almost completely pulverized. It was not universally pulverized, as a photo in my video proves. Remember, I am rebutting Gage's claims, not just creating strawmen here.  
106 Twenty Pancaked Floors Perhaps not all the floors were loaded with explosives. The only floors found were in the sub-basements.
  "Where are the pancaked floors?" Richard Gage has asked repeatedly in his videos and lectures. He claims no pancaked floors were found because everything was annihilated in a giant burst of nanothermitic destruction. For him, "no pancaked floors" = massive controlled demolition. So I found photos and quotes from several sources of pancaked floors, this rebutting his claim and removing the basis of this argument. The response above right is a neutral truism that does not answer my rebuttal.  
107 Are those pancaked floor layers in the right photo of this Blueprint for Truth Slide? Perhaps. But it should still be examined to see what exactly formed it.
  A minor point, but it seemed ironic that Gage's own movie may have evidence of pancaked floors.  
108 Pyroclastic Clouds Kill Entire Villages The clouds were not pyroclastic.  (?)
  I agree that the clouds were not pyroclastic, but Richard Gage says they were. Such a cloud would be over 1000 degrees F and kill anyone caught in it, which is my rebuttal of Gage's repeated claim.  
109 This Is Not 1100º; Dust a Bit Warm from Fires

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

  My eyewitness account shows that the dust was somewhat warm but not hot. Fires can account for this. Pyroclastic clouds from extreme heat did not happen.  
110 Why didn't nanothermites burn millions of sheets of paper? Paper existed in all forms at Ground Zero. Much of the paper was blown outside of the buildings by the initial plane impacts. Some of the columns do appear to have white ends.
  I never saw a video of millions of sheets of paper floating around until after the collapse. Even if you can find video of paper flying out of the building at the moment of impact, that doesn't change the fact the paper flew around by the millions all through the day and into the night after the collapse.  
110 If nanothermites, flying beams would be red or even white hot on the edges. Same
  I would suggest that most or all of the flying beams and columns would have white ends if they had been cut apart by 4500-degree thermitics a second earlier. I saw no evidence of this having happened. Look at the photos and videos, the ones I see are all gray throughout.  
111 If those clean diagonal cuts on debris beams, then why aren't diagonal cuts visible in the pictures of the flying steel beams? The diagonal cuts were likely done by the cleanup operations. The weld connections were likely attacked in the demolition.
  I'm glad you finally admit this. Gage and other 9/11 Truth people have used the "diagonal cuts" photo as evidence of cutter charges for years but they were in fact done by cleanup people!  
Part 7: Thumbnail Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
A respectful investigation of the explosions reported by first responders in and near the Twin Towers on 9/11: bombs or common explosions due to fire?
112 No loud blasting sounds on videos For sounds of explosions this should be used:
Explosive sounds can be heard and were reported by witnesses. See point 50.
  For you the reader: watch several known controlled demolitions with sound and compare them to raw video footage of the collapse of the Twin Towers. There is no comparison! Explosive sounds are deafening in real CDs, not just big rumbles and isolated smaller explosions of non-CD materials found in the buildings. As for the article above-right: . "the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise... would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear" The only stage where explosives are remotely possible is in the "initiation" stage. Research the last few years concludes that explosions would not needed during the "progression" stage. If there had been a need and explosives were used it had to be in the initiation stage - where very very loud explosions would have been heard distinctly with no roar of the collapsing building to mask it.

Collapse videos of WTC Buildings, none with loud explosions:!

And what about WTC1 and 2? We have numerous
 I hear a steady rising progressive rumble turn into a roar. This is not what any explosive demolition sounds like.

Explosion misquotes:

Summary of NIST’s estimates of explosive sounds:

No explosions as Building 7 collapses:


113 No 140 db blasting sounds ½ mile away For sounds of explosions this should be used:
The sounds were heard miles away and were described as explosions. See point 50.
  See points 50 and 112. There is no doubt that there were explosions and explosive sounds, but that doesn't mean there were steel-cutting explosions. The kinds of explosions used to cut steel are unforgettable: super-loud and sharp!

Sounds of explosions in other fires:!

Landmark Tower explosive collapse audible from 1/2 mile away even with helicopter noise:

On 9/11, Hursley Lever said he heard an explosion and then said it was probably a transformer exploding:

Explosions in fires: here’s one caused by a huge backdraft:

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?

114 Masking explosive sounds by 8db max Sounds could have been decreased through the use of nanothermite-based explosives.
  The references to such possibilities are general and speculative, with no quantification of how much noise reduction is possible. No thermitic materials or CD implements of any kind found in the rubble.  
115 Nanothermites may be low explosive Nanothermites have been shown to be high explosives. See:
  Even if this is true, nanothermites were not found at all. No thermitic materials found, according to James Millette's February 29 2012 preliminary report. See Part 11. We are arguing about something that didn't exist in the debris pile!

Here is more information about the "explosive" qualities of nanothernmite:

116 I read 50 firefighters' accounts of explosive sounds around collapse time, not before: ... s_full_01.html
Some did report explosions before the collapse started. See:
  My point is that out of hundreds of accounts, I read 50 and didn't read a single account of explosive sounds prior to collapse. The reports of  such explosion sounds were therefore rare, localized, sporadic and had to be cherry-picked. There is no consistent pattern of building-wide explosions that would point towards CD. See point 123 below. Explosions do not equal steel cutting explosives, it just doesn't follow!  
117 Some explosions before from fuel in elevator shafts and in the basement, crashing freight elevator All that means is that there was less fuel in the crash zone for the fires.
  Yes, but the fuel in the crash zone was mostly office contents and fitout. NIST has quantified how much fuel there was for fires in their report. The fuel was only the fire starter and even NIST doesn't claim it wasn't enough to start fires.  
118 No seismic evidence of major explosions Seismic signals are not always recorded in demolitions anyway. See:
  Seismic recording was of plane crashes and of towers' collapses but nothing else. No major explosions big enough to destroy the towers was recorded.

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.

119 White smoke explosions in fires The vast majority of the smoke coming from the Towers was black and dark gray.
  True, but Gage and others have claimed that the white smoke that did come out was caused by vaporized aluminum, which is why aluminum oxide was not found in the debris. Since aluminum becomes a gas at temperatures way above even thermitic temperatures this is impossible, and white smoke is probably caused by other things instead.  
120 Only Ten or so former FDNY firefighters still think bombs were used  (5000 FDNY employees)  See point 116. These testimonies should have been taken into consideration in the investigation.
  NO current firefighters at FDNY have stated that they believe the Towers were rigged with explosives: not one, according to Erik Lawyer, organizer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.  
121 Few firefighters can distinguish sound of bombs from regular fire explosions; many are getting trained now Perhaps, but this issue should still be investigated.
  "We don't comprehend therefore some one owes us another investigation." It took me a long time to understand what NIST was saying too! The relevant issues have already been investigated from the top down viz "There was no CD therefore no steel cutting explosions therefore evidence that anyone thought they heard use of explosives to cut steel is mistaken. Simple logic forbids you to start from the wrong end - "we heard bangs" then reverse burden of truth "you prove it wasn't."  The FBI did its own independent investigation with over 7000 agents. The personal incredulity of your writers is not a not a justification. The relevant technical aspects of 9/11 have been formally investigated repeatedly.The innuendo that there has been no investigation of relevant facts remains a falsehood by inference until it is properly supported by specific evidence amounting to a 'prima-facie' case. My reason #121 comes from an explosives expert who is in fact training firefighters around the country to understand the difference between explosions in a fire and explosives. This reason has not been responded to.  
122 Firefighters say office fire explosions common True. But many of the explosions were reported right before and during the collapses.
  There was no explosive cutting of steel and it is reasonable that the other explosions be heard at those times and other times. My reason #122 stands. Stop implying that the existence of explosions is in question. It isn't. What is questioned is the persisting inference that these explosions were specifically steel cutting explosions. There is no evidence for such a claim.  
123 These explode in office fires (partial list)
HVAC equipment including condensers and compressors
Cleaning supplies
CRT type TV's and computer monitors. 
Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube. 
Elevator lift motors
hydraulic pistons found in office chair.
UPS battery backups
Tires in vehicles
Steam explosions when water hits a hot fire or molten aluminum
Propane tanks
A metal fire, possibly aluminum, as NIST proposed
After the first collapse, firefighters' SCOTT pack bottles
See point 122.
True. But many of the explosions were reported right before and during the collapses.
  Any of these things could have exploded right before or during collapse. So what?

