September / October 2009 Issue

9/11 – Has America Been Told The Truth

September 11th, a day that will always be remembered for the way two monumental Manhattan buildings collapsed in the most inconceivable manner marginable. Undoubtedly, that carnage will occupy an indelible leaf in the history of the world, leaving an omnipresent emotional scar on the thousands of families that lost a loved one on that day.

Long before the dust settled after this catastrophe, Americans were questioning the very unprofessional and indifferent manner in which the investigation into this alleged terror attack had been directed and conducted. The clock is ticking perpetually, and yet there has not been any top level government appointed committee to study and go into the startling alternate possibilities of how that fateful day may have evolved.

What half the world or more does not know, and those who did know paid little or no attention to is what can be described only as the bizarre destruction of an ancillary tower of the World Trade Centre, referred to as WTC 7. The available evidence that dawns on crucial facts that this building which was 47 stories high was brought down by a fire can without question be disputed. It was the manner in which the authorities reported the destruction of this skyscraper that led to an in-depth study, especially by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which gave birth to the theory that this may not have been brought about by fire as reported, but by willful detonation - giving clear indication that a hidden hand planned the attack.

With overwhelming evidence that clearly points a finger at the Bush administration of having carried out a farce of an investigation, it is a puzzle to comprehend that the citizens of the United States of America who pride themselves in pursuing the truth, have not been successful to date in obtaining an executive direction ordering a thorough probe of the 9/11 debacle. 

 When the results of the last US Presidential election were announced, the whole world paused momentarily, full of hope that Barack Obama, the first African-American President to be elected to lead the free world, would bring to us all justice, fairplay and prosperity.

The whole of America and the rest of us are watching , most of whom are trusting Obama to right the wrongs. A great nation that hurdled to a new frontier by electing the man rather than the race he belongs to, expects nothing other than exceptional governance during his administration.

SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 – WAS AMERICA UNDER ATTACK OR WAS THE WORLD BEING HOODWINKED? By Johnny Christy

Date: 11/09/2001

Time: 8.46 AM

Manhattan was flooded by a wave of panic as people watched an airplane crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. It looked like something had one terribly wrong with a normal, everyday airline flight, and by some great chance an airplane had managed to hit one of the World Trade Centre’s Towers. Then as people looked on dumbfounded, another airplane crashed into the South Tower at 9.03 AM.

What was going on? America was under siege. Rumors and accounts of the attacks were spreading like wildfire. Phone lines were blocked, the media was speculating. People were too shocked to even believe what they were
seeing, much less digest the information and think rationally.

What Really Happened

(The story that the world was told)
On the morning of September 11th 2001, hijackers took control of four commercial airliners over the skies of the

United States. The aircraft were American Airlines Flight 11 (Boston to Los Angeles), United Airlines Flight 175 (Boston to Los Angeles), American Airlines Flight 77 (Washington to Los Angeles) and United Airlines Flight 93
(Newark to San Francisco). 19 hijackers in all launched a well planned and premeditated attack targeting the World Trade Centre, the SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 – WAS AMERICA UNDER ATTACK OR WAS THE WORLD BEING HOODWINKED? By Johnny Christy

Pentagon and supposedly the Capitol Building or the White House The hijackers reportedly used tear gas and ace

in the process of the hijacking as well as knives to stab the crew and passengers while taking over command of the airplane.

Of the four airplanes hijacked on that day only one, United Airlines Flight 93 failed to reach it’s intended target destination, and this is attributed to the valour of the passengers on board who overpowered the hijackers to regain control of the airplane. Reports say that a hijacker ordered the plane to be rolled when he realised that they were losing control of the aircraft. Flight 93 crashed in Stony Creek Township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Both the North and South Towers of the World Trade Centre collapsed within two hours of the attack, damaging and destroying nearby buildings. The third aircraft, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and fire fighters spent days trying to bring the blaze under control.

The attacks were responsible for the deaths of 2,976 innocent civilians. At least 200 people jumped to their eaths from the burning towers, landing on the street and rooftops of nearby buildings. A total of 411 rescue workers died while trying to rescue civilians and put out the fires.

Several theories have arisen concerning the unanswered questions that enshroud this attack. Some of them are based on solid factual evidence that is undisputable while certain others are unfounded to a certain degree. However the fact remains that these theories have not been formally acknowledged and proven wrong by the US Government.

In this issue, Asia Digest has featured the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and included an investigation led by a team of professionals from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These individuals have examined the evidence that was found at the scene of destruction and at length gone to prove how certain elements of the whole story do not add up – particularly the collapse of a building known as WTC 7.

Expressing My Conviction

Richard Gage

What was your first reaction when you heard about the attacks?

Like most other Americans, I was in a state of shock as these multiple attacks were repeated again and again on TV that day. We’ve never seen a progressive collapse in a steel frame building before so we didn’t know how to evaluate what we were seeing in the destruction of the twin towers. This combination of circumstances led me to agree with the spoon-fed official response from experts that it was a gravitational collapse due to jet plane impacts
and fires, even though it exhibited all the characteristics of a very explosive destruction. I didn’t know what to think. We found out that there had been a terror attack, we saw a plane flying into the World Trade Centre. I really didn’t know what to think.

How did you come to the conclusion that something was amiss beneath the surface of the information that the mainstream media released to the world?

The information provided by David Ray Griffin on the radio in March of 2006 led me to an objective evaluation of the evidence not seen in the mainstream media or the official reports of the destruction of these three buildings. All of this evidence conclusively added up to support the hypothesis of controlled demolition, as documented on the website AE911Truth.org

What do you think really happened behind the scenes of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre?

As an architect, representing over 900 architects and engineers, I focus on the science based forensic evidence found in the behaviour of the buildings, the aftermath and eyewitness testimony. A real investigation with subpoena power and testimony under oath, which we are demanding, will yield the truth about who may have been responsible, why they did this, and how exactly it was done. We implore every Asia Digest reader to support us in this historic effort.

Have you ever approached the government with your claims and how have they responded?

National Institute of Standards and Technology), and we received a letter saying that the analysis of the nano thermite was inconclusive. There was steel in the building and there was aluminium in the building, but it is very clear that steel and aluminium cannot form themselves into nano thermite in a perfect ratio as found in the remains of the buildings. In addition we have written to the President of the American Institute of Architects highlighting all this evidence and there has been no response from him. NIST has responded to the claims in general however, but it was the same response as before.

