- How did the elevated building mass of the upper section of each Twin Tower (Buildings 1 and 2) destroy the 80,000 tons of structural steel at nearly free-fall speed, as if the steel framing weren’t even there?
- Given that open-air jet fuel fires burn at only about 600° F. (per manufacturers specifications) and that normal office fires burn at only 1,500° F or so and that the melting point of steel is above 2,700° F, what thermal energy source could have produced the several tons of molten metal observed flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse? This lava-like flow of metal was also seen under the rubble for weeks in the aftermath of the Twin Towers and Building 7 destruction by numerous witnesses—even by the World Trade Center’s structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.
- What explains the chemical evidence of thermite, an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams and in pools of molten iron in the World Trade Center debris? In Appendix C of its BPAT Report, FEMA documented “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, of hydrocarbon fuel, or of normal office fires. Yet NIST summarily dismissed this key evidence when its engineers took over the investigation from FEMA.
- What is the source of the billions of previously molten iron microspheres, which are well-documented in samples of the World Trade Center dust? Both the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in its “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust Report,” and engineering consulting firm RJ Lee Group, Inc., in its December 2003 “WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology,” document these once-molten droplets of iron. But neither of them explains how these microspheres got there! Importantly, the microspheres contain the chemical signature of thermite, an incendiary material used by the military to cut swiftly and cleanly through structural steel.
- Why did Building 7, the third WTC high-rise to collapse, descend at free-fall acceleration during its seven-second collapse? Video analysis shows the upper portion of the steel-framed structure accelerating at the maximum rate of gravity. Even NIST acknowledged this can only mean one thing: The structure below offered “no resistance.” And the only possible way there was no resistance, according to the laws of physics, is that the structure was “removed.” What removed it?
- What mechanism can account for the simultaneous failure of the critical number and distribution of columns required to produce this rate-of-gravity acceleration? NIST now attributes the catastrophic collapse of Building 7 to a new phenomenon called “thermal expansion” due to “normal office fires”—with little or no contribution from falling debris or from diesel fuel. Based on this outlandish claim by NIST, are we to suddenly accept that our understanding of fire science, building materials, and structural behavior has been deeply flawed all along? If so, then why has the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) steadfastly resisted all proposed post-9/11 changes to structural building codes?
- Why did more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of lightimmediately before and during each tower’s collapse? Why did we not know about these thousands of pages of FDNY “oral history” evidence until August of 2005—and only then after a court order mandated their release? FDNY’s own chief of safety, Albert Turi, and its top chief, Ray Downey (who is the “premiere collapse expert in the country,” according to a fellow chief), both spoke of the presence of explosives in the towers prior to their failures. Why were 118 FDNY testimonials that referred to multiple, violent explosions ignored and unreported by the 9/11 Commission and by NIST and FEMA?
- What was the energy source that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder in mid-air? Through what mechanism was the energy source applied? Why did that powder blanket lower Manhattan as each of the three buildings was collapsing? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this pulverization and the rapid expansion of the subsequent dust clouds was far greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. This simple energy imbalance alone proves the official explanation impossible. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the vaporization of more than 10,000 steel file cabinets and of 1,100 human bodies that were never found, not even the smallest traces of DNA?
- How were four-ton steel members ejected from the Twin Towers at 70 miles per hour and why did they land up to 600 feet away? A simple gravitational collapse would only allow up to 100 feet of “drift,” so what provided the energy required for them to travel six times that distance?
- Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors in each Tower—each of them one acre in size. What could explain the disappearance of a total of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete floors (180,000 tons of concrete) and of each floor’s steel decking and trusses?
- What caused the explosive ejections of pulverized building materials that appeared as many as 60 stories below the rapidly descending “collapse” of each Tower? These “squibs,” readily visible in all of the publicly available videos, indicate that building materials were being ejected at a speed of more than 160 feet per second.
- Why does the seismic evidence collected by Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory corroborate the evidence that supports the explosive demolition theory instead of the official collapse theory?
- Why did NIST refuse to test for residue of explosives, citing the nonsensical, unscientific rationale that such tests “would not necessarily have been conclusive”? Meanwhile, an international team of scientists found and documented nano-thermitic explosives residue in the World Trade Center dust. The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 921 document, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,” requires such testing when there is “high order damage,” as there obviously was at the World Trade Center.
- Finally, how can we allow this September 2007 admission by NIST to go unexplained: “[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse [of the Towers]”? Inexplicably, NIST did not even attempt to “analyze the structural behavior after the initiation of collapse.”
Richard Gage, AIA
cc: Board of Directors, AE911Truth