And the explosive sounds they might create can easily be mistaken for explosives by the untrained. Other examples, including  Wind sounds compared to explosions:

124 If FDNY thought there were bombs, they would have ordered evacuation. Several FDNY members did believe bombs were at Ground Zero. See:
"Definitely a secondary explosion"  "There may be more."
  Self rebutting - a "Secondary Explosion" is normal in fires and by definition not high explosive. Hadthere been a consensus among firefighters that bombs were in the building, an evacuation would have been ordered and it was not. Ask any fire safety expert.  
125 NIST: 72% smelled jet fuel in stairwells.  See point 117.    All that means is that there was less fuel in the crash zone for the fires.
  Again, the jet fuel was the firestarter, not the main source of fuel for all the fires. There was plenty of fuel:

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.

126 Random Eyewitness Accounts of fireballs, or mere flashes, or ground shaking with no other effect.  This doesn’t discount their testimonies. Should still be investigated
  I believe their testimonies. Collectively they show a pattern of random fires and small explosions, not a CD. See #121 above re investigation. Testimonies as evidence do not stand alone - they are taken into account within the context of all evidence and the reasoning for that practice well known to any lawyer and most lay persons. If you claim there is reason for further investigation the burden of proof lies with you to establish the prima facie case in the setting that this would be a defacto appeal against the findings of an inquiry conducted under statutory powers. That is a far higher threshold than personal incredulity of lay persons or professionals expressing pinions contrary to the weight of professional opinion on the relevant issue. You claims go nowhere near that standard.  
127 Philip Morrell: ground shaking caused by freight elevator crash. True. But there is still ample evidence of explosives in the Towers.
The elevator was just one crash noise out of many
  Morrell's testimony has been dishonestly edited by others to make it seem like he heard a big explosion only, when in fact he found the source of the ground-shaking explosion and explained it in the next sentence, which was edited out of Loose Change. To be fair, this does not appear in Blueprint for Truth, so this is not a rebuttal of Gage's work.  
Part 8: Thumbnail Molten iron/steel in debris and from side of building - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
New Eyewitness Testimony from a 9/11 FDNY hero who read thermal maps daily to determine temperatures of the debris pile and develop firefighting strategies. No melted steel or iron according to him.
128 Molten Debris Came From Plane Crash Site, is Discolored Aluminum Soup Mixed With Burnt Office Furniture, Paper, Etc. Organic materials do not mix with molten aluminum. See:
  I asked two metallurgists about this and both say that in a chaotic fire, of course anything liquid can mix with anything around it.

A controlled demolition firm has this to say about molten steel at WTC:

Molten steel/metal reports from regular fires are common:

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):

129 Why molten debris here only? Why asymmetrical? The plane impact likely pushed a thermite device to that location.
  My point: no one can seriously propose that a single thermite device can bring down a whole building. This dripping orange debris is a unique and highly localized phenomenon, and this is an attempt to build a theory on an anomaly.  
130 WTC Designer Leslie Robertson said he wasn't qualified to talk about molten steel



Leslie has changed his story, contradicting his own public testimony:
Story 1: Leslie Robertson presentation on the WTC April 9, 2002: "there was like a river of steel flowing"
Story 2: "I have never run across anyone who said they had seen molten metal"  

Fireman: "molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you are in a 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 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?


  First: no molten steel has been proven to have been found. Second:

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.

131 NASA Satellite Images show only 1400º, not 2800º These images were of surface temperatures. It was likely hotter down below. Regardless of the aluminum present, other metals were clearly affected by extreme heat. See:
  See my video #8 and the direct testimony of Vincent Palmieri, the firefighter who studied NASA images daily and determined no temperatures ever in excess of around 1400 degrees F. The evidence of extreme heat purported by the 9/11 Journal article above right talks about the iron microspheres, which can be created in regular incinerators etc. See my video on the iron microspheres for a rebuttal of these claims.
131a Abundant Aluminum in Debris to Melt at 1200 degrees
132 Molten Steel Would Have Destroyed the Claw The claw did not directly grab onto the molten steel
only the cooler, solid steel around it.
  Watch my video again. A metallurgist we asked about this photo says it was not likely to be molten steel at all. Your response is conjecture but you have not taken it to an independent expert metallurgist as I have. Please take your theories and articles to specialists/experts at your local university for a reality check, as I have repeatedly,  
133 Regular Fires Can Last for Months This is true only when there is a proper fuel source. It has not been proven that Ground Zero had adequate fuel to keep the fires burning.
  The "proper fuel source" is well documented in the NIST Report: tens of thousands of filing cabinets full of paper, acres and acres of carpeting and rugs, thousands of curtains, etc etc etc. The tube within a tube design of the columns meant air passages inside the columns allowed air to be fed through them like a straw ton the fires deep in the debris pile.  
134 Thermites Burn Out Fast, Not for Months The long lasting heat was likely caused by continuing chemical reactions. See:
  Gage has asserted that the long-burning fires were caused by continually burning thermitic materials, which I assert contradicts the fact that thermites burn out in a minute or less. The article above right talks about 1,3 diphenylpropane, another misquote by Gage, who partially quotes Erick Swartz of the EPA as saying large amounts were found. Gage does not continue the quote where Swartz says it probably came from tens of thousands of computer cases being burned. This article at least deals with the issue more extensively. Still,  the chemical fires found in the WTC Towers all can be traced back to materials originally found in the building in one way or another. Those "continuing chemical reactions" could well have help keep the fires burning, along with everything else that burned. So what?

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):

135 Fuel oil from generators seeped down on fire

Much of the fuel was actually recovered at Ground Zero. See:
pg. 70

  Maybe, but much fuel was also burned. This oil is only one of the fuel sources for the long fires.  
136 V. Palmieri Testified he used USGS Maps, 1400o Max Again, this was only for surface temperatures. Also, some steel was heated to temperatures above 1400 degrees.
  I spent months searching out V. Palmieri and talked to him personally. He is an expert and was a first responder who studied these NASA thermal maps daily. He told me that he determined that no temperature ever exceeded around 1400 degrees on any level, because if it had, they would have had massive water explosions when they tried to douse the flames. He was the fire safety expert who had to determine that the temperatures were low enough to allow dousing, a life-and-death decision he made based on his direct analysis of the data. Yes some steel may have gotten to above 1400 degrees DURING the fire, but by the time the firefighters were doing their work, the heat had dispersed around. No temperatures above around 1400 degrees F in the debris pile. I found the guy best qualified in the world to testify to this fact, because the lives of his crew depended on the correct answer!  
137 Steel Girders from Burning Floors The girders were burned, but the evidence indicates they were heated to higher temperatures than what normal fires could allow.
Burning floors stopped burning enough for office workers, such as Edna Cintron, to stand on them.
  The tragic death of Edna Cinton has already been discussed in  one of the first boxes above. No evidence of heat beyond around 1800 degrees F.  
138 If temps 2800o, then thermal expansion of water would have caused water explosions This apparently was a concern at Ground Zero. See:
  The OSHA Report linked above right talked about the risks of explosions from pressurized gas cylinders, temperatures of up to 2000 degrees F (NIST said 1800-1900 degrees, and the NASA thermal images were 1400 degrees post-collapse), steam explosions from pouring cold water on hot steel (see V. Palmieri's testimony), freon gases, etc. What does this have to do with the 2800 degree thermal expansion issues that did NOT exist at ground zero? I guess you agree with me, because the OSHA Report you cite talks about the hazards associated with a large office fire, not thermitics or 2800 degree molten steel.  
139 Diagonal Cuts in Beams in Debris Caused by Thermitics? No, cut by first responders See point 111.
The diagonal cuts were likely done by the cleanup operations. The weld connections were likely attacked in the demolition.
  Yes, see point 11. The welded connections broke because the breaks happened during the collapses at the weakest points. No thermitics needed for that to happen.  
140 Pools of Molten Metal Localized, Not Universal The localization of the pools is suspicious itself. See:
pg. 16
  The article linked above right contradicts Gage's claim of thermitic materials being placed all over the towers ("overkill," as David Chandler said). The localized hot spots show that universal thermitic activity did not occur as Gage claims. Now the hot spots are evidence of thermitics? How could thermitic materials keep igniting and igniting when they only burn for a minute or less? Molten = fluid = flowing to lowest point!  
141 Debris Pile 10-12 Stories High/Deep

True, but this does not mean the buildings were not demolished.

