Join Our Mailing List
For Email Marketing you can trust

For Activists, Architects, 9/11 Questions Linger Ten Years Later

With additional reporting by Matthew Cardinale, News Editor.

(APN) ATLANTA -- It will be ten years since September 11, 2001, in just a few months.  And yet some of the most basic and fundamental questions about what happened that day--based upon physics and the forensic science of structural engineering--in the collapse of three towers at the World Trade Center in New York, still linger.
Groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E), founded by Richard Gage; and We Are Change Atlanta want to re-examine the evidence regarding the collapse of all three buildings.  

First, the group is especially interested in new evidence of un-ignited fragments of nano-engineered thermitic pyrotechnics found in debris from the Twin Towers.  The presence of these fragments would be consistent with explosives having been used in a controlled demolition.

Second, the group is also troubled that, in their view, official reports by the US government appear to defy the fundamental laws of physics.

[Before delving into these two sets of issues, an editorial note is in order.  The purpose of this article is not to hypothesize what the real story behind the Towers' collapse is, but to address what we find to be reasonable and compelling questions about the government's official account.]

These issues will be addressed at an upcoming event in Atlanta.  Gage; former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA); Luke Rudkowski, founder of We Are Change; and April Gallop, Pentagon survior will speak at First Iconium Baptist Church in East Atlanta on May 21, 2011, from 4-9pm.   


First, the discovery of thermite and nano-thermitic composites in the dust and debris following the collapse of the three buildings was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009, as proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Jeremy Lynes, We Are Change Atlanta, explained nano-thermite to Atlanta Progressive News, "Thermite has been around over a century and refers to aluminum's highly energetic reaction to iron when in a certain form.  When ignited, thermite releases large amounts of energy and will destroy iron's integrity fast.  Nano refers to the modern technology of constructing materials much smaller, on the supra-molecular scale, than previously possible, creating chemical reactions never-before imaginable.  Nano-thermite is an advanced type of thermite which is more explosive and gives a faster complete burn."
The 2009 article was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," and was written by Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; Steven Jones; Kevin Ryan; Frank Legge; Daniel Farnsworth; Gregg Roberts; James Gourley; and Bradley Larsen.

"The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy.  For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance," the authors wrote.

The collapse of the towers generated a surprisingly large amount of fine, toxic dust.  Four different Manhattan residents took samples of this dust and later responded to a call for such samples.  

The authors conduct a variety of highly technical tests upon the small red and gray chips they found in the dust, to conclude as follows: "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

The publication of this article was highly controversial, leading to the resignation of editor-in-chief, Marie-Paule Pileni, who had no specific scientific rebuttal to the article.  And for many activists, architects, and engineers who had already believed that explosives were involved in the collapse of the three towers, it confirmed their suspicions.


The US government's official explanation of how terrorists came to hijack two planes and fly them into two buildings is provided in the 9/11 Commission Report.  But its explanation of how those two plane collisions led to the buildings later collapsing into their own footprint is provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The NIST official report on 9/11 states that a "total progressive collapse or disproportionate collapse" occurred in WTC 1, 2, and 7, as in each case the entire building above the damaged area moved downward as a single unit.

Three buildings collapsed on 9/11, although only two were hit by a plane.  

A growing chorus of activists, scholars, architects, and engineers--including several groups and activists in Atlanta--have been questioning the official account by NIST of how the three towers fell.
In WTC 1, NIST states fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side to sag.  Other neighboring columns became overloaded and columns on the south wall buckled causing the top section of the building to tilt and begin its descent.
In WTC 2, NIST states fires caused the floors on the east side of the building to buckle and sag, which pulled neighboring columns and caused them to buckle causing the top section to tilt and begin its descent.
In WTC 7, NIST states fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding column 79 led to the collapse of floor 13 which triggered a cascade of floor failures.
Last September, Derek Johnson, Structural Steel Inspector & Mechanical Engineer, visited Atlanta to make a multi-media presentation at the historic Plaza Theater on Ponce de Leon Avenue in Midtown, which called into question the official government report on the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.  250 people attended the event hosted by We Are Change Atlanta.

Johnson's presentation blasted holes in NIST's report of a fire-induced total progressive collapse.  

"NIST's conclusion of a fire-induced collapse of building 7 is based on computer simulation and not on physical evidence that can be tested and confirmed by others.  NIST manipulated the computer inputs by using unrealistic values for the weight, strength, and flexibility of steel and concrete in their model," Johnson said.  

"The model NIST used was more representative of Lincoln Logs that fall like a house of cards than the very strong welted and bolted large steel beams used throughout WTC 7," Johnson explained.
"The three buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 were designed and built using fire resistance plans that were thorough and continually updated, and that ensured the buildings could not fail from fires," Johnson said.
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and received only minor damage from the falls of WTC 1 and 2.  WTC 7 did exhibit all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives, such as rapid onset of collapse, sounds of explosions, free-fall acceleration, and collapsing completely in its own footprint with expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.

