Since the invention of the high-rise steel building there have been tens of thousands of high-rise building fires (7,300 in 2002 alone). Hundreds of these fires have been severe, encompassing multiple entire floors, and burning out of control for hours. In all these fires, excluding 9/11, not one of these buildings has fallen.
Also since the invention of the high-rise steel building there have been hundreds of high-rise buildings which have collapsed to the ground, in much the same manner as the WTC buildings on 9/11. In every case these collapses were accomplished through the use of well placed explosives in a procedure called "controlled demolition".
No fire has ever caused a steel building total collapse.
Every total collapse of a steel building has been due to controlled demolition.
Why would 9/11/2001 be any different? Before you say "planes!" remember that WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper that also collapsed on that day (we'll get to that next). The towers were over engineered. They were designed to withstand 130mph sustained winds and earthquakes.
They were also designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded jetliner, even multiple plane impacts. The actual plane impacts themselves did not challenge the structural integrity of the towers at all.
The still video frame above shows several explosive ejections of material from the sides of the N tower well below the zone of collapse. There are at least three such "squibs" of debris shown here. In particular, the one on the right has been measured in the video to have an average velocity over 200MPH.
There is absolutely no question that WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. There is no controversy on this issue because there isn't even another theory seriously proposed. It was witnessed by hundreds of people, filmed from a dozen angles, including sound recordings of the explosions.
The building was evacuated and an area was cordoned off around the building in anticipation of the demolition. People in the area were advised to get ready, "it's coming down".
Not even the 9/11 Commission report disputes the fact that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition, they simply dodge the issue by failing to mention WTC7 anywhere in the 500+ page report.
Evidence of foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition on 9/11
On the ground, around the WTC7 building, in the hours and minutes before the building was blown up, police and fire personnel were evacuated from the area. A police line was established and people were warned to leave the area because the building was about to be destroyed.
Fire Captain Brenda Berkman:"We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn't big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there."
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT:"What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running."
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer awoke on 9/11 to images of the World Trade Center burning. Knowing colleagues who worked inside the towers, he immediately headed for ground zero to help with the rescue efforts.
BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."
Incontestable absolute proof!!! Archive 9/11 BBC footage shows that BBC Reported WTC7 Collapsed 23 Minutes before it happened! The BBC Head of News Division tries to paper over the revelation, but just digs himself deeper!
Remember, the official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to fire, but the fires in WTC7 were small and no steel building has ever collapsed from fire in history, not one (that's one of the reasons we use steel for skyscrapers, it's not affected by structure fire). The collapse of WTC7 is so damning to the official myth that it had to be eliminated from the 9/11 Commission Report.
The fact that BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes in advance is PROOF that it was a planned demolition! How else could they know in advance? Remember, WTC7 was not hit by a plane, had only a few small fires (of unknown origin) on two or three floors, which should have been quickly extinguished by the sprinkler system.
The BBC response to the controversy has only made matters worse. Apparently the BBC now claims they have LOST THE TAPES of their 9/11 broadcast! The most significant day of news in the history of broadcasting and they can't find the tape?? uncreditable! (literally, we don't believe it.)
We now know that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition -- so what about WTC1 and 2? If one of the WTC buildings was demolished with pre-planted explosives wouldn't it be prudent to investigate whether the others were demolished with explosives as well?
Of course the plotters can't admit that WTC7 was demolished with explosives because that would totally blow the conspiracy wide open. It takes WEEKS to plan and setup to "pull" a building with controlled demolition. It certainly can't be accomplished in a few hours among the chaos of 911 while the building is on fire. The explosives had to have been placed in advance and Osama's gang sure didn't put them there. The demolition of WTC7 just cannot be made to fit within the official conspiracy theory.
Remember the cold war? We faced a determined enemy as technically advanced and well armed as ourselves. Each side possessed enough unclear weaponry to wipe-out the planet. The great fear was that one side would initiate a quick decapitation strike, knocking out the political and military command and control in one swift shot.