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. 

  Yes, I count the basement, where many upper floors crushed down. Gage claims there were only two stories of debris and doesn't count the basement. I think he is claiming near-complete pulverization of the building by near-universal application of thermitics (overkill).  
Part 9: Thumbnail Iron Microspheres and Sulfidized Steel - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 9 of the Respectful Rebuttal (Not debunked) of Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth: Millions of Iron-Rich Microspheres were found in the World Trade Center dust, according to an RJ Lee dust study of the Deutsche Bank. Gage says only superheated explosions or thermites could explain them. I say it could be welders' torches, fly ash, or even the 1800-degree fires on 9/11. Watch this video and decide for yourself.
142 Iron mixed with other metals has a lower melting point. Other metals were also melted and/or vaporized at higher temperatures. See point 131a.
  My point is that it is well-known among metallurgists that steel can sulfidize at a temperature much lower than the melting point of steel or iron.

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

Micrograph from article

Oxides created on stainless steel when heated to 750C:

Photos: and

Leftysergeant also argues that sulphuric acid itself could have been the cause, as there were quite some plausible sources:

And the case for thermate is much weaker:


143 Fire burns off materials and leaves higher concentration of iron-rich spheres

This cannot account for the abundance of spheres found.

  Since iron-rich spheres are a byproduct of waste removal, fires and even heating steel wool with a lighter, the burden of proof is on you to show that these iron-rich spheres can be produced only at 2800+ degree temperatures: an assertion which is simply untrue!  
143a Thermitics would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs in the debris pile, not just microspheres. Again, the molten metal was seen by many first responders. And it must be kept in mind that the debris was carted away.
  Molten metal probably mostly aluminum from 2000 cars, aluminum cladding surrounding both Towers on all 4 sides. Aluminum melts at a much much lower temperature than steel. Molten metal was seen but it was almost certainly not molten steel. The fact that debris was removed is irrelevant to the claim that big iron blobs would be found. They weren't, before during or after removal.

  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?

144 "Thousands of cutter charges" a logistical nightmare which would leave behind:
Steel fractures with high rate-of-strain
Copper around cut surfaces and inside steel
Abundant steel shrapnel

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.

  What I showed above is what appears as a result of the use of cutter charges, which Gage claims were used. No physical evidence for any kind of cutter charges, including the steel fractures etc. Attacks at the welded connections? How about the welded connections breaking because they are weaker than the solid columns?  
144a In the early 1970s, thousands of very hot welded steel connections were made during construction; this would be a source of countless iron microspheres The iron-rich spheres examined by Dr. Jones et al. are not consistent with structural steel.
  Welding torches produce iron-rich spheres from the welding process, not the structural steel. The technique used by Jones et al is to find any kind of difference between the spheres they found and the spheres in standard structural steel. The person who provided me with the sample of Tolk fly ash has 250,000 samples in his collection, each one slightly different, and none (or maybe a very few) produced by thermitic materials. So what? Different does not equal thermitic. Gage has claimed the iron microspheres are tiny nanosize iron particles?  
145 RJ Lee Dust study says iron-rich spheres to be expected in fire
The Thermitic Material paper analyzes iron-rich spheres from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, and the spheres found by themselves in the dust. They are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it. Jim Hoffman covers this
  "Strikingly similar" means "not identical." See my point 144a

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"


146 Photo and Spectrograph of iron-rich sphere in Tolk fly ash

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.

  There are many kinds of iron-rich spheres that occur; an exact match is not only unnecessary but almost impossible. See point 144a.  
Part 10: Thumbnail Sulfidized Steel - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 10 of my rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth (not debunked) investigates the 9/11 mystery FEMA Appendix C report of sulfidized steel in the WTC debris. Could it have only come from 4500-degree thermates as Gage claims, or could it have come from burning gypsum or sulfur dioxide from environmental sources?
146a FEMA Appendix C: Corroded Steel, Evidence of Fires Under 1800 Degrees. 

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.

  We've been over this. All evidence points to fire temperatures well below the melting point of steel.   
147 Thermate Surgically Cuts Through Steel Like a Hot Knife Through Butter?? Picture shows steel corroded in random patterns. Perhaps this steel was asymmetrically hit with thermate. Other parts of the building would have been more symmetrically attacked.
  Speculation.  The only photos available of sulfidized steel show these random patterns of attacks of the boundaries, not the symmetrical attacks you speculate about. Where is the physical evidence of symmetrical sulfidization?  
148 Sulfidized Steel Melts at Much Lower Temperatures True, which is why thermate would have been used.
  Sufidized steel "melts" at much lower temperatures, which is why regular fires would be hot enough for us to see this phenomenon. These lower temperatures are evidence of 1800-degree temps, not 2800-degrees!

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

More explanation of eutectic steel:


149 Thermate would cut too slowly for precise controlled demolition This is not necessarily true. See:
There are various combinations of chemicals that are called thermitic.
  Jonathan Cole (see video link above right) has done excellent experimental work on thermitic materials which have convinced me that thermate can indeed cut through steel. However, it looks to me like it takes around 8 seconds to cut through a steel beam that is smaller than the WTC beams. Cutter charges can fire off precisely in a small fraction of a second; thermate cannot be that precisely timed, which is my point.  
150 Localized Sulfidized Steel, Not Found Throughout Debris The debris was recycled before proper forensic analyzation could be carried out.
  That was true for a short time near the beginning but the debris removal process changed to allow for more analysis shortly afterwards. V. Palmieri, a firefighter who was there in the debris for months, never saw a single piece of sulfidized steel. There were very few examples of it found. Had it caused global collapse of the towers there would have been a lot of it around.

A major controlled demolition firm found the claim of fast debris removal false:

151 Sulfidized steel: all horizontal beams, not support columns; can't explain a global collapse.  However, NIST argues that the failure of a horizontal girder in WTC7 led to “global collapse.”

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.


  Gage argues that thermitic materials had to be placed throughout the buildings to bring them down. He would not agree with NIST's claims of localized failures leading to global collapse at all.  
152 911 fire fighter Vincent Palmieri: "I understand that there were a few steel pieces that were corroded by sulfur, but in the massive debris piles I worked on I never saw a single example of sulfidized steel."  How would he recognize sulfidized steel?
  Palmieri would have seen the spotched, colored, bizarrely deformed and corroded sulfidized steel had it been all around him. It would have been unmistakable. Even if he had not known what it was, he would have said, huh, what's this, I've never seen anything like this in a fire in all my years! Since then he has seen Barnett's photos from the FEMA sulfidized steel report and here he personally testifies testifies he never saw anything like this, not once, in three months of working in the WTC debris. The phenomenon was extremely rare and cannot account for global thermitic collapse.  
153 Intergranular melting is not classic melting; 4500 degree thermites would obliterate structure of sulfidized steel Only if placed symmetrically. See point 147
Perhaps this steel was asymmetrically hit with thermate. Other parts of the building would have been more symmetrically attacked.
  I am talking about the CHEMICAL structure of the sulfidized steel, which was not obliterated. You are also speculating about symmetrical vs nonsymmetrical attacks, but Gage talks about a very precise, perfectly timed, universal simultaneous destruction of every columnar support. At any rate, your response in no way addresses my assertion that the chemical makeup of the sulfidized steel shows it happened at around 1700-1800 degrees F. Had this happened at 4500 degrees F, the CHEMICAL structure at the invaded granular boundaries would simply not be there.  
154 Discoverer Jonathan Barnett's Possible Causes for Sulfidized Steel:  -Heating oil
-Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust 
-environmental sources such as acid rain
Never Mentions Thermate!
These and other materials have been tested and have been shown not to have corroded steel. See:
  An excellent YouTube video by Jonathan Cole (link above right). His experiment does show that the sulfidized steel has no clear answer as to its cause. Jonathan Barnett's email to us does NOT mention thermate as a possible source. Cole says thermate is a logical possibility for the source, but his video does not address point 153 above or point 155 below. I indirectly took him up on his challenge to experiment to prove him wrong, as he used the red-gray chips as evidence of thermitic materials. The experiment I hired Jim Millette to perform found no thermitic materials in the dust. In addition, Cole's experiment is incomplete:

an important element that Cole left out in his experiment was water. See for example: 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:

And the case for thermate is much weaker:

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.