Have you ever been threatened or intimidated by any person or organisation to stop publicising your theory?

No, I have not.

How did AE for 9/11 Truth originate?

We started three and half years ago when I heard the radio interview with David Ray Griffin. I did some research, I looked around and I said to myself where are the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? After all we have Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. So I started a petition based on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and gave a presentation to 15 architects who I worked with, who were quite doubtful about the story that I was telling them. At the conclusion of the lunchtime presentation, their jaws had dropped and fourteen of them signed up. I proceeded to show other architecture firms, including the one that I ended up working for a year later. Thirty eight of them signed up. A quarter of the architects came after signing the petition and half of them came due to presentations. We now have over 900 architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth demanding a real investigation into 9/11.

How have your demands for a proper investigation progressed? Have you been promised anything in the near future?

No we haven’t been promised a new investigation by any members of Congress.

Have you ever decided to go against the government in a court of law?

There are several lawsuits regarding this in the United States at the time but we haven’t got a lawsuit going of our own. We have however submitted a petition for correction which is the official term regarding a critical comment in the NIST report.

What do you have to say about other conspiracy theories – remotely controlled aircraft, terrorists were agents of the government etc?

It’s very clear that the airplanes hit the twin towers but no airplane hit the third skyscraper that collapsed that day, which was building 7. That was a classic example of a controlled explosion, the building having fallen at free-fall acceleration in six and a half seconds into it’s own footprint without regard to the 40,000 tons of structural steel which was there to resist any such collapse. The building supposedly fell by fire. But more specifically to what you asked me, I’m not an expert on the remote controlled aircraft. The Pilots for 9/11 Truth will be able to give you a better outlook regarding how those planes might have been controlled. David Ray Griffin’s extensive research also casts a shadow of doubt on the history of the hijackers. The planes certainly hit the buildings. I’ve spoken personally to people throughout the country during my travels who saw the planes hitting the towers with their own eyes.

Do you think the world will ever know the truth behind 9/11?

Yes. Absolutely! The world will know the truth about 9/11. It has taken a long time, but we are reaching critical mass and the story is being forced and the media is having to respond to it, such as Asia Digest and many publications in the United States, several of which have had to respond with front page articles on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Because we have assembled the necessary body of building professionals, we have the credibility to reach the unbelieving minds of millions of Americans. So it is happening, and we are breaking through into the mainstream as we speak. Within a year or two you will see examples of many major mainstream articles being forced to acknowledge that the 9/11 Truth Movement is being joined by millions every year. Government officials are also forced to acknowledge and deal with and criticise the growing 9/11 Truth Movement whereas before they could simply ignore it. When they criticise it, they do not criticise the solid body of evidence that we print, they simply call us names like conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers etc. It’s not a critical examination of the overwhelming body of evidence that all three World Trade Centre Towers were demolished by controlled explosions.

Demolition and Deception The Destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11

“When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always.”
-Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

If you mention the events of September 11, 2001 most people remember two skyscrapers - the World Trade Centre’s North and South Towers - collapsing in New York City. However, what is known by only a very few in the international community and even in America is that another third skyscraper, located across the street from the World Trade Center Plaza also collapsed later that afternoon - a newsworthy event in itself that received very little media attention. World Trade Center Building 7 - better known as the Salomon Brothers Building or simply WTC 7 - was not hit by an airplane, as were the Towers, however, in the end, it is officially reported to have collapsed because of fire. The collapse occurred in a most mysterious way - as government investigations, reports and numerous contradictions point out. “Engineers and other experts …were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center…. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11…. Experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced highrise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.”1 What the general public knows about the events of 9/11 is only what has been told to them by the mainstream media. Most people have not conducted even a simple investigation into the facts surrounding the “collapse” or “destruction” of WTC 7. Growth in undestanding the truth surrounding the events of 9/11 has been neglected by many not because of ignorance, fear or laziness, but because most people are inclined to trust what they read and hear in the media and believe that they have no need to investigate on their own. Nothing could be further from the truth! Viewing the fall of WTC 7, a person even only remotely interested in the events of 9/11 is suddenly confronted with the reality that something is “not right with this picture”. The many videos of WTC 7’s demise are startling (Google: videos of collapse of WTC 7) because they are in gross contradiction to what the public has been told via “official” reports or through the mainstream media. The government does not want the general population to know of the existence of the WTC 7 building, nor the facts supporting its controlled demolition, because it then becomes a most reliable “smoking gun” motivating people to further investigate the crimes allegedly perpetrated by the government that eventful day.2 The very fact that only a few Americans are even remotely aware of the existence of WTC 7 and the fact that the building was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report support this claim.3
Writing an article such as this poses a little bit of a challenge in today’s politically charged, “anti-terrorism” milieu. Ridicule is often directed at authors or speakers who expose facts regarding the events of 9/11. Ridicule is intended to intimidate - preventing the person advocating the truth from coming forward and being heard. If ridicule is not successful in silencing, then some form of character assassination is usually the next course of action. People exposing the truth about 9/11 are very often labeled as conspiracy theorists. However, much closer to the truth are the now famous words of a courageous American actor by the name of Charlie Sheen:

"It seems to me that 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets; that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

To label anyone a conspiracy theorist is an ad hominem argument and has no factual value. It demonstrates with clarity that the person or persons advocating a fallacious argument utilise this strategem as a desperate attempt to defend their inferior position from the obvious truth presented by their opponent.

It is amazing how often this chicanery is used to refute the cause of truth and those sincerely interested in a factual, legitimate, independent investigation of 9/11.

It is not the intention of this article to provide theories as to who, what or even why the World Trade Centre Towers were or were not attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001 as claimed by government reports. Those are realities that should be investigated and clarified after having brought just a few undeniable facts to light. This article’s intention is to focus on WTC 7’s question-laden demise and the implications. Illumination of facts surrounding the collapse of this relatively unknown building is prismatic in diffusing the light of truth over the entire events of 9/11. If it is demonstrated that what the government has said “officially” about WTC 7 and what the facts reveal are diametrically opposed, then it is only logical to conclude that what the government has said about other details surrounding the 9/11 events are in need of serious “independent” investigation. The more diligently one searches for the truth, the clearer the panoramic view of the chasm that exists between the official government reports and the simple facts surrounding the fall of WTC 7.