To guard against that nightmare scenario over the years we sunk over a TRILLION dollars into NORAD to protect the US against this sophisticated and lethal enemy, and especially against the possibility of the first strike, the decapitation.
Advances in radar and satellites have made Washington and the Pentagon the most monitored and protected airspace in the world.
And yet, on 9/11, a commercial jet, off flight plan, no transponder, no communications with air control, lumbered toward Washington after making a "U" turn over Ohio, and in the final approach takes 4 minutes to make a wide spiral turn to crash into the side of the Pentagon, the most well defended building in the world!? Does that sound like a plausible scenario to you?
The presence of molten steel at the WTC site is a well established fact. Molten steel was seen flowing from the tower even before the collapse:
Photos show molten steel on the surface of the rubble later in the day on 9/11.
Three weeks after the collapse, temperatures inside the rubble pile were still hot enough for steel to be glowing red-hot.
How is it possible for a hydrocarbon fire, with maximum temperatures below 1000F, and actual temperatures probably closer to 500F, manage to produce glowing hot steel (approx. 1300F) in the rubble pile weeks later?
If, on the other hand, high explosives were used, this is exactly what we would expect to see. High explosives produce temperatures in excess of 5000F and cut through steel "like a razor through a tomato." The steel core columns at the base of the towers were so massive it would have required quite a lot of whatever explosive was used. We would expect the residual heat from those explosives to persist for weeks in the confined spaces at the base of the rubble pile.
Smoking Gun 5: Concrete was Pulverized
Almost all of the concrete in the twin towers was turned to a fine dust and ejected from the buildings at high speed in all directions creating the huge dust clouds we all saw on 9/11. Very little intact concrete made it to ground.
When the building was constructed the concrete was poured into a floor pan, essentially a corrugated steel sheet, then covered with carpet or other flooring material. The official explanation for the collapse of the buildings is that one floor fell on the floor below it, and so-on down the tower. If this 'pancake' theory of collapse were correct we would expect to find the concrete floor slabs to be stacked on top of one another at the base of the towers, instead essentially all of the concrete in the twin towers, was converted to a very fine dust which was ejected at high speed horizontally from the tower even from floors near the very top of the tower. How is this possible? Without the use of explosives how did the concrete get converted to a powder and get airborne? What is the mechanism?
We've learned over the years that it is frequently the coverup, rather than the crime itself, that betrays the culprits. So too in the case of 9/11. The cover-up began immediately.
The entire site should have been treated as a crime scene, it was, after all, the site of the murder of 3000 Americans.
Instead it was cleansed of evidence as quickly as possible. Ground zero was sealed off and Mayor Giuliani ordered that no cameras allowed at the site.
No real crime investigation was ever conducted. We were simply told who the guilty parties were. No believable evidence was ever produced to back up this claim.
Ground zero was also the site, if you believe the official story, of the first fire-induced catastrophic total steel building collapse in world history. And it happened not just once but three times.
That would be the structural engineering failure of the century. The engineering failure analysis would be given national priority.
Instead, the steel was quickly hauled away under guard and immediately shipped out of the country for recycling, before it could be inspected. What minimal engineering analysis that was done stinks of cover-up.
Other evidence such as the tapes of FAA controller debriefings, were systematically destroyed.
The 9/11 Commission, which the administration resisted for over a year, was clearly a white-wash commission from the start. Their report is so full of omissions and distortions that there is a book about it called "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin. (good book, recommended)
The 9/11 Commission, like the news media in general, spent most of their time focusing on the patsies (Atta and crew). The patsies are the least interesting part of the story. They simply provide the scapegoats, and the justification for the government's subsequent military aggression.
It doesn't even seem to matter that at least 6 of the 'suicide' hijackers are known to be still alive; the FBI continues to list them as the perpetrators anyway.