155 CSWDC Waste Company: Gypsum can create sulfur dioxide when burned See point 154 above.

Part 11: Thumbnail




Thermitics in the Dust? - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part A of the investigation of alleged thermites/thermates/thermitics in the World Trade Center dust. Go to Part B after this introduction: 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 - 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: 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

 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):

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):


156 2001: nanothermites in development stage The technology would have been well developed by 2001. See:
  The article above right: maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where it supported your claim of fully functional nanothermitic applications as far back as pre-2001. I do accept the possibility that nanothermites can be made explosive, but this quote Kevin Ryan pulled leaves me highly skeptical that nanothermites can also be quiet: "“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.” Mach 3 = sonic boom by definition!  
157 Nanothermites non-explosive? heat not gas? Nanothermite can be made to be very explosive. See point 115.
MIT Review: "Military Reloads with Nanotech - Smaller Cheaper Nastier - The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom."  January 21, 2005
  My limited research indicates nanothermite is  a low-to-medium explosive. I may be wrong.  
158 The least energetic dust sample with The highest ignition temperature (in blue) is plotted against known nanothermite: not a match All this means is that this is more powerful nanothermite.
  What it actually means is that the red-gray chips in the Bentham paper are not anywhere near a match for the known nanothermites they were comparing against. No evidence of "more powerful" or any kind of thermite.  
159 Carbon-based materials burned in air may have caused energy spike, not thermites This is unlikely, as the chips produce iron microspheres, indicating a thermitic reaction
  Iron microspheres are common in incinerators, conventional fire, welding operations, etc. NOT unique to thermitic reaction AT ALL.  
160 If you found unexploded thermitics then where are the unexploded triggering devices? The devices could have been made exceedingly small and disguised.
  Speculation. No physical evidence found for thermitic materials in the aftermath. None. Not by any of the hundreds of debris removal and CD experts hired to do cleanup.  
161 Tests Inconclusive Because:
Burning test should have used argon or nitrogen gas to see if thermites burn without oxygen.
The ATM paper authors repeated previous experiments that were done in open air. See:
  Tillotson's original tests started with known nanothermite. The AE911 tests were done on an unknown substance, where the protocol should have been different.  
162 Tillotson used PXRD in original nanothermite experiment; Harritt et al did not How does this affect their conclusions?
  For starters, this refutes your claim that the original tests replicated the Tillotson study. In addition, the DSC test is one of the least effective ways to determine the chemical makeup of an unknown compound. It is heavily relied upon when other tests are more effective. FTIR and MEK tests were supposedly done and never released in the origional study.  
163 Gage flashed spectrographs of dust vs thermites, they looked different and he never explained them. The spectrographs of the dust and thermite do match quite well. See:
  But no aluminum oxide, a primary residue of used thermitics.  
164 No aluminum oxide in dust sample, which would be residue of exploded thermite Aluminum oxide would disperse in the air and not be present.
  Watch my video again and watch the thermite reaction on the railroad tie, where large piles of aluminum oxide residue are left behind. A LOT of it. It doesn't disperse in the air, it piles up on any available surface. Regular sized thermitic particles are just an incendiary.  However, with nano-sized particles, the explosive potential is MUCH greater
165 Not adequately tested for fluorine in the dust, which Kevin claims is used to stabilize the silicon. Further study is needed, but the means to do so were unavailable to the ATM authors.
  A minor point anyway, and not proof one way or another. Agreed
166 Everything found in the dust was in the towers (if not true, more proof needed):  sulfur in the gypsum 
iron in paint and electrical equipment
manganese in steel
fluorine in air-conditioning freon
titanium in the planes and buildings
potassium in concrete (bananas in the snack room?... Just kidding!)
Chips claimed to be identical to the chemical composition of the paint, fire retardant, vermiculite,

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:

  In 2012, Jim Millette did not find thermite in the red-grey chips ( ). Steven Jones has claimed that Millette found the wrong chips to study (see ). But his own fellow researcher Jeffrey Farrer, in a personal email to me and another 9/11 Truth skeptic, told us “The chips they [Millette] used look identical in appearance and in their chemical profile to the chips that we found. The particles they refer to as kaolin and Iron oxide are identical in appearance to the TEM and SEM images that I had acquired of the particles. They also have the same chemical profile (XEDS). Honestly, when I look at their images it is as though I'm looking at my own images of the particles.”

For the 2009 thermitic paper, Kevin Ryan did FTIR work on the chips and Jeffrey Farrer did a TEM analysis. Neither results appeared in the final paper. Jeff Farrer told me and another person in personal emails that “I have performed some TEM analysis, but have never released that data to anyone. I discussed some of my TEM findings with another of the authors of the Thermitic paper and it was suggested that perhaps I had mistakenly collected a "different" chip. This was in spite of the fact that the TEM specimen was prepared from the same chip that was used for many of the other tests. I have done very little research on the project since that time.”
167 EPA's Erik Swartz told the Times Union 1,3-diphenylpropane (1,3-DPP), was present at levels "that dwarfed all others," produced by plastic of burning computers sound-proofing and rust proofing.  Source: "The compound 1,3-diphenyl propane [1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is found in significant concentrations. This species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polyvinyl chloride materials, which are believed to be in abundance at the WTC site. These emissions lasted for over three weeks (9/26/01-10/20/01) after the initial destruction of the WTC."
No one denies there were a lot of computers and vinyl products in the WTC. But why were these turned to fine particles, instead of simply crushed by the floors above?
  Millions of pounds coming down at over 100 mph pulverized the concrete, the plastics, etc etc. My beef with Gage is that he edited out the next sentence of Erik Swartz's claim, quoting only the part about lots of 1,3 diphenylpropane but not his hypothesis as to its source.  
168 The Next Essential Steps Have Not Been Taken
Richard Gage: We need repeatable experiments on the dust."
Complete the discovery with presentation of findings to qualified scientists
Release dust samples to any one of these independent labs for testing: RJ Lee, EMRTC, MACE, or NJIT's ACN group.

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:


It is Agreed that the replication of the thermite study has been slow, over 2 years.  Science depends on repeatable studies, standard scientific procedure, in order to be accepted by the scientific community.  There is no short cut or substitute.

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.

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 to study the dust.

169 Bin Laden said he did it

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..."

"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.

This does not mean the Towers were not demolished. See:

  Look at my video. It sure looks like bin Laden to me. He said he did it, boasted about it in fact. Here is a clip from the video, where the lighting is poor. The aspect ratio for the "fake bin Laden" picture may be distorted, but this picture from the bin Laden confession video is a dead ringer for the guy, not fat at all. As for claims he is left-handed, I've read many articles asserting this but no proof. I have two Muslim friends who do wear rings so I don't know why this claim is made.

Bin Laden had numerous doubles - all "dead ringers for the guy".

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 Mail online

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.


Part 12: Thumbnail Twin Towers Conclusion
Concluding the Twin Towers portion of my respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth, reviewing the 168 reasons for controlled demolition, and adding reason 169: bin Laden said he did it. A call for honesty, respect, a commitment to real 9/11 Truth.
Section 2  Building 7  
Part 13: Thumbnail NIST Report on Building 7 - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
This is a simple explanation of the NIST theory of Building 7's collapse. Richard Gage and I stipulated together that this is what NIST said. Richard disagrees with what they said, and I largely agree.
170 for Natural Collapse: At least Six Variations of Natural Collapse Theory, all with minor variations on the NIST proposed sequence. This is normal in science, NOT proof of fraud by NIST!!!!! However, many issues raised by the Truth Movement cannot be explained by any “natural collapse” scenario.