Just recently, on this year's anniversary of the event, Charlie Sheen was further referenced by the media; even making demands of the current American President to re-investigate the 9/11 event. (Google: Charlie Sheen twenty minutes with the President).

"Sheen, the highest-paid actor on U.S. TV, argues that 'the official 9/11 story is a fraud' and says the commission set up to investigate it was a whitewash. He claims that the attacks simply served 'as a pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights'. The actor, 44, says the administration of former President George Bush was behind the attacks, which they were then able to use to justify an invasion of Iraq. He urged other Americans who were skeptical of the investigation into the attacks to demand the truth. He said: 'We cannot allow governments to continue to advance their political agendas by exploiting forged pretexts, and the fact that big budget hit pieces against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag terror.

Why do I reference Charlie Sheen and his truth-filled statements regarding 9/11? Charlie Sheen was first attracted to investigate the 9/11 incidentafter inadvertently viewing a video of the collapse of WTC Building 7. Viewing the almost free-fall collapse of WTC 7 compelled Charlie to investigate further. Easily recognised by any physics professor, the “free-falling” evidence is clear and most disturbing. Buildings do not collapse at nearly free-fall speed unless controlled demolition is involved. It is a demonstrable law of physics.6
Charlie sensed this intuitively and was motivated to find out why or how the building could come down that fast.

I too was motivated to further investigate 9/11 after seeing a video of the collapse of WTC 7. I had no idea that the building even existed until I came across a video on the internet where I watched it fall quickly and symmetrically into its own footprint. I was amazed how similar the collapse was to videos I had seen of intentionally controlled destructions of old buildings. I also realised that something was not correct in what I thought about 9/11 and what I was viewing in the video. I investigated further and ultimately it led to my writing of this article.7

The second noteworthy comment I would like to make in reference to this article is that the facts will speak for themselves. The difficulty lies in where the facts lead. No doubt there will be some readers who will refuse to accept the facts because they point to not only the questionable destruction of WTC Building 7 but the accompanied dismantling of their trust in the government of the United States. This is very understandable given the harsh reality of the article’s logical conclusions. I have found this to be the greatest impediment to readers or listeners accepting the revealed facts and the serious discrepancies surrounding the 9/11 events. In a word, this article may lead some readers to experience a certain loss of hope. However, trusting in the evidence, and not in what the US Government or the media has told you,is the surest way for truth to triumph over treason and deception.

A government and its official investigation agencies need to be honest, straightforward and trustworthy in matters such as these - out of respect for the lives that were lost and for the prevention of further loss of life. Investigation of a mysterious collapse of a building such as WTC 7 on 9/11 needs to be done in a professional and competent manner as to prevent any chance of recurrence and to foster public trust and confidence in the investigating agency and the government it represents. To act contrary is to foster public outcry.

This article proposes that WTC 7 did not “collapse” at all but rather was brought down in a "controlled demolition." Looking closely at the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the surest way to show that major statements reported in the official government reports do not just simply lack credibility but are intentionally deceiving. It is because of the clarity of the facts surrounding the demolition of WTC 7 that this building was chosen for this article as a simple vehicle to promote the truth surrounding the event. Uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring “positive, lasting change” to both America and the world.

The purpose of this article is to bring to the attention of as many people as possible not only the reality ofWTC 7’s one-time existence and demise, but its dubious collapse as explained by “official” government reports. It is critical to look at this particular 9/11 event because the mystery of the building's destruction, as reported by the government, is not just difficult to comprehend - almost impossible - but it defies the laws of physics, historical investigation, the observable facts and scientific evidence. In contrast however, the building’s perfectly symmetrical collapse is very much in accordance with an alternate theory that has yet to be legitimately and professionally investigated by the appropriate agencies of the government. Buildings do not collapse at relatively free-fall speeds unless “controlled demolition” is involved - and they do not collapse because of fire. Major official reports published by the American government; the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Report and the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Reports agree on this point: The collapse of WTC 7 was the “first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.

I will mention the significance of the videos of the building falling at almost free-fall speed later, but for now I need to emphasise that extensive historical research reveals that no modern steelstructure building has ever collapsed due to fire.10 According to W. Gene Corley PE, SE with Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., "Following the adoption of fire-resistance requirements for high-rise buildings, the experience has been very good. No modern fireprotected building had collapsed as a result of a burnout prior to 9/11.

a thirty-eight story structure in Philadelphia, suffered a very extensive fire in 1991, completely engulfing eight floors. Because three firefighters died while fighting the blaze the fire chief prudently let the fire burn. “The blaze, which burned for nineteen hours, raged from the 22nd floor to the 30th floor before a sprinkler system installed by a tenant on the 30th floor extinguished the flames.”13 Although a total of eleven floors were damaged, the building did not collapse. Due to insurance litigation, after inspection it was abandoned to remain standing for seven more years and was not demolished until 1998.

More recently, in Caracas Venezuela in 2004, fire destroyed the top third of the tallest skyscraper in South America. The 34th floor to the summit of the 56- story building was completely engulfed in flames. But the building did not collapse.

"The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex… By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more than 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark….“Engineers have gone up there and inspected... [the building] is very solid."

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

The most spectacular of all skyscraper fires to have occurred in recent times was the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire in February of 2009.19 Although completely engulfed by flames for at least three hours it did not collapse.

"Despite the fact that the fire extended across all floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed."

The reader is cordially invited to do further research. However, I mention again, no matter how extensive your research, you will not encounter a single steel-structure building that has totally collapsed due to fire. This of course is excluding the claim by the US Government’s reports that WTC 7 collapsed solely because of fire.

World Trade Center Building 7 was built compliant with the Fire and Safety Codes of the City of New York. “Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire February 2009 Windsor Building Fire in Madrid Spain 2005 51 in a fire of any duration”. Buildings 4, 5 and 6 in the World Trade Center remained standing “despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

Which leads us to look at the “official reports.” Some very serious problems exist in both the government’s investigations and in the reports of their findings. The reports issued by FEMA and NIST as well as the 9/11 Commission Report are seriously flawed.22 They create more unanswered questions than they resolve. They also have the appearance of trying to intentionally deceive the reader by altering the facts or by omission of critical evidence. My points are not wild accusations but substantiated claims made by competent scientists.who were members of the investigation teams. They resigned from their positions because of compromises they witnessed.23 My review of the reports has led me to the same conclusions. The government is not interested in the truth, but only in not allowing it to be known by as many members of the general public as possible.