WTC 7 housed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations including Enron, Citigroup, and WorldCom.  All files and evidence from government agencies in WTC7 such as the CIA, Secret Service, DOD, and INS were destroyed.
Other high-rise building with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.  WTC 4, which was next to WTC 2, was destroyed by tons of falling and buring debris with large permanent deformations and sagging of many beams, but it did not collapse.

WTC 5 was also destroyed by extensive fire-related damage, but it did not collapse.
Johnson reported "NIST would not release over three thousand documents on their investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 to Ron Brookman, a structural engineer... NIST's reason for refusing to release the documents was that it might jeopardize public safety."
"This is the first time in history that a steel and concrete framed building has collapsed due to office fires where one damaged column caused a total progressive collapse of the entire building at near free fall speed," Mike Smith, an Atlanta-based electrical engineer and member of A&E, said.
"If the official story of the collapse of the towers is true," Mr. Lynes said, "then the top floors, above the plane's impact, acted like a pile driver of incredible pressure, forcing its way to the ground through the other ninety floors at free fall speed--impossible, according to laws of conservation of energy.  Therefore, after this demolishing, the top twenty or thirty stories would be sitting atop the rubble intact.  Since they were not, it shows they were not the cause of the collapse."

The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am and the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, while building 7 collapsed at 5:21 pm. The WTC7 collapsed in under seven seconds, while The Twin Towers collapsed somewhere between 8.5 and fifteen seconds.
"The accelerated speeds of collapses evident in videos of all three buildings prove that these are not progressive collapses as the government contends.  In a progressive collapse a failed structure will encounter resistance--thousands of tons of steel and concrete--and exhibit jolts which will slow down, not accelerate, its decent and will not disintegrate symmetrically into its own footprint.  The government's miraculous steel and concrete disintegration theory is fraudulent science.  Only in a controlled implosion, using explosives to remove the internal support system, will you get the free-fall speed and vertical decent leaving only a pile of dust and rubble," Smith said.
"The rate of free fall or the gravitational acceleration of Earth is 9.8 meters per second per second, or 9.8/s^2 without air friction coefficients or drag.  It is impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall time of 8.5 to 15 seconds," Smith explained.

In addition to the speed and symmetry of the collapse of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers, many eye witnesses, firefighters, and police officers reported hearing violent explosions from all three building before they fell.

"Amazing, incredible... For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down," Dan Rather of CBS News said, for example, according to a clip posted widely on Youtube.

The Pink Elephant Collective, a group of local artists, painted a 9/11 Pink Elephant Mural on the wall at Euclid and Colquitt Avenues in Atlanta's Little Five Points during the summer of 2010.  The mural shows several pink elephants drudging through oil, with the words "9-11 Truth" and "Nano-thermite?"

Camron Wiltshire, a member of the Pink Elephant Collective, said, "We painted the mural as a means to connect directly with people on the street and to have an authentic discussion of the facts.  It is a visual invocation to awaken the heroic within us all and look at the evidence being brought forward by concerned citizens all over the world."
"The US is now immersed in two illegal wars of occupation and 9/11 is given as the righteous precedence, for our invasion, destruction, and occupation of these sovereign countries.  Over one million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children have been murdered by our tax funded military occupation, not to mention the thousands of US soldiers and public servants.  If we can be brave and look for ourselves at the evidence, we can begin fixing our country," Wiltshire said.
"The mainstream media is not willing to look at the evidence and spends much of its efforts demonizing or smearing anyone who is speaking out," Wiltshire said.


Since 9/11, there has been a code of silence surrounding any questions towards the accuracy of the US government's official account.  This code of silence has been antithetical to the very values of freedom of speech, democracy, and open inquiry which are fundamental to our country.

Indeed, when former US Rep. McKinney asked in a 2002 radio interview what the President knew and when he know it, she was viciously attacked, and this led to her electoral defeat by former US Rep. Denise Majette (D-GA) in 2002.

A February 2010 article in the American Behavioral Scientist, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government,” by Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor of Public Administration at Florida State University, examines the characteristics of what he refers to as State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD).  SCAD is a term intended to replace the term conspiracy theory, because government agencies frequently engage in illegal conspiracies as a proven fact.

DeHaven-Smith includes 9/11 as a suspected SCAD in a list of actual and suspected SCADs.

SCADs involve high-level government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power, according to deHaven-Smith.  Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

“Research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs... pre-existing beliefs can interfere with SCADs inquiry, especially in regards to September 11, 2001," Psychologist Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph, wrote, also in an article in the same February 2010 issue of ABS.

Professor Steven Hoffman, visiting scholar at the University of Buffalo, expanded upon this in his ABS article, “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification.”

“Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.  In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information," Hoffman wrote.

The present APN article is intended to increase citizens' awareness of the lingering questions, architectural analyses, and new physical evidence as it relates to 9/11.  It is hoped that this article may advance public discourse and lead to an open conversation, including in the comments section of this article.

(END / 2011)

Comments (147)

Said this on 5-4-2011 At 10:34 pm
Hello, thank you again for taking the time to comment here. The more than fifty comments so far have advanced the discussion far beyond the scope of our original reporting.