Chris admits that NIST did not explain the collapse of WTC 7:

  It's obviously true that the NIST Reports go up to collapse inevitability but don't describe the collapses themselves in detail. However, if you are looking for evidence of controlled demolition, the most common things to look for are:

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:

An independent investigation of the Building 7 Collapse:

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

What caused early motion (see the graph linked here) of Building 7 if descent were caused by an explosion?

171 David Scott, chair of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wrote, "the failure was caused by thermal expansion but perhaps the critical point of time was as the expanded beam returns back to its original position. This is part of the thermal expansion theory."

CTBUH Opinions of 9/11 CD Theories:


Thermal expansion has never caused a high-rise skyscraper to collapse.   before or since 9/11.
  The fact that it has never happened before or since does not mean it could not have happened. Beams were exceptionally long-span as explained in other re-re-rebuttals above. The sprayed on fireproofing was highly unusual, the fires were largely unfought, etc. There are good reasons why these buildings collapsed.  

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.
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:

  Anyone who looks at videos of smoke pouring out of Building 7 cannot honestly say this is smoke being sucked into the Building from other sources!  
173 Fire originated on ten floors There were only 6 floors with significant fire of the 47.
  Here I disagree with NIST, which reported very conservatively on the number of fires in Building 7. Many fire experts and 9/11 firefighters reported more extensive fires than NIST did. Looking at videos of Building 7 fires, you can see smoke pouring out of most floors except near the top.  
174 Water Supply Impaired, no firefighting efforts NIST concluded that this was likely insignificant. See:
  Here's what NIST actually said in the FAQ's you linked above right: "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand." This contradicts your claim that NIST concluded that the "uncontrolled" or unfought fires were insignificant.   
175 "It was a huge hole right in the middle of it." NIST concluded the building would have collapsed even without the structural damage. See:
Computer simulations can do anything, even make a building "do the twist".
  It's true that NIST concluded that the structural damage from debris collisions during the Tower collapses were not a significant factor in causing the collapse. However, it is unfair to characterize the damage done from the Towers as "minor," a claim Gage and other 9/11 Truth people have made to create the false impression that the Building was in good shape, fires were minor, and the collapse just happened out of the blue. Your final statement about how computer simulations can do anything is innuendo. The NIST Report was 4x peer reviewed, and their major conclusions supported by every major structural/civil engineering body in the world as well as several universities and an independent study done by the FBI with over 7000 agents checking NIST's work. None of these entities accused NIST of falsifying their computer models.  
176 First Responders Walking Through Cool Debris Pile While Building 7 Fire Rages: Where's the 4500o Nanothermitic Heat? See point 104
Yes, see my firsthand account from a 9/11 First Responder vs your speculation.

Firefighters combing through cool debris shortly after 9/11:!


177 Damage from Tower Collapse See point 175.
178 "Meteorite": Unburned Paper! Paper may have occasionally survived in the debris.
by being blown out along with the rush of air
This would happen with either scenario: natural collapse or controlled demolition
  Actually, the unburned paper in the meteorite shows that this was the result of crushing, not intense 4500 degree F heat. Paper burns at 451F and there is no way that type on the paper would be readable if 4500 degree heat melted this meteorite into its shape. Remember,  the paper is fused into the meteorite, not blown out in the rush of air. Your final statement, "This would happen with either scenario," undercuts Gage's assertion that the meteorite could have been created only with intense heat!  
179 The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Director David Scott: "The Council...sees no credibility whatsoever in the 9/11 `truth movement' and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures were a direct or indirect result of the planes...flown into the two towers. We cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the `truth movement' is a distraction..." Others don’t feel the same way. Majority opinion does not determine what the truth is
  The overwhelming consensus of expert opinion does not determine the truth, but people in the 9/11 Truth movement have used the minor differences of professional opinion re thermal expansion/contraction expressed by CTBUH as evidence that there is a major rift between them. There is not. Your response is not really an answer to this.  
180 Buildings collapse hours after fires go out. Yet this has never occurred in a steel-framed skyscraper.
When the fire goes out, the building cools, and the steel recovers its full strength.  So it is even more strange that the towers collapsed after about an hour after jet impact.
  When the building cools the sagging freezes into shape and then shrinks more. This is what CTBUH said. The steel is therefore not back to full strength because it is badly misshapen and subject to having support structures break apart from one another. "Never happened before" is a truism we both agree on but proves nothing for either side.  
Part 14: Thumbnail Size of Building 7 Fires
Richard Gage shows photos of smaller fires in Building 7, but the damage on the south side where it was hit by the collapsing WTC tower is much greater.

NIST's Damage and Fire Estimates Very Conservative:

Part 15: Thumbnail Building 7
Investigating Symmetrical destruction / path of least resistance - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Richard Gage claims in 9/11 Blueprint for Truth that Building 7 fell symmetrically and through the path of greatest resistance. Is this true? The building top can't just fly off to the side and fall through the air unless a lateral force pushes it sideways! CORRECTION on Reason #195: Building 7 was higher than it was wide, it was "squat" in shape only by comparison to the Twin Towers.
181 Face twisted towards the end, rotated southwards as it fell, and the north face developed a visible kink off-centre as the column failures progressed outwards from the initial point of failure These features can occur in demolitions. See point 85.
Tilts often happen in demolitions. See:
  I am rebutting Gage's claim that this was a symmetrical collapse, which he then uses to further claim the symmetrical = controlled demolition. It was NOT symmetrical , which is my rebuttal to the first point. Much more importantly, mostly-symmetrical collapses don't mean anything! The large portion of the Delft Building which collapsed naturally was mostly symmetrical and mostly straight-down.  The controlled demolition of the tall J.L. Hudson Building is clearly not symmetrical but happens in stages. Symmetry is NOT significant of either CDs or fire.

Symmetrical collapse rebuttal:

Building 7 asymmetrical

At 6:14 see building collapse backwards into most damaged section: where are loud explosive sounds in any of these?:


182 Controlled demolitions not necessarily symmetrical anyway Not perfectly symmetrical, but close enough.
True. See point 181 above.
  Thank you for agreeing with my rebuttal!  
183 "Path of least resistance" limited to paths that are actually available.  The buildings could have toppled over.
This is an available path that other buildings have taken, even with CD.
  With or without CD, some buildings topple over and some fall straight down. So I'm glad you agree with me that Gage's assertion of symmetrical = CD is completely without merit.  
184 Royal Gorge Colorado: carves through mountain with nearby flat terrain.

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

It is an awesome bridge though.

  It's the gorge, not the bridge I am talking about. The Gorge goes through the middle of a mountain even though there is flat land around it. The river followed the path of least resistance available to it when carving out the gorge; it did NOT go off to the side where there would have been less resistance (no mountain to carve through during the very gradual uplift). Similarly, the WTC Buildings would not have had the tops float over to the side where there would be no resistance without a lateral force pushing it over there. Glad you like the bridge tho.  
184a If a brick falls on an egg, will it move to the side because that's the path of least resistance? No.  Not even if an egg falls on other eggs.  The point is that there is equal resistance from the lower floors (or eggs) to slow the collapse. See video on Law of Conservation of Motion.

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

  My point here is that "path of least resistance" is not even a law of physics. The path of a falling object is determined by force, momentum, etc. It will take the path of least available resistance but it won't shift off to the right or left just because there's less resistance somewhere over there. The second paragraph of your re-rebuttal is obviously untrue; watch any video.  
185 Conservation of momentum and lateral force Little force was acting on the buildings in the first place. See point 71
  Little force? 10,000,000 pounds per floor traveling at over 100 mph? Even after the first floor dropped, it was exerting 30x the static load as a dynamic load on the floor below it!  
186 WTC Buildings fell through path of least available resistance, often bypassing columns and the core instead falling into open office space This does not explain why the outer core columns collapsed along with the rest of the structure. See also:

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.


187 Earthquakes Topple Buildings to Sides Only Because of Lateral Forces The toppling of the upper section of the South Tower would have created large lateral forces.
  Not enough lateral force to cause the whole top to fall sideways though. The tilted top block was dragged back into the outer perimeter. The engineering dynamics of all this is explained in Ryan Mackey's White Paper, On Debunking 9/11 Debunking..  
188 An object can't just float to the side and into midair and drop that way. Agreed. That is why we question why steel beams flew sideways over 600 feet, with such force they lodged themselves into buildings such as the Winter Garden and AmEx buildings.