The first official report about the mysterious collapse was issued by FEMA in 2002. The report summarised their findings with the following convoluted statement:

" Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue."

The statement above is italicised and underlined by me to illustrate by example the report’s "confusing tone" in general. The report contains many speculations that are supported by "if" and "maybe" statements, but no real evidence to support the theories. The report’s conclusion that the "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence" leads to only one disturbing reality. Where are the facts? Why was the document published and why are we reading a report which by its own words expresses that there is a high probability that what is being described as having never occurred?

Although diesel fuel was present on the premises of WTC 7, the report expresses - in what could be argued excessive verbiage so as to deceive - that investigators have no idea if the fires were sustained by diesel fuel. I quote the same official FEMA report.

“From a structural standpoint, the most likely event would have been the collapse of Truss 1 and / or Truss 2 located in the east end of the 5th and 6th floors. These floors are believed to have

It is important to note that the FEMA report - an official government explanation - proposes at best only “speculation.” This tone very much permeates the entire official document. In contrast, a simple forensic test would have laid the speculations to rest. This test is implied by law and recommended in fire investigation manuals of any fire where suspicion of explosion is involved. This test would have been a definitive answer as to why the building collapsed. However, the test was never conducted by FEMA nor by NIST. NIST was the second Federal Agency to investigate the events of 9/11. They too followed in the footsteps of their colleagues at FEMA and failed to present a trustworthy explanation to the public.

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association
says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says: High-order damage is characterised by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverised debris, walls, roofs, and structural members splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished.26 That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence -‘Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet’ - applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.

Tons of “dust” particles, remnants of the buildings involved, was produced on 9/11 and can be legally connected
to the events on that day including the destruction of WTC 7. Testing of this dust was done by numerous private agencies as requested by individuals and insurance companies investigating the events of 9/11. All tests performed confirmed the presence of once “molten” metal that has undergone “supercooling” - resulting in “spherical” metal
particles. Spherical particles in the dust are a positive irrefutable indication that explosives were involved.28 The issue is further addressed in the following paragraphs because of its obvious implications.

As previously mentioned, it can be stated with great certainty that the NIST report involves fraud by intentional
omission of evidence and deception. This is quite evident and easily demonstrated by the next quotations. They point out that NIST, and FEMA for that matter, should have checked for the evidence of explosives from the very
beginning of their investigations and failed to do so.

“The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of
this signature was “Spherical iron ... particles.”29 This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during
the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”

“The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” 31 – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

“Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification
of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that
molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until
it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).''33 This temperature is roughly three times higher than those reached in structural
fires.

The NIST Report mentioned neither of these studies. They omitted these studies because their investigators were well aware of what the findings would be. The conclusions would be in contradiction to their pre-determined
cause of the collapse of WTC 7 which was fire. Therefore, they omitted them. These studies clearly indicate
that explosives were involved in the destruction of WTC 7. Forensics do not lie! But the government reports in
question often do!

A third report that was published after the NIST final report conclusively evidences the presence of Nanothermite
residue in WTC Dust. Thermite is an incendiary; however Nanothermite is a high explosive. Unreacted nanothermite, a residue with a distinctive chemical fingerprint, was reported by several scientists as conclusive evidence that explosives were involved in the 9/11 events. This report by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan did not appear until 2009 which was several months after the NIST final report.

Tests for evidence of explosives should have been done immediately following the events of 9/11. “When NIST was asked specifically whether its investigation had looked for evidence of explosives, it replied in the negative.
A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: ‘What about that letter where
Iron-rich sphere NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?’ Newman replied: 'Right, because there was no evidence of that.’ ‘But,’ asked the reporter ‘how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?’ Newman replied: ‘If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.’ [You couldn’t make this stuff up.]

NIST’s investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 – at which he announced
that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery” – he began by saying:‘Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives
were used to bring the building down.’ By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST’s most
important conclusion - just as it had been NIST’s most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However,
although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it
can be reached only by ignoring half the evidence.

Now let us mention the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 and its tidy rubble pile. It also serves as a simple but most reliable witness that what the government reports propose and the observable facts are at opposite ends. The evidence proposes that the building did not collapse as claimed by the government reports but was “demolished” by a pre-planned and professionally orchestrated effort.

The WTC dust, containing evidence of explosives, strongly supports our conclusions. The perfect symmetry
involved in its collapse, as viewing of any video of the event reveals, is also indicative of a controlled demolition.
The “engineered ballet of destruction” would not have occurred from a collapse by fire.40 The destruction of the building had to have included a team of experts involved in its controlled demolition.

Looking closely at the details, it is quite evident that the team involved in the pre-planned destruction did quite a
remarkable job - bringing the building down with great precision. In the “demolition industry” WTC 7’s demise
reflects a great deal of talent, skill, and professionalism - dropping a building of such dimension within such a small
footprint. To think that the building collapsed neatly onto itself because of a few random fires is similar to believing
that if you drop 12 coins - let alone 47 - from shoulder height, they will land neatly stacked. Even if they were
glued together, you and I know that they would not come to rest vertically but rather topple over. Similarly, actual
collapses of steel-structured buildings due to buckling reflects the reality that random collapse and ordered demolition are quite different both in a physics lab and in the actual world.

Professionally designed, steel-framed modern buildings of the skyscraper type are engineered to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, and even collisions by aircraft. This article has demonstrated by historical investigation that before and after the 9/11 event, no steel structured building has ever collapsed
because of fire—even though they have been ravaged by fires for up to 18 hours. Contrary to government reports, WTC 7 was not the first. A closer investigation of the fires in the WTC 7 building, as viewed from photographic data as well as a review of government reports, reveal that the building only incurred small and isolated fires for a time-period of roughly six hours. Some of the fires had even self-extinguished prior to the building’s destruction and this is very evident in the photographs from the reports.