We made a conscientious decision when unveiling the new website to allow people to comment anonymously; for example, we don't require registration and right now we do not moderate.

However, we DO ask any commenters who have a conflict of interest with the topic or issue they're commenting on, to disclose said interest. A classic example would be paid commenters who work for a political campaign- we ask for such individuals to disclose that role if they comment on an article related to that campaign.

Therefore, Albury has a right to post comments on this article anonymously. Although, we at APN would request for Albury to disclose if for example, he works for the government as opposed to just being a concerned citizen.
Said this on 5-4-2011 At 11:37 pm
That sounds like a precursor for the usual tactic of banning everyone who doesn't agree with 9/11 "truth movement" claims, APN Editor, as well as being a bit selective, considering the other respondents to this article who've used only their first names, along with one who uses "Albury's Everywhere," which may not be his or her real name, and the fact that no one else has been asked for the same information. I worked for the US government for 2 years after I was drafted into the Army, and now collect Social Security I paid into during years of civilian work, but have never worked in any other capacity for the government and am certainly not a government employee now. I'm a very concerned citizen, and have been especially concerned with the dishonesty and ignorance of the people most loudly proclaiming their interest in the truth about 9/11.
If you do decide to moderate this forum, please take note of the contributors who stay on topic and attempt to discuss things intelligently, since you might possibly consider trying to suggest to those of us who don't that they follow that example. As I just pointed out to another respondent here, my full name isn't one of the issues mentioned in the article he and I replied to. To answer your question, I have no conflict of interest at all, and seriously doubt whether the government or anyone else would pay anyone to discuss 9/11 with a few others on an Internet forum.  
shill stalker
Said this on 3-20-2012 At 07:18 pm

as evidenced by his inordinate amount of arguing against something he doesnt believe in, ( a quick google for albury smith 911 will show a history of his commenting on every blog concerning 911, posting the same lies, distortions and obfuscations ad nauseam, 24/7 ) this shows that he is either paid to do this or has severe mental disabilities, as pointed out by most everyone who has the misfortune to have ever crossed paths with the unflushable turd, and is as obvious as is the explosive destruction of the 3 towers that day.

the only people who would argue against a transparent, unfettered independent investigation into the events of 911 are those with a vested interest in supressing the truth.

frankly, to hope that albury would voluntarily disclose such things is as likely as there will ever be credible proof beyond all reasonable doubt that bin laden was killed in may of 2011.

ie; NONE

there is irefutable evidence that the events of 911 did not happen as we are being told,


but despite that, and despite not being asked, albury will continue to offer his unqualified, anonymous opinion, as if he is the final arbiter of truth, in relation to ANYTHING to do with 911. a self proclaimed expert..

its so pathetic, if it wasnt for the fact that on the backs of the lies of that fateful day, hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed, civil and constitutional rights have been shredded, and the world has been subjected to a never ending war of terror, it would be funny.


Said this on 5-4-2011 At 11:39 pm

I don't have to prove anything to you Sir. If you were actually interested in conversation then please do me the service of introducing yourself. It's a very common courtesy.  I will go first.  My name is Camron Wiltshire.  I hereby offer you (if you will provide me your name) with a free pass to our upcoming event.  There you can ask any question you like with no name calling, censorship, or misrepresentation.  If you want to show me the same courtesy you are welcome to do so.  So once again, who should i put down as coming to our event for free?  Or do you not want to have your questions answered by experts?

For everyone else, please make the time to know what is being said directly by visiting the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth web-site or any of the dozens of reputable sites dealing with 9/11 evidence and education.  You will run into those who prefer ad-hominem, misrepresentation, and any other means of derision and logical fallacy.  The best armor for their aspersions is the old adage, "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".  "Albury"  How about you do the decent thing and show everyone you actually do care to know the truth whatever the cost. Come to the event and ask Richard whatever you want directly.  I will just need your full name.  

Said this on 5-5-2011 At 11:08 am
If this is your idea of an honest and productive conversation, Camron, moving it live to Atlanta with an audience of your fellow "truth" aficionados wouldn't be any more worthwhile. I've contacted Richard Gage by email at on a number of occasions, as well as using the contact feature at ae911"truth," and he and his people have never explained any of the anomalies I posted here on May 1, nor have you or any others in your 9/11 "truth movement."
I'm usually banned from commenting on "forums" run by his followers, have also weathered nasty, vulgar, and profane insults, and have even had my life threatened by them, so flying a few hours to get more of the same, when you have no legitimate reason not to discuss it here and now doesn't really interest me. You don't have any "reputable [web] sites," and the decent thing to do is admit it. It isn't "ad-hominem, misrepresentation, [or] any other means of derision and logical fallacy" to point that out to you, nor do you need my full name in order to stay on topic and discuss your claims intelligently instead of tossing out red herrings.
Said this on 5-5-2011 At 04:11 pm