No one is saying that is what would have happened.

  Watch one of Gage's "box" explanations, where he holds one box out over midair and one box over the top of another box. Which will encounter more resistance, he asks. See my discussion about lateral ejection of beams: it never happened, and video and photo evidence can prove it!  
189 Thomas Eagar: "The building is 95 percent air and can implode onto itself. A [large] structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down." If buildings that are 95 percent air—virtually all tall office buildings—then why do demolition companies spend millions of dollars to ensure that a building falls straight down?
  To make sure there is minimal collateral damage. Still, Gravity is usually the greatest force a collapsing building encounters and roughly straight-down is the most common direction for buildings to go.  
190 Michael Brown: "...Collapses began were tilted toward the weakened collapse points." Not necessarily true for the North Tower, as it initially tilted away from the most damaged location.
  I gave a reference for what Michael Brown said, which is, to a gross order, all three buildings collapsed into their weakest points. I have not heard otherwise and have never heard of such a claim, so I can't evaluate it. What do  you mean by "most damaged"? I would mean "most weakened."  
191 WTC 7 Tilting 6 degrees before collapse These features can occur in demolitions. See point 85.
Tilts often happen in demolitions. See:
See point 181.
  Again, I am rebutting Gage's symmetrical collapse = CD claim. The collapse of Building 7 was not precisely symmetrical and even if it were, it would not prove CD.  
192 No major explosions immediately prior We can hear an explosion prior to the WTC 7 collapse on this video
Craig Bartner of NYPD said "I know an explosion when I hear it."
Also, Barry Jennings reported explosions around 9:00 am in WTC 7 that almost killed him. 
William Rodriguez and others reported major explosions in the basement of the WTC 1 prior to even being hit by a plane.  Numerous explosions were reported, and heard on same-day broadcasts. 

Explosions were heard and recorded. See:

  I should have been more clear: there were no steel-cutting explosive sounds in rapid-fire succession immediately prior. Of course there were random explosive sounds, which are common in fires. Explosions do NOT equal explosives!  
193 No squibs prior.  The squibs are obviously present prior to the collapse area, especially when we view slow motion videos of the towers collapsing.

Squibs did shoot out of the building. See:

  No squibs prior to onset of collapse is what I meant.  
194 No ejection of dust See point 193 above.

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

  This is referring to Building 7, where the north perimeter came down without initial explosive sounds, squibs or massive dust ejections  
195 Squat building wider than it was high, greater lateral forces needed
CORRECTION on Reason #195: Building 7 was higher than it was wide, it was "squat" in shape only by comparison to the Twin Towers.
The building still could have simply toppled over.
  Generally the momentum of a gravity driven collapse brings buildings closer to straight down. There was not enough lateral force to topple the whole building.  
196 Perimeter wall folded over entire building, not demolished Façade appearing intact does not mean the interior was not demolished.
  Interior collapsed first and pulled north perimeter wall southward so it ended up folding over the top with no evidence of demolition causing this to happen.  
197 WTC 7 didn't fall in its own footprint: there was extensive damage to Fiterman Hall and Verizon building. This was likely due to the fact that the building was particularly large. The debris field was compact. See:

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.

  "Minimal damage to adjacent structures" is a hallmark of classic CD according to Richard Gage. Damage to Fiterman and Verizon was in the several billions of dollars!

Protec Controlled Demolition company agrees with me (see question 2):

Also see

198 16-acre debris: inconsistent with falling into own footprint This only occurred for the Towers, which were obviously more explosive demolitions.
  Not true. Debris was extensive and wide-ranging from all three buildings. Or are you suggesting that the Towers fell naturally and that Building 7 was the only CD? (This has actually been suggested to me recently by the way).  
199 Vincent Palmieri personally emailed me this picture: "Richard Gage claimed... the steel columns were conveniently broken into 30-foot pieces... for easy and quick removal. As a first responder, I can assure you that there was nothing convenient about the debris pile we encountered in the fall of 2001."

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.

  Gage no longer says that the columns were broken into 30-foot pieces for convenient removal, but this is a refutation of that old claim. I say they failed at the original bolted joints, the weakest part!  
199a Nanothermite Ignites at 825-985 degrees, would go off in 1400-degree fires They wouldn’t go off with electric superthermite matches. See:
  Electric matches or not, my point above stands. In a 1400 degree fire the nanothermite would ignite, with or without superthermite matches! The matches linked above right do not STOP nanothermite from igniting when they are exposed to temperatures 500 degrees above their ignition point!  
200 No radio receiver could receive signal to detonate after heating to 1400 degrees NASA controls a rover on Mars, up to 160,000,000 miles from Earth, just fine, by radio remote control.  The Mariner and Messenger probes to Mercury functioned near the closest planet to the Sun.  There is no reason to believe that the radio technology used on 9/11 was any worse, within 1 mile.
  You are evading the fact that no known radio receiver could function at 1400 degrees. This has nothing to do with Mars!  
201 All three buildings collapsed asymmetrically and into their weakest points. Reference to point 190 is about initiation, now we are talking about progression. As the buildings collapsed, the columns were bypassed as the collapsing material fell into the 95% air part of the building. The 3 WTC buildings collapsed much more symmetrically than one would expect, even if not perfectly so.  The weakest point would have been for the steel to fall outwards into thin air, not downwards through concrete and steel.

See point 190.
202 Smoke pouring out of much of Building 7.

See point 172.
This was likely caused by negative air pressure, not fire. See:

  Building 7 was heavily on fire. Watch my video 14 again and you will see massive amounts of smoke pouring vigorously out of dozens of floors at once, not smoke being sucked TOWARDS the building as you would see in a negative air pressure situation!  
Part 16: Thumbnail WTC Building 7) Eyewitness Accounts; Foreknowledge - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Part 16 of Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage's 9/11 Blueprint for Truth video looks at Gage's claims of eyewitness accounts of explosives in Building 7 as well as investigating the questions: who had advance knowledge of the destruction Building 7 and why? Here's a less respectful video with more footage and information:
202a Reason to Doubt the Controlled Demolition Theory: Kevin McPadden's Changing Story

Even without Kevin McPadden’s testimony, we still have accounts of plans to bring Building 7 down. See:

  Watch this video and you will see Kevin McPadden changing his story. Gage uses him as eyewitness evidence of foreknowledge of a collapsed timed to the second which the emergency workers were somehow "in on." My video means his testimony must be removed  from Gage's "evidence."

Here's a less respectful video with more footage and information about foreknowledge of collaopse:


202b Barry Jennings's Consistent Testimony Cancels Out Michael Hess's Testimony Foreknowledge Indeed, Jennings’ testimony remained the same, until his untimely death.
  Actually I have just discovered that Barry Jennings DID NOT LIKE the way Dylan Avery portrayed his story:

Barry Jennings on BBC 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?

203 Michael Hess's Changing Story: No Explosions, Compared to Earthquake

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.

  Innuendo. Why don't you just say Barry Jennings was murdered for sticking to his story and Michael Hess was spared because he agreed to change his story? Too much of the 9/11 Truth movement relies of dark, shady innuendoes where the reader is invited to fill in their own dire fantasies. I had read that Barry Jennings died of leukemia, or maybe heart failure. Public disclosure of cause of death is decided by the family in New York and New Jersey, not the government.  
203a Peter Hayden: Engineer predicted structural collapse of Building 7 early on

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?

  More innuendo.  
204 Why on earth would BBC be let in on demolition in advance? The BBC announcers read scripts and teleprompters.  No one is claiming they knew the implications of what they were announcing about WTC 7.  Someone gave them a script to read, but too early.  There is no such thing as a "perfect crime".  Criminals always make at least 1 mistake.  A good detective finds them.

Perhaps the conspirators made a mistake.

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.