Because structural integrity is overengineered into all buildings - with safety factors of 300 and 400 percent - even substantial local damage to a building is not sufficient to cause a collapse. Buildings collapse or “topple”
only because of damage caused by extensive earthquakes. (See figure AA Below.) It is very important to also note, that they do not collapse neatly into their own footprint - especially when that footprint is relatively tiny in relation to the height of the building. The only way to get a building to collapse within its own footprint is by controlled demolition.

“The steel skeletons of buildings like WTC 7 are extremely robust. They are designed to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, and are over-engineered to handle several times the maximum loads anticipated during their lifetimes. Such steel skeletons have local structural integrity. An event that destroyed one portion of the structure would not cause distant portions to shatter. If some force obliterated the load-bearing columns well below the top of a 600-foot tall skyscraper, the top of the building would topple like a tree, not smash its way down through intact floors and into its foundation.”

The photo above is of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It is very indicative of the structural integrity of buildings, in this case withstanding even bombings. Worst case scenario, imagine some soot on the building and this is what WTC 7 should have looked like at days end. Still standing - on all its legs! “To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.” (John D. Wyndham, PhD’s remark to NIST investigative body.)

See the pictures below (Figure AA) showing structural damage to high rise buildings caused by earthquakes
and note the lack of neat footprints. These building toppled because of the uneven loads and stress caused by the
forces of nature. Notice also that in many cases the rubble pile is extensive, with some buildings - in a certain
sense - somewhat structurally intact, but just laying on their side. This demonstrates the incredible integrity that
is over-engineered into steel structured buildings.

WTC Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. Its collapse as viewed on all videos made of the event
had all the classic signs of a controlled demolition.

By looking at the following diagram it can be seen that the collapse of the WTC 7 building had to be done with
great precision if it was not to damage the adjacent buildings. The “rubble pile” left by its demolition demonstrates
clearly that this was accomplished with great precision.

Notice that WTC 7 was wedged very tightly between the US Post Office and the Verizon building. The emolition
had to take place with respect to the two adjacent buildings. And you can see in the following photo of the rubble pile - that is exactly what happened!

In the photos below notice the neat line of demarcation along Vesey Street in the photo at the top left of the page.
Notice also that no substantial damage has occurred to the adjacent buildings.

WTC Building 7 is shown above collapsed neatly within its own footprint. Notice that the outside walls have been left on top. This is extremely unlikely to occur by a stroke of luck or by chance. This is a classic indication of
a very precision - engineered controlled demolition.

To do a “good job” or an “efficient job” in performing work is very much a part of human nature. It is also a means of creating “less” work. The destruction of WTC 7 was no exception to this work ethic. In the demolition industry the rubble pile remaining after a building’s controlled collapse is everything. It becomes the company’s signature, their calling card of competence, as well as their advertising medium - and even their bragging rights. The rubble pile shows the skill and precision of the company to satisfy the needs of the client - no
matter how difficult. Future clients are shown footprints and rubble piles of “difficult demolitions” in order to verify
the company’s capabilities. Difficult but successful demolitions become the best means of advertising and obtaining
new business. Demolition companies are keenly aware of the rubble piles because they are the ones responsible
for its creation and invariably for its clean-up. By reducing the rubble pile to its smallest possible size, additional
costs involved in final clean-up efforts are saved.

A precisely created rubble pile is the most effective way to control costs. This is an industry standard. Demolition companies that cannot produce relatively neat, tidy rubble piles do not stay in business long. And those that cannot fall a building within its footprint better have a lot of additional insurance. It is absolutely necessary that controlled demolition companies demonstrate with consistency the ability to fall buildings within the vertical axis. The 9/11 demolitions were no exception. The photos confirm this fact. They inadvertently reveal the expertise of a highly competent demolition company.

How ironic that CDI, Controlled Demolition Inc, was involved in both the hurried clean-up and disposal of the Murray Building after the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as the hurried clean-up and disposal of the WTC
buildings.42 The government only uses the best and the most experienced! And in the case of the WTC buildings there was no room for error! New un-written records in the industry were set - known by an elite few but speculated upon by many. In the future these records most assuredly will be entered into the
Guinness Book with other fine records that CDI has set in the controlled demolition industry. It is a shame that
no bragging rights can be claimed at this time. Patience is a virtue; time will tell. Peruse their website for a while. Get a feel for what controlled demolition is all about. See how the collapse of WTC 7 dances to their tune.

The WTC 7 fell in less than seven seconds - almost the same velocity of an object free-falling in a vacuum under
the influence of gravity. This speed of collapse - according to the laws of physics - irrefutably demonstrates that
controlled demolition was involved. Irrefutably! It’s all about kinetic energy vs. resistance and the gravitational
speed of falling objects. I won’t bore the reader with the equation.45 But I will supply a quotation from a group
of over 700 professional architects falling section of the building, thereby causing a collapse that would not have
been at free-fall speeds nor perfectly symmetrical. The buildings collapse would have imitated more the collapse
of a wooden structure with unburned and unaffected parts of the building left standing. A “buckling” would have occurred; not a complete, perfectly symmetrical, systematic falling of tons of steel and concrete!

The pile of rubble produced by WTC stories high. Only two stories! A perfect signature! Consider that the original building was 47 stories tall and had only minimal structural damage caused by debris or fires as reported by the government. Yet it collapsed perfectly inside its own footprint! People in the demolition industry know that this was a job very well done! It possessed a high degree of difficulty considering the adjacent buildings! Remarkable planning and expert execution! Not 7 speaks mountains about the method of its collapse. Its shape is quite conducive of a controlled demolition and has no resemblance to a building felled by an “authentic” structural collapse. The rubble pile left by the controlled demolition of WTC 7 was less than two an ounce of luck involved here - only control!

In closing I would like to quote the words of persons who have spent hundreds of hours investigating the “collapse” of WTC 7: “Buildings do fall vertically like Building 7, when destroyed by controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition destroys vertical steel structures while overcoming their tendency to topple onto adjacent real-estate. It does so by shattering the steel skeleton through the precisely timed detonation of explosive charges.”

“Most demolitions seek to implode the building, causing the mass to move toward the center, resulting in a tidy
rubble pile. In tall buildings this is typically done by shattering the interior structures of the building first or ahead
of the exterior structures. That causes the interior mass to fall first, pulling outer structures toward the center. Pieces of the outer walls end up on top of the rubble pile.”

Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top are exactly
the kinds of results that controlled demolitions achieve through careful engineering.