Albury you are doing nothing to be productive in this conversation actually, perhaps you should research the idea of "projection" in other words, pot, meet my friend kettle. I cannot say I would take your word for anything as you won't even reveal your identity.  For all I know from your behavior and your own libel and slander is that you are a shill.  You won't take any steps to prove otherwise and have done nothing but blow smoke on the boards you frequent.  Why not post this on 911blogger etc?  If they ban you it's only because once they reasonably answer your questions you just turn into a muckraking anonymous troll.  I can't blame them.  Who can deal with someone so unwilling to honestly dialog about the facts.  You pretend you do and then perform an all too familiar pattern of misrepresentation and libel.  When anyone points this out to you, you scream, No it's you!!! Of course you won't even tell us your name so again, your just another anonymous troll and I'm tired of feeding you any attention whatsoever.  Get a life Albury.  Your side has lost.  

Said this on 5-5-2011 At 04:48 pm

Who are "Albury's Everywhere" and all of the posters who've only gone by their first names on here, Camron? If you had my real name you'd find some other excuse to duck my questions. My 5-1-2011 post at 8:22 PM is still there, and it was posted by "Albury," so that's apparenly sufficient for board purposes. It would obviously be a waste of time to go to Atlanta, because you guys never run out of excuses. 

Watch out for those "pyroclastic" room-temperature dust clouds if you're ever near a controlled demolition site; loads of victims ran through them on 9/11 and had their skin peeled off in seconds. Did you ask Gage how he knows that the WTC 7 facade collapse took 6.5 seconds? Is a tower free falling when perimeter column trees from the collapse initiation floors begin hitting the pavement when the collapse zone is still higher than WTC 7? Free fall time from 1368' is ~9.22 seconds, so are ~15 and ~22 seconds "near free fall time"? 

(video from another shill; invite Professor Rosie to your shindig)

Gee, it's so much easier just to keep asking me for my name, isn't it?    

Said this on 9-9-2011 At 09:12 pm

His full name is,

Albury Smith, Gormless 9 11, Lying Shill and Troll.

Not worth pissing on.

assbury hunter
Said this on 5-17-2012 At 05:58 am

funny you should ask that..

funnier is watching how fast he runs whenever hes asked to own his comments...


Said this on 5-6-2011 At 08:14 pm


An exlplanation of NIST admitting free fall by Steven E Jones.

Even a child can see, we need a new investigation.




Said this on 5-6-2011 At 08:49 pm

It wasn't a question of "admitting" an irrelevant curiosity, Camron; NIST acknowledged it and went back to their basic premise. If Chandler, Gage, Steven Jones, and others would like to continue obsessing over something this inconsequential, why won't they calculate ds/dt for the entire collapse using the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A, and then compare the two? This is nothing but a huge straw man argument, easily proven by your "researchers," and utterly meaningless, just like proving that rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. were in WTC dust samples and "reminded" someone of something. Timing a collapse does nothing to show what caused the building to fail structurally, and there's absolutely no evidence that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives.

Since you think NIST had to admit to this, which is a gross mischaracterization what actually occurred, when are Gage, Jones, Ryan, and others going to ADMIT that they simply made up the 6.5 or 6.6-second time for the complete collapse of WTC 7's exterior? They based it on absolutely nothing, and couldn't properly explain that if they had all day. Feel free to ask him when he visits. 

Said this on 5-6-2011 At 09:30 pm

Here ya go buddy. See if this clears things up for you.  By the way throwing out a ton of numbers and jargon may make you think you are fooling people, but the gig is up. Watch This!  Just remember, this is an orange.  I'm sorry that your paradigm is in jeopardy but really you are just grasping at strawmen that you have erected to be quite honest.   And really you are so fake, you won't tell anyone who you are, and yet you expect people to take you seriously?  Do you believe what you see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told to believe?  I think I know the answer for you by now. For me I will trust the eyes the creator gave me just fine.  Don't need your double think, newspeak jargon spew, no thanks!  Watch that video, it may help you bridge the cognitive dissonance that you are possessed with.  Oh and feel free to man up and come ask Richard these questions yourself, or is that too much to ask from the anonymous pseudo debunker known as "Albury"    

Said this on 5-7-2011 At 06:45 am

If you understood the principles involved here, Camron, you'd also want your "researchers" to calculate the times using the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A, since they're simply tossing out some numbers without giving them any meaning. Over-analyzing the time of WTC 7's collapse from looking at a video is just a Stupid Pet Trick by itself, so why don't they apply their ponderous scientific knowledge to the task of showing that WTC 7 actually collapsed "too fast"? The ignorance required to claim that just timing a collapse or any portion of it indicates or reveals the cause of it is unfathomable. 