205 Reuters Reported Collapse Midday due to dust blocking view? If so, then this should be clarified
  No one knows. We do know Reuters mistakenly reported Building 7's collapse at midday. Another in a series of simple journalistic errors on that horrible day, that's all.  
206 Reporters Also Said Camp David had been hit by a plane! This is not comparable to the BBC report, as Building 7 actually did collapse

An effective False Flag PsyOp would plant false reports to create confusion and focus attention in the wrong direction.
  Still more innuendo. Please PROVE this allegation! It IS comparable: it's a major error in reporting, just like the premature reporting of Building 7's collapse. In fact, because the NIST Report said that Building 7 was shrouded in dust for 15 minutes after the South Tower collapse, an engineer then predicted its collapse, etc. there was actually more reasons to make the Building 7 error!  
207 Forbes Magazine: "A car bomb exploded outside the State Department." See point 206.

More misdirection.  How does this help your argument?
  It helps my very simple argument: Building 7's collapse was misreported, but there were many other mistakes that day. I am explaining a simple error; you are concocting a complex series of innuendo with no proof.  
208 CBS: "As many as eight planes have been hijacked and only four have been accounted for."  Up to 8 planes may have had an unusual flight pattern.  However we know of 4 (11, 77, 93, 175). Plus there was a flight 43 that was unusual. It was delayed for mechanical problems.  4 Muslim looking passengers rushed off the plane and were not found again.

See point 206. - planned confusion and misdirection to create terror
  Yet another simple journalistic mistake. If Muslims ran off a fifth plane during mechanical problems (I have no idea if this is true) that could show a fifth plane was targeted for hijacking, so what?  
209 The media make mistakes, and there was nothing unusual or suspicious about the BBC's error The BBC broadcast about WTC 7 coming down WAS very unusual, because buildings have never done that before, even when there were many flames.  So there was no reason for them to predict such a complete collapse.

Except that their report was not false. It was at the wrong time.
  Again, due to dust covering the view and the engineer's prediction (and others, based on the structural distortions of the building) misreporting is easily understood.  
210 Eyewitness Firefighter Building 7: Fire Chief Nigro
Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7. WTC 7, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
The evidence strongly suggests that the FDNY was warned about the building’s collapse. See:
  Several top firefighters testified that their own observation made them say the structure was unsound and would or might collapse. Many others were told so and believed it. That's in essence what the article linked above right claims, then concludes with incredulity and innuendo, not evidence.

Firefighter Joe Torrillo knew buildings would collapse:!

211 Firefighter Miller Before WTC 7 Collapse See point 210.
212 Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: We saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. See point 210.

: Firerfighters say building is leaning severely to the south.


213 Fire Captain Chris Boyle: Butch said forget it, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.  See point 210.
214 At 5:20, Building 7 finally falls. There's a stampede over pickaxes and oxygen tanks. They head out toward the crushed fire trucks. 
"They're looking for their brothers," says an ambulance driver.
The firefighters should obviously be looked at as heroes.

We both totally agree on that.
Part 17: Thumbnail Secret Preparation for the Biggest Controlled Demolition in History??? - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Richard Gage says his belief in 9/11 controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, but he casts a net of suspicion over hundreds of people and institutions in his video 9/11 Blueprint for Truth. How many people do you think would have to be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude, and why hasn't anyone run to WikiLeaks or created a blog to deliver smoking-gun inside information? Do you believe most people just can't face 9/11 Truth? Do you think the truth is the most horrible scenario imaginable? I don't. The truth is just the truth, and the evidence tells me it's not nearly as bad as the nightmare that is "9/11 Truth."


No! Tens of thousands of workers coming and going day and night 

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:

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."

  Innuendo. Are you accusing the Ace Elevator Company of setting up a mass murder of American citizens? Besides speculation, what proof do you have of such a charge? Are you saying that elevator repairmen are normally expected to create horrific burning metal smells as they set their shaped charges, creating unbearable noises, ripping out perimeter walls in office buildings, etc? That's what would be necessary to pull off a CD. The "controlled" part of a major CD begins months earlier with total evacuation of the building!!!  
216 No! Thousands of Nervous 1993 survivors still working there The people at the WTCs had no reason to suspect the elevator repair workers.

See point 215.
New Yorkers who had already been through a terrorist attack in their own office buildings would suspect EVERYONE! Are you saying that no one would be able to tell the difference between detonators and elevator maintenance equipment? Also, allow me to add this from a recent JREF Post:  "Hundreds of firefighters were killed on 9-11. Call me crazy, but I think that any firefighter finding clear, suspicious signs at the site would, in a few minutes, have all his buddies come and see it too, and they'd be calling every news organization in NYC, taking photos and videos of the evidence, and filing reports with every investigative body with an interest in 9-11." Does anyone seriously believe these firefighters would even unwillingly cooperate with a coverup of the mass murder of their brothers?

Here's an article that says it would take over 8,000 people to pull this off...

And here is a lot more info with links about this conspiracy's size:

Here is a controlled demolition firm's opinion of the idea that first responders were in on the onspiracy:


It had been quite a while since 1993, and by 2001 people had become complacent.

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 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".

217 No! The tallest demolished building ever took twelve people 24 days doing nothing but loading in explosives ACE was working for over 8 months.  They could also work above the ceiling panels at night.  There was time.
This was due to the building’s construction. Building 7 would have been easier to set up. See:
  This is more speculation. Why hasn't ONE person from the Ace Elevator Company talked about what they did?  
218 No! 369 shaped charges used for similar sized Landmark Tower The number of charges used could have decreased in the Towers based on where they were placed.
  My mistake, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were both many times bigger than the Landmark Tower and thus many more charges would have to be planted.  
219 No! Both demolitions were incredibly loud, and serious muffling impossible Explosion sounds were heard in abundance.   See response #50.

The WTC demolitions could have had the sounds decreased.
See point 53.

The sounds could have been reduced with the use of alumnothermics.  See:
  Explosive sounds on 9/11 were NOTHING like a real CD. You can't drastically reduce sounds without reducing explosive power, especially if you believe multi-ton beams were hurled 600 feet horizontally.  
220 No! Linear Shaped Charges: Smells and sounds of Welders burning thru steel ACE had a good cover story.  People would consider this normal for an elevator modernization project.  Who would suspect they were planning to explode the building?
Similar work has been done in buildings without the occupants knowing. See: and
  The welders' smells would be pervasive throughout the buildings even around the perimeters for months. Are you suggesting no one would find that suspicious, even after the fact? After all, the elevators were in the core and the perimeters far away. Occupants have been unaware of structural repairs being done, which are less invasive than CD preparation. Visit a building for a month before its demolition and you will see an incredible amount of destruction of walls, noise, welding, etc.  
221 236 columns like this would need several shaped charges each to provide the "overkill" of Building 7 Perhaps, but this done not mean the building couldn’t have been set up this way.
  We are talking 2000-3000 "shaped charges" to fulfill David Chandler's claim of Building 7 being "overkill," each one emitting enormous welding fumes, noises, walls torn out, etc.  
222 No! Major structural supports next to the most desirable offices on outside Again, the work could have been done covertly.

Access from the elevator shafts would have been hidden from view.
  Elevator shafts a small part of the core. What about the rest of the columns, especially the perimeter columns? Beyond vague speculation, I see no evidence of a full-scale CD plan in place here.  
223 Nanothermites painted on could warm steel but not cause lateral ejection No one (except perhaps Jesse Ventura) is saying that only painted on explosives were used.  A combination of explosives could have been used, some to weaken, and to eject the steel beams.

The nanothermite could have been applied in other ways.
  True, but even Gage suggests the painted-on thermites may have helped the destruction along, which is useless.  
224 Remote controls in core: hard time receiving signal NASA controls a rover on Mars, up to 160 million miles from Earth, just fine, by remote control.  There is no reason to believe that the technology used on 9/11 was any worse.  Potential perpetrators could have access to the latest technology.
Similar to point 200.
  You may be right on this particular speculation. So I will also propose this objection instead:

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.


225 Creating shape charges is noisy and smelly. Complete control of the building required for prep The perpetrators would not need "complete control" - just enough to plant the charges.  Ample opportunity was available as "Ace Elevator Company" workers were in the elevator shafts by day, and above the ceiling panels by night, for months, during the largest "elevator modernization" and "asbestos removal" project in history.  The "security" company - SecuriCom - has NeoCons on the Board of Directors, such as Marvin Bush.
See point 215

There are many ways the explosives could have been planted covertly. See:
  You talk talk of Securacom (that you misspell as SecuriCom) as if it were the security company of the WTC in which Marvin Bush worked. That's wrong; the company was E-J Electric
(see and
e-j-electric-workers-survive-world-trade-center-attack. Securacom did some work for the WTC, and Marvin Bush had left the company in 2000 anyway.