The official government reports seem to have re-written the laws of physics. Demolition companies need
to take careful note! “...follow new laws of physics that dictate to implode a building perfectly within its own
footprint, you just need to set a few office fires.”50 The government’s response to any questioning of their
official reports - and the obvious errors, deceptions, and omissions that they contain - can be summed up: “That’s
my story and I’m sticking to it!” In lieu of the evidence presented, the following quotation characterises what the government has intended from the beginning - to deceive the public as to the actual destruction of WTC 7 because it is in their best interest to do so.

To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder
stated, smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when
in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the
obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.5 The truly sad reality is that even with the evidence presented, many people are so lulled by the comfortable existence offered by a prosperous lifestyle that their reaction to this article will be
minimal instead of what is truly needed at this time in history. Public outcry is a necessary response to the intentional deceptions by governments.

I hope this article has intimated that in similar fashion to the destruction of the WTC Buildings on 9/11, so too
has public trust been systematically dismantled by government leaders and public servants. Insulting government
reports filled with falsifications and omissions is not a proper response to a public that desires and expects some semblance of truth from their elected officials. But, it is obvious that a new level of “lack of integrity” has been reached in government, and a truly higher plateau of “questionable character” has been displayed by many politicians and public servants - as the “official reports” of this tragedy plainly indicate. The need for this article’s
authoring - and the truth that it contains - is proof of that statement. Hopefully, a new level of complacency has not been equally reached by the American people and many will rise to the occasion. The future of America depends on it. It is high time that American foreign policy looks at the international neighborhood with a different set of eyes - eyes that are filled with honesty, love and compassion and not deception and greed. The power to make a difference is in the hands of the readers. Just make sure the word gets out! The bullies on the block are no longer welcome.

Nearly 3000 lives representing over 90 countries were lost on September 11, 2001 during the destruction of the WTC buildings and surrounding events. Immediately following, America invaded Afghanistan launching their so-called “War on Terrorism.” Iraq was invaded March 20th, 2003 under the pretext that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were present in the country and were a threat to national and world security. The weapons were never found - and believed to have never existed in the first place. Over 1.2 million deaths have occurred related to the war in Iraq. The war has uprooted more than 4.7 million Iraqis since its conception which was declared illegal by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the United Nations Charter in September 2004.

Within weeks of 9/11 the US Government passed the US Patriot Act and its “War on Terrorism”- a campaign that was spearheaded by the events of 9/11. The legislation has allowed the government of the United States to place any person, for any reason, and in any location throughout the known world on their “list of suspected terrorists.” As author of this article I too am at risk of being put on this list. The legislation, “strongly infringed on civil liberties” but was passed quickly by both houses of Congress and signed into law on October 26, 2001 How it was written and passed so quickly says much about the government’s proficiency in implementing their agenda of deception regards 9/11.

Thank you dear reader for your time and for allowing me to bring you the truth regards one small piece of the big
puzzle of 9/11. May I encourage you to accomplish a minimal investigation in order to satisfy your own mind and
further the cause of truth and justice - in memory of the lives lost. For personal investigation into the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7, I suggest the reader visit the following websites for their simplicity of design
and overwhelming evidence. Remember to look only at the facts and not to dismiss or reject them because of the disturbing realities that the facts point to.

www.WTC7.net.
www.ae911truth.org
www.911research.com

*The content of this article contains endnotes referencing various sources. Due to space constraints and page limitations, Asia Digest is unable to publish the full list of sources in the magazine. All sources are available online at www.asiadigest.sg.

GETTING BEHIND THE TRUTH? A few prominent personalities who have voiced their concerns about 9/11.

Charlie Sheen is one of the most popular advocates of the 9/11 Truth Movement. He is currently the highest paid actor on television and is instantly recognised by ‘Two and a Half Men’ fame. In March 2006, Sheen said that the
collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers looked like controlled demolitions to him. He also urged critics
not to attack him personally but to challenge him with facts.

RAY MCGOVERN Former Presidential Advisor and CIA Analyst

McGovern is one of 100 signatories to a petition “which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the previous administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to
happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

ANDREAS VON BÜLOW German writer, lawyer and SPD Politician

He has written a book titled ‘The CIA and September 11’ in which he implicates the US Governments
involvement in the 2001 attacks. He has also made many bold statements in various media. In a statement to
Tagesspiegel he says - “Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organisational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry.”

Meacher has claimed that a supposed absence of prevention by United States authorities of the hijackings on 11 September 2001 was suspicious
and ‘offered an extremely convenient pretext’ for subsequent military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was seen as giving “credence to conspiracy
theories.” Michael Meacher has also written a foreword for David Ray Griffin’s book ‘The New Pearl Harbor.’

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTSFormer Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury

Of the 9/11 Commission Report he wrote in 2006, “One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling
attention to the inadequacy of its explanations.” He has reported what he says are findings by experts that conclude there is a large energy deficit
in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, and says that this deficit remains unexplained. Roberts has also commented on the
scientific impossibility of the buildings that collapsed at free-fall speed.

Foot notes:

1. How Stuff Works, How Building Implosion Work http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
2. www.WTC7.net. http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
3. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/
4. 9-11 Research.com www.911research.com

References

1. www.nytimes.com, The New York Times, N.Y/ Region, Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center, by James Glanz, Published: Thursday, November 29, 2001. (September 21, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

2. Some straightforward words from the Firefighters for 911 Truth and their non-acceptance of the “official government story.”