I don't have to visit Atlanta later this month to know that the WTC 7 facade collapse didn't take 6.5 or 6.6 seconds, but actually closer to 9, that it's impossible to time from videos to the nearest 1/10 second, that Gage simply made up that number, or that he, Ryan, Steven Jones, and others making that obviously dishonest claim won't explain how they arrived at it; I've emailed the three I just mentioned and gotten no reply from any of them. It's not very difficult to look at one of the compilation videos like this one:

and time the collapse from any of the videos shown, nor is there any reason not to ask Gage how he got it when he comes to Atlanta. He can't possibly answer the question honestly, and you can clearly see that no available video of the WTC 7 collapse enables anyone to time it to that degree of accuracy. Your "truth movement" repeatedly calls the NIST investigators liars, so take a look at a real one live and in person in ~2 weeks. Ask him about those room-temperature "pyroclastic dust clouds" while he's there too. Believe it or not, he doesn't even need your first name in order to answer those questions for you.



Stan the Man
Said this on 7-12-2011 At 12:56 am
Said this on 7-12-2011 At 05:46 am

Your video link is to one of the best liars in your "truth movement":

He made numerous false statements in his video about NIST's findings also, and was fired for lying about UL's certification protocols for steel.

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 12:01 am

Hello Albury.  One question about your comment.  You say that the fact that a portion of the building fell at free-fall acceleration for over two seconds is an "irrelevant detail."  I am not well versed in physics, so perhaps you could explain in layman's terms why it is irrelevant?  The suspension of the laws of physics, even if only for two seconds, certainly seems relevant to a layman.

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 07:22 am

Why is Chandler's proof positive that the laws of physics worked perfectly on 9/11 in NYC a suspension of those laws? There was obviously no appreciable resistance during that ~2.25 seconds, and essentially the only force acting on the mass was g. If the 9/11 "truth movement" wants to draw the groundless conclusion that it was because of explosives, it becomes a matter of producing evidence, which they haven't done. Controlled demolitions cut columns, and no one explosively-severed column was found in the debris in the entire ~8 months of cleanup at the site and later at recycling points. The laws of physics did just fine on 9/11; the laws of logic and evidence were trampled by Gage, Chandler, Jones, Ryan, and others. Jones has even used photos of WTC columns cut with acetylene torches to "prove" his controlled demolition claims, and that's a suspension of honesty, which is how Gage and others make their money.

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 03:19 pm

Thank you for finally seeing the light.  As you so kindly point out, "essentially the only force acting on the mass was g" (to copy/paste your own words).  This is precisely the point that seems to have eluded your cognizance for so long.  Repeat, gravity was the only force acting on the mass.  Id est, there was zero resistance.  And so, the upper portion of the building fell at free-fall acceleration (as predictable according to the laws of physics) because there was no other force in play, no resistance.  "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s" as per the NCSTAR 1A findings.

While I do not have the precise data on the weight of each floor, NCSTAR 1A says that each of floors 8 through 47 were constructed of 76 mm corrugated metal decking covered with 14 cm of concrete, and the floor area was roughly equal in size to a football field.  Eight football fields of 14 cm concrete covering 76 mm steel! That is many thousands of tons per each floor, even by a conservative estimate.  Multiply that by eight floors.  Suddenly, the resistance that had hitherto been supporting tens of thousands of tons is reduced to zero instantaneously.  How be dat?

If the fires which had been burning for several hours had weakened the concrete and steel to the point of collapse, the weakening process would have been gradual, not instantaneous.  When the resistance acting on the mass finally reached the point of no longer being able to support the tens of thousands of tons above it, there would still remain resistance just shy of being able to support those tens of thousands of tons.  And thus, free-fall is impossible unless the resistance supporting tens of thousands of tons disappeared in an instant.  How be dat?

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 05:52 pm

Look at the collapse modeling in NCSTAR 1A. Dynamic loading rendered what little resistance left to unmeasurable from t=1.75 to t=4, but there was a slower acceleration prior to and after that time interval. There were no explosively-severed columns found in the debris. C/Ds don't leave zero evidence.

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 08:05 pm

And that is the point.  The resistance of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel instantaneously became immeasurable (unmeasurable) and that state continued from t=1.75 to t=4.0, which is impossible had it not been controlled demolition.  Thank you for making my case.

Said this on 5-8-2011 At 08:41 pm

You don't have a case. No explosively-cut columns were even rumored by any of the ~40,000 different people who worked on the cleanup for nearly 8 months.  Your "theory" is also impossible and there's no plausible motive for it. Not very smart.

Said this on 5-9-2011 At 12:22 am

Sorry not to follow your red herring, Albury.  I said nothing about "theory" of any sort, I only spoke of FACTS.  I will leave the formulation of outrageous conspiracy theories to you.

Fact 1) the NCSTAR 1A report confirms that a portion of the building fell at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. 

Fact 2) the law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics, not a theory.

You can deny those facts if you wish, but it only makes you look foolish in the eyes of readers.

And as Donald Rumsfeld once said, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.  You do realize, of course, that the bulk of evidence in the greatest crime of the century was shipped off to China and recycled into a boat, don't you?  Even though in every precinct in the country you can find evidence from crimes that were committed 20 to 30 years or more ago carefully preserved in evidence lockers, the evidence from the greatest crime of the century was exported and recycled before it could be properly examined.  Now I am not saying that it was a cover up, but I am just saying that since we can not examine the bulk of evidence, we have to go on the facts.  And the facts are simple.  Either Fact 1 or Fact 2 above are false, or bin Laden and his band of merry terrorists defied the law of conservation of energy.