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?

226 Nonexplosive thermates pulverize whole building? John Cole has shown that thermate can be explosive - even in his yard, blowing steel beams over 30 feet into the air.  "The Great Thermate Debate"
  Richard Gage told me personally that he believed nonexplosive thermate was used in Building 7.  
227 Implication of Mayor, Fire and Police Chiefs, building owner, BBC, "phony" man-on-the-street interviewees, several layers of the Federal Government?? Implication needs to be investigated, and has not been:
Mayor Rudy Giuliani - Why did he authorize Ground Zero steel to be removed
Fire Chief
Daniel Nigro - stated he did not talk with Silverstein after all
Police Chiefs - (Who is accusing them of waht?)
Building owner
Larry Silverstein - insured WTCs for billions, said "pull it"
BBC - who wrote the scripts that
WTC 7 collapsed before it did?
"Phony" man on the street -  Mark Walsh "Harley Guy" worked for media
Several layers of Fed. Govt. -
Cheney has lied many times on record

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

  The innuendo is for a massive conspiracy impossible to hide.

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:  Again, which theories get investigated?

228 Someone would have gone to WikiLeaks! There are considerable entries in WikiLeaks about 9/11, if you can read between the lines.  The Guantanamo Files indicate the Muslim prisoners were scape goats and not the real organizers of 9/11. Whistle blowers such as Colleen Rowley (a Time Magazine Person of the Year) have come forward in main stream press.  National consciousness has to wake up to the information that is already available.
  A lot of the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo were indeed scapegoats, held without trial or evidence. A terrible miscarriage of justice but not evidence of CD, of which there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in WiliLeaks..  
229 Larry Silverstein talked about "pulling" in relation to Building 7, but he was talking with firefighters about pulling the crew out of the collapse zone, not talking to controlled demolition people

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.


  More innuendo. Why would Silverstein be "in" on such a top-secret mass murder?

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:

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!

230 If Larry Silverstein had admitted to bombing his own building, why did he get billions in insurance money? The case of possible insurance fraud should be vigorously investigated, to see if the insurers were paid off or bailed out by the Government "since 9/11 was not their fault" to see why they have been so limp in their objections to paying billions to Silverstein.  A recent case brought was mysteriously cancelled.  Were they paid off under the table? We need an investigation.

  More innuendo. When Bush declared 9/11 an act of war, the insurance companies fought like hell not to pay Silverstein on that basis alone.  
231 Conservatives Protect Their Own and Most Would Not Cooperate with Plan to kill thousands of Americans

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.

  It's not left/right, it's facts vs innuendo and speculation. The Project for a New American Century shows a plan for military dominion but says nothing about causing mass destruction in major US cities!  
Part 18: Thumbnail The Best Explanation I Know of for the Freefall Collapse of the North Wall of Building Seven - Watch this video before reading the reasons below!
Is the freefall collapse of eight stories of one face of the 47-story WTC Building 7 on 9/11 really the silver bullet that proves controlled demolition? This important video explains as simply and directly as possible the complex set of forces that create zero net resistance, which is not the same as zero resistance. The best explanation I know of for Building 7's freefall from a Natural Collapse perspective. Also, here is a video of a very different collapse sequence (not hidden behind its own perimeter wall) that may be of interest:
CORRECTION: This is a remake of part 18 after mistakes in the first version were caught by a 9/11 Truth researcher

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

  Highly qualified professionals have informally rebutted Chandler's a Szamboti's claims. They have not had their papers peer-reviewed, in fact, they tend to avoid other physicists and do not solicit professional opinions from outside the 9/11 Truth movement. I did not invent the faster-than-freefall concept,  see post 3946 and dozens of pages thereafter on this JREF thread: Faster than freefall is pretty well established as you can see. "My" torquing model has been created by and checked out by engineers and others more qualified than me. Even David  Chandler’s plotting of building 7 collapse shows a nonlinear line which shows varying acceleration, not freefall:

My response to David Chandler:

>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:!

When steel buckles it loses its strength very quickly:

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:

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:

Ryan Mackey explains internal leveraged collapse of Building 7:

Another >g collapse explanation:

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:

Another diagram of the forces that could have created less than net-zero resistance in Building 7:


233 Thermates would have created blinding lights everywhere.  Bright lights and flashes do not always happen in demolitions.
Here is an example showing very few, if any.   See:
  This response is evasion: I said THERMATES create blinding lights. Regular explosives and CDs do not necessarily do this but thermitics definitely do.

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:

234 Unburned, collapsed perimeter wall: no sign of destruction of perimeter by thermate. See point 196.
This was likely due to the fact that the building was particularly large. The debris field was compact. See:
  A huge 47 story building is large therefore no sign of destruction on an entire north perimeter wall????? A complete non sequiter! Same about the debris field, which is not my point here at all.  
235 Entire Structural Perimeter Faces Folded Over on Top of Rubble: Not Cut Apart by 4500o Thermitics See point 196.
This was likely due to the fact that the building was particularly large. The debris field was compact. See:
Part 19: Thumbnail New 9/11 Investigation?
I have given hundreds of reasons why I don't believe in the 9/11 controlled demolition theory. So why would I even consider supporting a new investigation? A look at the 9/11 Commission, Bush/Cheney's resistance to a 9/11 investigation, etc.
10 Sincere Questions for my 9/11 Truth Friends
1. Over 1500 architects and engineers on your investigation petition: will you ever submit it to Congress?
2. Who would be on this panel?
3. Independent Commissions a threat to civil liberties?
4. No reasonable suspicion scientifically
5. Would 9/11 commission investigate UFOs, space rays, mininukes, missles, holograms, and other 9/11 theories?  Who decides which theories deserve a closer look?
6. What about other theories: Kennedy conspiracy, Martin Luther King, Pearl Harbor, aliens in cold storage, Obama's birth certificate... Do these merit special independent investigations, and if not, why controlled demolition and not these other ones?
7. What about theories that haven't come true: of concentration camps for dissidents, stolen elections in 2006 and 2008 when the Dems won, CIA plans to assassinate Obama, plans for other false flag operations that never materialized, etc.?
8. What if independent commission uncovered incompetence but nothing else?  Would you demand yet another investigation?
9. Truth-and-Reconciliation, or the full force of the law?
10. Why don't you submit your dust samples for standardized testing with R J Lee?
Thank you.  A new investigation with subpoena power will enable us to get crucial evidence, such as access to the remaining steel beams, Pentagon security camera photos, and documents.

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 )
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!

  The FBI did a new (post-NIST ) investigation that took three years, used 7000 agents and cost $70 million. 9/11Truth has not yet even responded to this report. It is sad that the FBI spent such time, manpower and taxpayer money and could not come up with enough evidence to formally charge Bin Laden with 9/11, indict him, or even put "9/11" on his wanted poster.
FBI spokesman Rex Tombs admitted that this was because there as not enough evidence to charge him.  It is very difficult and expensive to charge an innocent man with such a crime. The amount of money spent trying to accuse a man does not make him more guilty.  It should cost less time and money to accuse a guilty man.
Part 20: Thumbnail Final Conclusion
Does being right about 9/11 Truth bring us Truth? Ideas for truly independent investigations. With every assertion you can ask, Is This True? Waking up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare that is 9/11/." Closing with a heartfelt appeal.
It is right to ask "Is this true?" about what we hear in the news.  Finding the truth about 9/11 is so important because it changed America from a peaceful, rich country into a warlike country in debt.  If we were lied to about 9/11, we need a fundamental change in how our Government operates, along with its relationship to the military industrial complex and the media.

Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC
by Adam Taylor

Response to his suggestion that 9/11 Truthers are "insulting the family members". by Chris Sarns

Here's another Chris Mohr rebuttal by Chris Sarns:

Discussion welcomed on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum

YouTube email from Chris Mohr
Playlist for all videos:

Tony Szamboti: Sustainability of Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for Destruction of Twin Towers

Chris Mohr's article for
9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions
eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

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

Please send any suggestions for rebuttals to Rick at