“We believe TOWER 7 is the crux of the entire investigation. There was no official report as to how a 47 story concrete and steel high rise, that was not struck by an airplane, collapsed at near free-fall speed into it’s own footprint. That is until this week (8/21/08) - Almost 7 years later after unrelenting public pressure.”

www.firefighters for 911 truth.org, Tower 7, 21 Aug 2008, (September 21, 2009). http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

3. www.globalresearch.ca,Centre for Research on Globalization, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie, by Dr. David Ray Griffin, September 8, 2005, (Septermber 21, 2009) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=907

4. MailOnline World News, “America was behind the 9/11 atrocities, says actor Charlie Sheen”, By Paul Thompson, (Monday, September 14, 2009). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1212543/Charlie-Sheen-demands-speak-Barack-Obama-9-11-government-cover-up.html

5. Ibid., MailOnline World News. (Monday, September 14, 2009).

6. thepeoplesvoice.org, news & viewpoints, Environmental, political and social issues, Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report, by John D. Wyndham, PhD. (September 21 2009) . http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/09/p28469

7. See High Resolution Video, Collapse of WTC Building 7 and its comparison to “controlled demolition” collapse of similar style building.
www.firefightersfor 911truth.org., Tower 7, 21 August 2008. (September 21, 2009)
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

8. 911 Proof.com, 911 Fact Sheet, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. See question #4. (September 25, 2009). http://www.911proof.com/FactSheet.html

9. NIST NCSTAR 1A, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Executive Summary, ES.1. World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), p. xxxv. And, FEMA Report Chapter 5, 5.1 Introduction, “Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.” p. 5-1. The NIST report footnoted and defined “tall building” in the following manner: “The term ‘tall building’ is used by architects and structural engineers to indicate buildings that are taller than surrounding buildings, slender in their proportions, and/or require technologies such as wind bracing to carry loads, and are nominally taller than 15 to 20 stories. For fire protection engineers, the term ‘high-rise building’ is used to indicate buildings that are nominally taller than 25 m (75 ft), and from which external rescue from fires is not possible. Both terms apply to WTC 7.”

10. 911research.wtc7.net, Fires Versus Steel Buildings, Other High-Rise Fires. (Septermber 20,2009), http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html

11. Fire Protection Engineering, The Official Magazine of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Life Safety In High-rise Buildings After 9/11, By: W. Gene Corley, P.E. (September 21, 2009).
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/department.asp?issue_id=14&i=171

12. LAFIRE.COM, Los Angeles Fire Department Historical Archive, May 4, 1988 First Interstate Bank Fire, (September 21, 2009). http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm

13 Nation Master.com, Encyclopedia: One Meridian Plaza fire, (September 21, 2009). http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/One-Meridian-Plaza-fire

14. The New York Times, Real Estate, A Vacant Tower in Philadelphia Casts a Shadow, by David J. Wallace, Published: Sunday, February 9, 1997, (September 21, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/09/realestate/a-vacant-tower-in-philadelphia-casts-a-shadow.html.

15. www.nytimes.com, The New York Times on the Web. US Report on Trade Center Echoes Lessons of Past Disasters, April 2, 2002. (September 21, 2009). http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1850.pdf

16. cms.firehouse.com, Firehouse.com, Photostories, Fire Sweeps Landmark Caracas Office Tower, Associated Press, Posted: 10-18-2004, (September 21, 2009). http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/Photo-Stories/Fire-Sweeps-Landmark-Caracas-Office-Tower-/45$35916

17. www.cbsnews, CBS News World, Towering Inferno In Caracas, Military Joins Battle Against Blaze In City's Tallest Building, by Francis Grace, CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004, (September 21, 2004). http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

18. What Really Happened.com, The Madrid Skyscraper Fire, Sunday 13 February 2005, (September 21, 2009). http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html

19. BBC News, Fatal Fire Destroys Beijing Hotel, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire Video, 9 February 2009, (September 21, 2009). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7879571.stm

20. 911research.com, Other Skyscraper Fires, The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire, (September 21, 2009). http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

21. New York Times, N.Y. / Region, Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center , by James Glanz, Published Thursday November 29, 2001.(September 26, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

22. Want to Know.info, 9/11 Commission Report Questioned by Over 100 Professors. (September 21, 2009) http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

23. “The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 was given to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Although NIST had been expected to issue its report on this building along with its report on the Twin Towers, which came out in 2005, it did not. NIST then continued to delay this report until August of 2008, at which time it issued a Draft for Public Comment…. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with ‘distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.’ By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.” See: Global Research.ca, Centre for Research on Globalization,The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven, Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, By Prof. David Ray Griffin, Global Research, September 14, 2009. (September 26, 2009).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

“Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been ‘fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,’ with the result that scientists working for NIST ‘lost [their] scientific independence,’ and became little more than ‘hired guns.’’ Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—‘an arm of the Executive Office of the President,’ which ‘had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.’ See: Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘Restoring Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking’ www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/scientists-sign-on-statement.html). And:’NIST Whistleblower,’ October 1, 2007 (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html).” As quoted in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven, Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, By Prof. David Ray Griffin, Global Research, September 14, 2009, (September 21, 2009). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 (Emphasis mine.)

24. www.fema.gov, FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Ch. 5, Sect.5.7, “Observations and Findings.” P. 5-31. (September 21, 2009.) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf).

25. Ibid., FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study, 5th Floor Scenarios 5-28. Emphasis mine.

26. Global Research.ca, Centre for Research on Globalization, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven, Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, By Prof. David Ray Griffin, Global Research, September 14, 2009. (September 26, 2009).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 See also: National Fire Protection Association, 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 1998 Edition, Section 18.3.2.
(http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp),

27. Ibid. The Mysterious Collapse, Griffin.

28. Ibid.

29. RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature,” Expert Report, May 2004

30. RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003

31. Ibid., 21.

32. WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/lead/physics.html). As quoted by Ray Griffin in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven. Global Research.ca (September 21, 2009). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

33. Ibid., (http://www.webelements.com/molybdenum/physics.html). Although the scientists involved with this USGS study discovered the molybdenum, they did not mention it in their report. Knowledge of their discovery was obtained only by means of a FOIA request. See The Mysterious Collapse, 44-45. Interlink Publishing, Changing the way people think about the world.

34. www.doctorfire.com, Fire Science and Technology Inc., Temperatures in Flames and Fires, Flames Temperature of Open Flames, (September 21, 2009) http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

35. Ibid. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, By Prof. David Ray Griffin

36. www.gulli.com, gulli:news, World Trade Center Destruction, Interview with Dr. Harrit, 24 May 2009. (September 21, 2009) http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/

37. Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008 (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546). As quoted by Ray Griffin in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven. Global Research.ca (September 21, 2009). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

38 Shyam Sunder, “Opening Statement,” NIST Press Briefing, August 21, 2008
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html). As quoted by Ray Griffin in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven. Global Research.ca (September 21, 2009). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

39. Ibid. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False By Prof. David Ray Griffin

40. All indications show that the WTC 7 building fires were sporadic and localized in nature and were almost completely restricted to the south side of the building. Even if they had been intensive enough to cause structural collapse of the south side of the building, it would not have fallen “symmetrically” but most assuredly as like a tree is felled—or as if two legs of a four-legged tower were suddenly removed. It would fall “over” not down; and not perfectly within its own footprint. I mention this point again at the end of the article because it is most important in creating a mental image of what would have happened according to the laws of physics, engineering, and fire science, if indeed fire had caused the collapse, in contrast to what actually happened as recorded by numerous videos. See Architects and Engeeneers for 911 Truth, Home Page, (Septermber 21, 2009)

http://www.ae911truth.org/ and World911Truth.org, Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie, “Demolition workers failed to follow new laws of physics that dictate to implode a building perfectly within its own footprint, you just need to set a few office fires.” (Septermber 21, 2009). http://world911truth.org/botched-building-demolition-reinforces-wtc-7-lie/ and Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" (Emphasis Mine.) www.prisonplanet.com, Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics", George Washington’s Blog, Wednesday May 28,2008. (September 21, 2009).

41. WTC7.net, Controlled Demolition, (September 14, 2009). http://www.wtc7.net/demolition.html

42. CDI, Controlled Demolition Inc., Services: Buildings. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, (September 21, 2009), http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317124730. “Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) appeared to be a key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel. CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, which approved the plan.” 911 Research.wtc7.net, Ground Zero Players, Who Oversaw the Ground Zero “Cleanup Operations.” (September 21, 2009). http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html

43. CDI, Controlled Demolition, Inc., Services: Government, (September 21, 2009).http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=10

44. Ibid. CDI, About Us, (September 21, 2009). http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2. (Emphasis mine.)

45. Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy be coming from ?"
www.prisonplanet.com, Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics", George Washington’s Blog, Wednesday May 28,2008. (September 21, 2009). Emphasis mine. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/280508Engineers.htm

46 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Letter to Dr. Shyam Sunder at NIST. Written by Mr. Richard Gage, AIA, July 20, 2009 (September 21, 2009) http://world911truth.org/documents/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_%207_20_09.pdf

47 See footnote #34. Also note: Damage Claims Versus Symmetric Collapse,
“Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.” www.WTC7.net, Claims of Severe Damage to Building 7, (September 21, 2009).

48 WTC7.net, Controlled Demolition, (September 14, 2009). http://www.wtc7.net/demolition.html

49. Ibid. Emphasis in italics are mine.

50. Ibid. See note #40.

51. www.prisonplanet.com, NIST WTC7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing, And Completely Flawed, Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, Friday August 22, 2008, (September 21, 2009).
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nist-wtc-7-report-shameful-embarrassing-and-completely-flawed.html

52.

Appendix Important Notes of Reference:

From the Firefighter for truth website who lost an unprecedented 343 firefighter on 9/11.

Building Collapse Inquiry
The total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the three largest engineering failures in history (based on the official story). How were they investigated?

o FEMA was given the sole authority to investigate the collapses even though it is not an investigative agency.
o The investigative team assembled by FEMA consisted of unpaid volunteers.
o The investigators were not allowed access to Ground Zero.
o The investigators were not provided with the blueprints of the buildings.
o FEMA's report states the causes of the collapse "remain unknown at this time". (By the time the report was released the steel had been entirely disposed of.) The fact that Building 7 (supposedly) failed in a way that contradicts 100 years of engineering experience makes it the largest and least understood structural failure in history.
o The 9/11 Commission Report failed to even mention the existence of Building 7.
o The 9/11 Commission Report denied the existence of the Twin Towers' core structures.
o NIST's report on the collapse of the Twin Towers purports to provide a "probable collapse sequence" for each Tower but truncates its timelines before the collapses even begin.
o NIST avoided even mentioning the earlier findings of sulfidated and evaporated steel, then described then by the New York Times "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".
o NIST's Final Report on the collapse of Building 7 abandons the earlier official claims of severe structural damage and diesel-fueled fires, and blames the swift straight-down collapse on a house-of-cards chain reaction triggered by a single beam breaking loose of its connections due to thermal expansion -- a completely novel failure mechanism with no supporting evidence.
o NIST proffered disingenuous arguments for failing to test for explosive residues, which it continued to repeat even after responding directly to public comments and correspondence pointing out the fallacies of those arguments.
See911research.wtc7.net, 9-11 Anomalies, Government Response, (September 21, 2009). http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

NIST’s Continued Attitude and Response: “That’s my story and I’m sticken’ to it!

NIST released the following: “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.

And, on their questions page:

From NIST website posted 8/21/08:

“Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”

Now, do we have this straight. They investigated it. Although, they self admit they didn’t chemically test for residue. So, they are going off witness testimony, video, photographic, and audio evidence, of which they found none that had blast sounds or indicators. They also used computer models. And, lastly, they admit they did no further investigation for possible explosive charges because….it would have been hard to plant them?!? Did we read that right? So, with that logic, we no longer have to investigate any crime that would have been hard for someone to commit from here on out? Is this what we are going to stand for?

Quick, somebody call NIST! We have another “extraordinary event”…we found some evidence! Dr. Steven Jones already did the chemical analysis for them, and tested it in multiple labs. And, we have found the audio evidence and witness testimony that can clear up any doubts as to whether any blast sounds were heard by anyone. Also, look at the video above and see if it looks at all similar to a controlled demolition. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any evidence, videos, pictures, or history of another high rise structural steel building collapsing due to fire.

Are you going to take a government agency’s report (one that has pathetically drug it’s feet, self-admittedly refused to test for residue, and ignored obvious “blast sound” evidence) as the final word? As NIST says, are you going to put all these “conspiracy theories to bed?” Or, are you going to take action and demand the real investigation our Brothers deserve!

If you’re still not convinced there’s more to it than we’re being told, then ask yourself: if Tower 7 did come down due to fire, why didn’t Tower 5? Tower 5 was much closer, had devastating structural damage from the Twin Tower collapses, and much more severe fires burning. But, it remained standing. So, did Tower 3,4, and 6. Look below. Do your own size-up. Our lives depend on the ability to gauge when a building will collapse - test your skills.

See Firefighters for 911 Truth, FF 911 TRUTH, 20 August 2008, (September 21, 2009) http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Also see www.nist.gov, NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST News Release, NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, August 21, 2008 (September 21, 2009) http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

This Issue