Whichever it be, you may choose the outrageous conspiracy theory of your preference.

Said this on 5-9-2011 At 06:44 am

You look very foolish citing physics principles and then ignoring them. I'll choose the theory backed by evidence and  sound science. 

Said this on 5-9-2011 At 11:59 am

Thank you for choosing the theory backed by evidence and sound science.  I'll interpret that as your concession speech.

Said this on 5-9-2011 At 12:39 pm

Send Box Boy a donation; the cardboard cartons are wearing out. :-)

Enemy of Cognitive Dissonance
Said this on 6-7-2011 At 05:52 pm

No plausible motive for it? How about getting the Taliban government out of Afghanistan so the puppet Karzai could be put in power, Karzai then unsurprisingly accepting America's terms for the natural gas pipeline project? Have you even heard of the pipeline project? The idea of getting gas from Turkmen gas fields out of Central Asia via a pipeline crossing Afghanistan to Pakistan and a port? Allowing the gas to be exported by a route that doesn't go through Russia or Iran, a route with the U.S. in control of it?

And to use 9/11 as a pretext for their invasion of extremely oil-rich Iraq which the Cheney administration certainly did? The entire "War on Terror" is nothing more than a badly-disguised series of wars for energy resource dominance as the world enters the twilight of the petroleum age.

Said this on 6-7-2011 At 06:04 pm

How does secretly blowing up a completely unoccupied hi-rise at 5:22 PM, after the worst terrorist attack in US history has already been carried out, have anything to do with subsequent foreign policy? Do you even THINK?

Enemy of Cognitive Dissonance
Said this on 6-7-2011 At 06:54 pm

I was referring to the motive for the ENTIRE false flag operation but since you mention WTC 7 specifically it makes sense that it was demolished as it was probably where the detonation sequence was initiated. Destroying WTC 7 destroys the evidence. Plus it allows Larry Silverstein to collect insurance money from that building as well as the Twin Towers. Remember that he fought in court to have each of the Twin Towers considered a separate "terrorist attack" meaning he would then be allowed to double the insurance settlement so this is not out of the realm of possibility. But why don't you turn your scrutiny on the laughably ridiculous official myth's numerous glaring holes instead of being entirely one-sided? It's pretty pathetic for someone to completely ignore everything that I just posted about the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline plan as even reported by the BBC and ask "how does WTC 7 fit into that?". Have you even watched video footage of the WTC 7 demolition? If so did you happen to notice the two trails of dust going up the face of the building just before it "collapses"? Even blowing out windows as is visible in the less grainy examples of the footage? What do you think those might be from?

Said this on 6-7-2011 At 07:06 pm

Not one explosively-severed column was found in the debris. Your "theory" is asinine.

Silverstein lost against most of his 12 insurance companies, but why would he care about the Afghanistan border, or whatever? All he did was lose his WTC buildings, collect $4.68 billion, and have to spend it on ~$10 billion in rebuilding costs while he's been doing without cash flow from the tenants he lost.

Enemy of Cognitive Dissonance
Said this on 6-7-2011 At 07:20 pm

How do you know what was or was not found in the debris? The steel debris from the WTC site was removed as quickly as humanly possible, loaded on flatbed trucks that were first police-escorted and then had GPS locators put on them, and taken away to be shipped to China and India to be melted down. Firemen at the site even wrote a letter in some firefighting magazine saying that it was terrible that the steel evidence was being removed for disposal instead of analyzed. Why would they want so badly to remove the steel as quickly as possible instead of saving it to be analyzed? And how could it be so important to want GPS locators put on the trucks and to have police escorts yet so unimportant as to be disposed of to be melted down in China and India? Which was it? Important or unimportant? The official story would have you believe it was both.

Silverstein was someone along for the ride on this mess. He saw a way to make more money out of the plot but obviously cared nothing about the Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistani pipeline plan.

My question to you is: How do you explain away the Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistani pipeline plan that "just happened" to be a possibility again when the one fly in the ointment, the Taliban, was removed from power? Some food for thought: The U.S. ambassador to the Karzai puppet government was Zalmay Khalilzad, an admitted consultant for energy giant Unocal which had a major interest in getting the pipeline built. So is all this a coincidence and it also a coincidence that Iraq both has a huge amount of oil and had a government that the Wall Street Journal reported was feeling out possible suitors for privatizing its state-owned oil industry before the U.S. invaded Iraq? Oh by the way, the suitors were France's Total and Russia's Lukoil with American oil supermajors being deliberately left out of it because of the bad relations between the U.S. and Saddam's Iraq. The only way to avoid U.S. oil companies missing out on what looked to be the biggest bonanza of the 21st Century was to invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam and take control of Iraq's oil themselves. Things didn't work out as planned however as instead of welcoming them as "liberators" the Iraqis conducted guerilla war against the occupiers, making the occupation untenable and causing a quick handoff to first a designated puppet government then real elections where an Iranian-friendly government ended up in power. So just because something didn't end up the way they wanted doesn't by any means indicate that something wasn't their original motive.

Said this on 6-7-2011 At 08:20 pm

The US retaliated where al Qaeda happened to be in 2001, and I don't see a whole lot of oil gushing out of there, or any more progress on this pipeline than before the suicide attacks of 9/11. Did your secret bombers tell Silverstein what their plan was, or did he bomb his own property with these imaginary, evidence-free explosives? Was the FDNY in on the plot too?

You're extremely uninformed if you think Silverstein made money on 9/11. He's still paying the PA ~$10 million/month for the towers, even though they're not there, and is required to rebuild them. Estimated cost of both is $9 billion, or almost double his total insurance payout, and he's collected no rent from them for almost 10 years.

Enemy of Cognitive Dissonance
Said this on 6-7-2011 At 07:21 pm

By the way, the structural steel "just happened" to come apart in nice neat sections just the size to fit on flatbed trailers, as is standard procedure in controlled demolitions. Another coincidence to add to the mountain of coincidences with which the official story is saddled?

Said this on 6-7-2011 At 08:39 pm

The steel in any building "just happens" to come in and be erected in lengths that are easy to ship and handle in the field. For the towers, much of it was fabricated, delivered, and erected in 3-story lengths, and bolted connections in a collapse are by far the weakest places in them. Even you could see the difference between a factory end with plate and bolt holes and one cut by explosives, and people even smarter than you worked at GZ for nearly 8 months cutting up and loading the steel that they pulled from the debris. ~40,000 different people worked on the cleanup at one time or another, so that's a pretty big conspiracy, huh?

Said this on 5-1-2011 At 08:48 pm

Albury, I find it offensive that you take time out of your free time to go around forums spreading disinformation and distractions.  What could be driving you to do this?  It's quite disturbing.

Building 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds.  NIST (our GOVT) said this happened for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 on page 45 of the nist summary ncstar report.  2.25 seconds of free fall in Building 7 = 8 stories/100+feet

This means for 8 stories there were no core columns or support beams providing ANY resistance.  They were giving off the RESISTANCE THAT AIR WOULD.  This is how, and the ONLY way free fall can occur-ZERO RESISTANCE (air only). 

So how can 8 stories of a 47 story building provide NO resistance?

The core columns and support beams for the fulll length and width have to be removed.

How can they be removed?  Office Fires?
No, only demolitions can achieve this.

Said this on 5-1-2011 At 09:01 pm

How would the WTC 7 facade collapse have looked if the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A had happened? Have you even bothered to look at the NIST reports, or do you just know that they're wrong?

allblurry smith gormless shill
Said this on 5-11-2011 At 04:53 am

he says he does it because...

"Libel, slander, and junk science offend me, and I don't see any need to exculpate al Qaeda for a deadly suicide attack that killed nearly 3000 people in my country."

still waiting for the slightest shred of evidence that links al-cia-duh to 9/11, but that doesnt worry allblurry, he believes that 9/11 was

"evil-doers who hate his freedoms"

hes not very bright you see.. but at least he has a job.


Said this on 5-1-2011 At 09:03 pm

I'm so thankful people have chosen to use this forum to delve further into the issues raised in the article.  

I did want to address the concern raised by a commenter who raised the possibility of Jack Jersawitz, another commenter, being part of a government psy-op.  I can assure you Jack is a real person, and if he's supposed to be working for the government--as subversive as he is--I want my money back as a taxpayer!!!

Louis Briendel
Said this on 5-1-2011 At 09:08 pm

I believe our greatest evidence lays in the red layer of the "red/gray chips" discovered in 9/11 dust samples. Scientific test have shown that this red layer is active, unreactive thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." Nanothermite is produced at the molecular level, this is very high tech stuff, this is definitely something that isn't produced in a cave in Afganistan.

In the aftermath of 9/11, about 2,000,000 TONS, of material obtained from Ground Zero was taken to the landfill for sorting. If you want evidence then Fresh Kills Landfills is the place to start. Why can't a court order be obtained to get 9/11 dust samples from Fresh Kills. Then there will be no question of chain of custody. If the science is correct and it is learned the 9/11 dust particles contain unreactive nanothermite there wouldn't be a court in this country that wouldn't demand this new evidence be investigated. Then we will uncover who and why there was no testing done for explosives at Ground Zero which by the way is mandatory under Federal Law and State Law. It's time we focus on the evidence we have at hand, nanothermite is produced in government labs not in caves around the world!!!! The so called terrorist couldn't even handle a small two-seater plane and were throw out of flight school but now their scientist that can produce molecular level nanothermite with high security access to bring thousands of pounds of it into the Twin Towers with no one ever knowing it! We can end this if we really wanted to, the TRUTH lies right there at Fresh Kills by the tons!

Said this on 5-1-2011 At 09:34 pm

All 4 hijacker/pilots had FAA commercial pilot certificates for Boeing wide-bodied twins, and whether they could fly light planes, figure skate, or hang glide is irrelevant. The "research" you're citing conclusively proved that rust, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, etc. was present in some WTC dust samples, and that it "reminded" them of something for which they provided nothing for comparison. If painting explosives on steel columns severs them, why hasn't someone in your "truth movement" convinced the skeptics by doing it on video? I'd love to see how it keeps steel molten for months too.

Louis Briendel
Said this on 5-1-2011 At 10:21 pm

Albury, you always come with the same line over and over, but never take the time to address the research. What the hell do you think nano thermite is made of? Think NANO, maybe that will help!  

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

  1. It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. [4,6]
  2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
  3. On treatment with methyl-ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components was observed. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
  4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
  5. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
  6. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430ºC, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900ºC) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
  7. After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
  8. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and of many of the micro-spheres found in the WTC dust. [5]
  9. The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of this organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction."

As for your so called certified pilots.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots.

These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172

— an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day.

A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway.

This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car.

I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 06:13 am

What did this alleged nanothermite do? Explosives cut steel in C/Ds, and not one explosively-cut column or other piece of structural steel was pulled from the debris. Try painting an explosive or incendiary on a steel column and detonating or lighting it. You'd be in for a major disappointment. 

The identified hijacker/pilots couldn't do triple Salchow/triple toe loops either, but the FAA certified all four of them for their Boeing simulator training. Steering an already-airborne plane in perfect weather conditions isn't all that difficult. There is ample evidence that the four planes were hijacked and crashed by al Qaeda suicide terrorists, and no evidence for any other scenario.

yonnik faulkner
Said this on 5-2-2011 At 02:21 am

Every one of your assertions is false.

Thank you Atlanta Progressive News for this article.

Louis Briendel
Said this on 5-1-2011 At 09:36 pm

There's nothing wrong with this country and our constitution has served us well, it's come down to those who have taken the oath to uphold our constitution is where the nightmare lies! If it's mandatory for government workers to under going drug testing, maybe it's time politicains should take lie detector tests to determine who they serve, the PEOPLE or their ownself interest!

Active Thermitic
Said this on 5-1-2011 At 11:08 pm

Gloria--thanks for doing the right thing. We need a new investigation scientifically independent of the US Government. Active thermitic material (highly nano-engineered, not a random "mix") was discovered in the dust. Models provided by NIST for the collapse of WTC7 are ludicrous in that they don't resemble video footage of the actual collapse. Etc Etc Ect.

Truth will out. The sooner the better.

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 02:54 am

The discussion about the demise of the WTC buildings is a red herring.  As there were no Arab/Muslim terrorists (no evidence for their boarding the planes), the entire 9/11 official legend is a lie from A to Z.  Jack is certainly a government provocateur, there is no doubt about it, because he does not address the absence of evidence on Arab/Muslim terrorists and tries to support a cause most Muslims won't support.

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 07:01 am

Tell Ramzi Yousef that "no Arab/Muslim terrorists" attacked the WTC towers in 1993 too, Elias. He publicly bragged about it at his sentencing hearing.


Said this on 5-2-2011 At 07:07 am

If you wish to begin a new thread on the 1993 bombings, please be my guest.  Let us dwell on 9/11.  I still have not seen anyone posting evidence that Muslim/Arab terrorists boarded flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93.  Where are you, valiant warriors for the truth?

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 07:21 am

If you wish to dwell on 9/11 by reinventing the facts, please begin a new thread, Elias. Where were you, "valiant warrior for the truth," when the airline passenger manifests (not VICTIMS lists) for the hijacked planes were introduced into evidence at the Moussaoui trial? Have you added two major US airlines to the list of entities you're libeling with your theories?

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 07:36 am

There were no "passenger manifests" introduced into the evidence at the Moussaoui trial.  The FBI and the airlines refuse until now to produce the real "passenger manifests". They refuse to release the boarding cards.  And no person has ever testified to have seen the "hijackers" board the aircraft.  Their bodily remains were never identified.  So much for the evidence.  So, come on, you who believe Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohamed as the ultimate source for the truth.

Said this on 5-2-2011 At 07:58 am

This might be an appropriate time to send the bin Laden family a voice-morphed message of condolences, Elias. Oddly enough, as powerful and wealthy as they, the Azzams, and the Zawahiris are, they've never defended their relatives from the 9/11 charges, and the Saudi government has confirmed that 15 of the 19 men on the FBI's list of hijackers were Saudis. You've apparently included American and United Airlines in the plot, and it seems that everyone but you is passing up a great opportunity to set the record straight on the al Qaeda planners and hijackers. Have they thanked you yet?   

Post a Comment
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
(not publicly displayed)
Reply Notification:
* Security Image:
Security Image Generate new
Copy the numbers and letters from the security image:
* Message:

Please use this form to contact us
Your Name:
Your Email:

Email to Friend

Fill in the form below to send this news item to a friend:

Email to Friend
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
* Friend's Name:
* Friend's Email:
* Security Image:
Security Image Generate new
Copy the numbers and letters from the security image
* Message: