Remembering the Truth of 9/11

[Tara Carreon]

9/11: Explosive Evidence Transcript Cont'd.

[Robert E. McCoy, High-Rise Architect] I don't want to be involved in conspiracy theories. There are lots of them. We can go on and speculate about that forever. What we really need to know is how those buildings came down.

[Joel Miller, High-Rise Architect] My name is Joel Miller and I have a bachelor of architecture degree from Temple University in Philadelphia. And while I was there in Philadelphia, I worked for two firms on a couple of high-rise buildings: the 13-story federal detention center for Ewing Cole Cherry Brott -- I spent about two years on that project -- and then a year on a high-rise dormitory -- about 15 stories -- for MGA Partners. If we are to believe that fire brought down three buildings on the same day, on 9/11, that's very troubling for all of us in the design professions: architects, engineers, even physicists. I'm incredulous that this could have happened, and very troubled by the implications of this possibility. There are thousands of high-rise buildings in the United States, and more being built every day in this country and abroad. As architects and engineers, we have a responsibility to protect people that are users of buildings.

[Tara Carreon]

EXPLOSIVE Evidence, Cont'd.

World Trade Center 7

1: A Third High-Rise Came Down That Day

[Richard Gage] The new World Trade Center Building Seven looms above the site of its original. Building Seven was a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane. Yet, it was the third, modern, steel-frame skyscraper to collapse rapidly and symmetrically on 9/11. It is a football field away from the North Tower and sustained minor damage from the falling debris. Building Seven's precipitous collapse was blamed on normal office fires.

[Kamal Obeid, S.E., Structural Engineer] I'm Kamal Obeid. I have a master's degree in civil and structural engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. I've been a practicing engineer for the last 30 years. Building Seven, to me, is really what gives it away, because that's a classic case of controlled demolition.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] My name is Steven Dusterwald. I'm a licensed, professional, structural engineer, with 37 years of experience in the structural field. I have 25 years of experience as owner and principal of my own structural engineering firm here in Las Vegas. I have focused on nuclear power plant design, and large commercial and industrial buildings. I first became aware of the problems with the official account of the collapse when I saw a DVD online from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They pointed out various problems with the official story, and the ones that caught my attention were the rapid failure of the connections in order for the building to come down at the rate that it did.

[Casey Pfieffer, S.E., Structural Engineer] My name is Casey Pfieffer. I am a registered, professional, structural engineer, in San Diego, California. I have a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering at the University of Notre Dame. I have been practicing engineering for 15 years, and currently I am the principal of Pacific Coast Structural Engineering in San Diego, California. A friend gave me the "Blueprint for 9/11 Truth" DVD to review, and from that, the evidence that I saw was so compelling that it became obvious that the official story was not correct.

[William Rice, P.E., Civil Engineer/Professor (Ret.)] I'm William Rice. I worked for one of the nation's largest design-build construction firms on commercial and industrial and institutional projects in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and the Baltimore areas. As a professor, I taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building-related courses at Vermont Technical College, to architectural and engineering students for 20 years. I watched Building Seven fall at an accelerating rate in 6-1/2 seconds. This was a massive 47-story structure. The only way that a building can accelerate as it collapses is by having pre-engineered, precisely timed, and precisely placed explosives. In other words, controlled demolition.

[David Topete, S.E., Structural Engineer] My name is David Topete. I have a masters of science degree in civil engineering. I am a licensed structural engineer. I design new structures, and retrofit existing structures, from concrete, or masonry, or structural steel. In my professional opinion, in my experience, for World Trade Center Seven to collapse straight down upon itself as the video indicates, as everything that we've witnessed, the supports at the center, essentially, all had to be taken out at once. I certainly believe that it had to have been controlled demolition, controlled charges, explosives. Something of that type. Because it was a sudden failure.

[Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret., Director -- Advanced Space Programs Development Ford, Carter Administrations] I'm Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret. I flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, and directed all the Star Wars programs under Presidents Ford and Carter. My Ph.D. is in aeronautics and nuclear engineering from Cal Tech. I did post-doctoral work at the von Karman Institute in Brussels, Belgium, in finite element analysis. I taught at five universities and colleges, serving as department head and assistant dean. The coup de grace for me was when I found out that Building Seven had collapsed later that day. And when I saw Building Seven come down, to me, Building Seven, the fact that it looks like a perfect controlled demolition of an intact building with no visible fires, I mean, that's what I call a smoking gun.

[Robert E. McCoy, High-Rise Architect] My name is Robert McCoy. I'm an architect. I have a bachelor of architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1963. I've been licensed in California since about 1964. From about 1965 until about 1985, most of my experience has been in high-rise, multi-storied steel buildings. NIST would have us believe that these were typical office fires, scattered office fires, if you will, that brought this building down. Since the mid-60's, I've tried to follow high-rise fires, because they are something we worry a lot about as we design these buildings. And I'm not aware of any high-rise building that has come down as a result of fires. I can't remember even a partial collapse in any of these buildings that I have watched over the years.

[Steve Barasch, High-Rise Architect] I'm Steve Barasch, founder and president of Barasch Architects & Associates, Inc., a 33-year architecture, planning, and engineering firm. We have offices in San Luis Obispo and Pasadena, California. I hold a bachelor of architecture degree from the University of Arizona, and a masters of architecture in urban design from Rice University in Houston, Texas. I spent three years in London as the first Ph.D. student at the Architectural Association. One of the things that really interested me is how quickly Tower Seven fell. It fell within seven seconds, approximately, from top to bottom. This building was built in the mid-80's, apparently, and met all the known codes at the time. Buildings just don't behave like that.

[Richard Gage, AIA] We're here in Sydney with Jan Utzon, son of the great Jorn Utzon, who designed the Sydney Opera House. What are the features of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven that caused you to be disturbed?

[Jan Utzon, Current architect Sydney Opera House] It looked like it was a demolition more than anything else.

[Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect] My name is Les Young. I'm a licensed architect in both New York State and in California. I've been involved in many large projects, including overseeing several high-rise buildings ranging in size from 14 stories to 40. Over the course of 20 years, I'm mainly called in to help with very large, difficult projects. When I watched Building Seven collapse, it basically left no doubt in my mind that something was wrong. Building Seven had not been hit by a plane. To me, it was obvious that there was some controlled demolition and some explosions involved.

[Tara Carreon]

EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.

World Trade Center 7

2: Destruction of Evidence

[Richard Gage, AIA] Was the structural steel from World Trade Center Seven preserved, documented, and analyzed according to standard procedures for investigating engineering failures?

[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] It was really clear from the beginning that there was this great move to, as quickly as possible, get rid of all of the rubble, and move it off.

[Erik Lawyer, Firefighter] Because what they did immediately after 9/11 was they started moving the steel, the debris from Tower Seven, and all the towers, immediately. And they sent it off to China to be recycled.

[Joel Miller, High-Rise Architect] Four hundred truck loads per day of material were taken away from the World Trade Center site and sent to China for recycling.

[Edward Munyak, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer] All of a sudden, they had a big incentive to recycle steel for some reason.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] Quickly and rapidly they were destroying the structural steel.

[Edward Munyak, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer] The steel was hauled away and melted down before it could be analyzed.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] It was already being carted away and destroyed when the FEMA investigators got there about a month after September 11.

[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] It was being melted down, it was being cut up into pieces so that no real thorough investigation could happen. And that in itself is a crime. And that kind of thing needs to be investigated.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] The steel was picked up and carted away before anybody got a good look at it. And the destruction of evidence was a criminal act in itself. It would have answered a lot of questions that we can't answer because we don't have the structural steel to examine. [LC-1]

[Editorial by Bill Manning, Fire Engineering] "Building-fire Expert and Editor-in-chief of 125 year old "Fire Engineering Magazine" Demands Stop to "Destruction of Evidence"

"Structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions ... is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation ... I have combed through our national standard for the investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall. To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance."

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

[Roland Angle, P.E., Civil Engineer] There were laws violated in the destruction of that evidence. And for the American Society of Civil Engineers to ignore those events is extremely disturbing. And is a violation, in my opinion, of their professional code of ethics.

[Edward Munyak, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer] It was contrary to the way all investigations are done. If an airplane crashes, they seal off the entire area and nobody touches anything. They move it to a secure location, and they reconstruct an aircraft.

[Professor Jonathan Barnett, Worcester Polytechnic Institute] Normally, when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed, and every column where it is on the ground. And you pick them up very carefully, and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower Seven.

[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] Aside from this one small piece that was found to have intergranular melting, incredibly, none of the other steel from World Trade Center Seven was saved for analysis. This is disconcerting considering that World Trade Center Seven would have been the first steel-frame high-rise building in history to ostensibly collapse due to fire.

[Scott Grainger, P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer] The government has destroyed much of the evidence. But there's still some evidence available, and photographs of the evidence. [LC-2]

[Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., Professor, University of MA] My name is Lynn Margulis. I've been doing science every day since I was about 16 years old. I teach at the University of Massachusetts. I have a Ph.D. in genetics. I reconstruct the past natural history from clues taken to be representational, and that's exactly what we're doing with reconstructing of why the buildings were destroyed in 9/11. In the historical science, that's what must be done. In 1999, I was a recipient of the President's Medal of Science from Clinton, and I received the Da Vinci award, that is, membership in the Da Vinci Society. You can't do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid instead of the most likely. When the most likely hypothesis, in the case of Building Seven, wasn't even mentioned, this is not science. So the claim is it's something else. It's trying to prove preconceived ideas.

[Librarian's Comments]

LC-1. This proves that it was a covert operation, probably run by the CIA. They didn't want anyone to figure out how it happened, so they carted off the evidence, and the laws be damned. Hiding the evidence says that it's not our business to find out what brought down those buildings. The operation is top secret, classified, to be revealed in 100 years or never. Top secret operations are immune to law. When I see an exception to the law, I see a conspiracy. Just like the decision of the Supreme Court to make Bush, Jr. the President of the United States.

You can see who the conspirators of 9/11 are, they are all the people who played a part in destroying the evidence and establishing the official story. It's the reporter asking the question, "Are you sure you heard explosions? Wasn't it rather a collapse?" It was the 9/11 commissioners, the FAA, EPA, FBI, CIA, FEMA, Rudy Giuliani, all the neocons in the Bush administration, the airforce generals, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Congress, Larry Silverstein and behind the scenes, Henry Kissinger. And the list continues. Many people played their part, but not everyone knew what part they played. They don't know if when they pushed that button, they were playing a war game or a real game. Many illusions are set up in an operation like this. When they killed Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, it appears they had many killers in place. Some players may have even thought they delivered the fatal shot when they didn't. If a firing squad is set up, they put blanks in some guns and bullets in others, so you're never sure if you were one of the killers. Killing causes psychological pain, so Daddy has done everything he can to prevent the players from knowing if they actually contributed to the incident. If you're a pilot dropping bombs, you might not even know what country you're flying over.

In my opinion, the destruction of evidence is a smoking gun equal to the obviously controlled demolition of Building Seven. It shows that it was a government conspiracy, a state-run false flag operation.

LC-2. To see how useful photographs are in an investigation, see "Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman," by Mary Tillman with Narda Zacchino. http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.bootsonground.htm

The next day ... I see an envelope from Fed Ex. The envelope was sent from Rockville, Maryland; it's Pat's autopsy report.....

I place a call to Commander Craig Mallak, Armed Forces medical examiner at Rockville, Maryland. Commander Mallak explains that he didn't perform Pat's autopsy; a Dr. James Caruso did. He says Dr. Caruso is currently in Iraq, but he tells me he is quite familiar with Pat's case. I ask Dr. Mallak why Pat would measure two inches taller when he was missing so much of his head. He tells me that the measurements aren't very exact. He says he may have been measured with his toes pointed.....I tell him Pat's wedding band was platinum, yet the report says the ring was gold. Mallak tells me the ring was described from a photograph and that the lighting in the room made the ring appear gold....[I asked] why aren't descriptions written down while looking at the body? It makes no sense to describe details from a photograph...[Mallak said] Yes, ma'am....I ask him why none of Pat's distinguishing features were documented.... [Mallak said] they don't do internal examinations...[I asked] why would Pat have been defibrillated? ...[Mallak said] we normally don't fault someone for trying to save someone's life.

[Tara Carreon]

EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.

World Trade Center 7

3: A Federal Investigation that Ignored the Facts

[Richard Gage, AIA] Was a proper investigation performed that might have revealed the use of accelerants or explosives in World Trade Center Seven's destruction?

[Steven Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University] My name is Steven Jones, a physicist. I received my Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. So I've been at this for over 30 years, studying various subjects. I have published over 50 peer-reviewed papers in my career. NIST concedes that they found no evidence for explosives.

"NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." -- Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer, NIST.

So then we asked them, "Did you look?" And they said, "No, we did not look for explosives or residues of explosives."

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Sructural Engineer] I'm Ron Brookman, licensed structural engineer in California. I received my masters degree in structural engineering from University of California at Davis, in 1986. I've been practicing structural engineering ever since then. NIST never did a proper evaluation of the collapse site and the debris. World Trade Center Seven I would have expected they would have tested for explosives also, because of the nature of the collapse, and the unprecedented nature of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing in such a fashion.

[Roland Angle, P.E., Civil Engineer] My name is Roland Angle. I'm a civil engineer registered in the state of California. I've been practicing in California since 1967. I'm a graduate of the University of California. And my practice has included, among other things, design and testing of structures that were designed to withstand blasts. Specifically, for instance, the blast facilities for the Minuteman Missile System. I was a green beret for six years during the 60's. I was trained in the use of demolitions. And I blew a lot of things up. One of the things we did is go out and attack structures, analyze them as to where their weak points were, learn how to place explosives at points that would cause them to fail, and then actually demolish them and analyze our results. So the method of how to attack a structure and cause it to fail with explosives, was one of the things I learned through my military training.

When the American Society of Civil Engineers was brought into this investigation early on, they did a very superficial investigation of the site. They issued a report without any significant forensic examination, and there were laws violated in the destruction of that evidence. And for the American Society of Civil Engineers to ignore those events is extremely disturbing, and is a violation, in my opinion, of their professional code of ethics.

[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] I'm Tony Szamboti. I'm a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area with over 20 years of experience in the aerospace industry, where I design structures for aircraft and spacecraft, and support equipment. Neither NIST or FEMA followed standard protocol for fire and explosion investigations, or just fire investigations for that matter. National Fire Protection Association Guide No. 921 calls for saving the evidence, and being prepared to justify why you wouldn't. It also calls for testing for accelerants and explosives when high-order damage is involved. NIST did not do this. NIST is often responsible for generating information which the NFPA Guides are written from. It makes one wonder why the NFPA standard would not be followed in this case. NIST has not answered this question publicly.

[Erik Lawyer, Firefighter] There's national standards that need to be followed. And when I started looking into that, I went into the investigation manual. And so it's called the NFPA 921. And it's the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. And so what it is, it's the national standard. So if an investigator from New York has to come out to the West Coast to help with something, they can fit right in seamlessly into the system, and know what their role is, and what they need to be doing. And so I went and got the manual from 2001, and I went back and I looked at the footage from the original days of 9/11 -- there were all kinds of firefighters and civilians that were reporting explosions.

[TV footage]

[Firefighter] Okay. Alright. Here, hold on. You want to call your mother or something?

[Explosions heard in the background]

[More explosions]

[Firefighter] Oh, boy.

[Firefighter] Did you hear that?

[Firefighter] Keep your eye on that building. It's coming down.

[Erik Lawyer, Firefighter] Just the fact that there were explosions means they need to be investigated. Terrorists used explosives in 1993. We had witnesses to explosions. We have audio recordings of explosions. We have overwhelming evidence that there were some explosive events. The Manual gets into thermite, and it says if you have melted steel or concrete -- which we had on 9/11, and there's videos of it, and people can see it -- we should test for it. It says where you have melted steel or concrete, you test for thermite.

So the fact that they're not testing for it is crazy. We had 3,000 Americans murdered, and we had the first three high-rise and steel collapses. We have all these reports of explosions. We have the vans pulled over. We have a history of terrorists using explosives. It's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, there's no excuse for it. It's criminal in my opinion. It's absolutely criminal that they refuse to follow the national standards. And the national standards say they should be testing that for explosives.

One of the other big issues we have, the firefighters that are members of the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, is just the blatant destruction of evidence. We're not talking about a little bit of evidence. They destroyed all the steel, all the basic bones of the building that would have told us how this first high-rise steel structure in history, that hadn't been struck by an airplane, all it had was a few fires on several floors, and it had only been burning for a few hours [collapsed]. We've had other high-rises burn much longer. The way we could have learned from this was analyzing that, looking at the steel, and seeing how this collapsed, and how it failed, and which steel members did what.

Well, we can't do that. Because what they did immediately after 9/11 was they started removing the steel, the debris, from Tower Seven, and all the towers, immediately. Why were they destroying this? I mean, they sent it off to China to be recycled. So they never had any physical evidence to do the investigation.

The national standards are very clear. We have preservation of evidence. We have spoliation of evidence. There's all kinds of -- basically -- standards that you don't destroy evidence.

So that's what we're calling for. We're calling for an investigation into the investigators, and why they destroyed this. We're calling for a re-investigation that follows national standards.

And the big thing is, everybody says, "This is in the past; leave it in the past," and that's not true. We have ground zero workers dying today. They're getting cancers. And several don't have medical insurance. The FDNY, most of them are being taken care of by the Department, but there were so many thousands of volunteers and members of other departments that showed up. And they were there for months afterwards. And they don't have the medical coverage. They can't make their house payments. They are sick and dying. And we as a country are ignoring them.

I mean, we promised we would never forget, but it looks to me like most people have forgotten. And they want us to forget. And that's what we're here for is to basically just ask people to take another look into this, show some compassion, and let's help our brothers and sisters out, and really re-investigate 9/11. I mean, it's changed our world. Not to mention that there were 343 brothers murdered. But we are at war over this. We've lost a lot of our freedoms over this. And we don't have the real story on what happened, because there wasn't a proper investigation done.

[Tara Carreon]

EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.

World Trade Center 7

4: Fully Engulfed in Fire?

[Richard Gage, AIA] As reported by the New York Times, engineers were baffled by the collapse of Building Seven, since no steel-frame high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire. How are we to understand this mysterious event?

[Scott Grainger, P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer] My name is Scott Grainger. I'm a licensed fire protection engineer. I'm licensed in 13 states. I've been in private practice for 25 years. I've been a practicing engineer for 39 years. 50% of my practice is in forensic engineering. Steel structural frame buildings, high-rise buildings, simply do not collapse due to fire. There has never been, until 9/11, an experience where a high-rise building that was steel-framed completely collapsed. There have been fires burned longer in similar structures without any collapse.

[Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect] In my previous career as a firefighter, normally you'd never be afraid to go into a Type 1 building, because they are not combustible. And you would just charge at it and put the fire out. Never in my training were we ever taught that these types of buildings could just collapse in on themselves. There was definitely much more going on than just fire.

[Movie Narrator] The way in which steel-framed buildings behave in fires depends on their construction. In this test, done by British Steel in 1995, a large amount of typical office furniture was burned to see what would happen to the heavy steel beams that supported the ceiling.

[Professor Jonathan Barnett, Worcester Polytechnic Institute] When steel is bare, when it heats up, it gets weaker. It's not that it melts in a fire. In fact, normal fires are not hot enough to melt steel. Even if you were, for example, to use an unusual fuel, like kerosene, you cannot achieve temperatures hot enough to melt steel. But what happens is it starts to lose its strength. And as it loses its strength, it starts to sag. It becomes softer and sags. It can no longer support the load.

[Movie narrator] This was the largest test of its kind ever conducted. It showed how unprotected steel can be distorted even by a normal office fire. But as is typical in steel buildings, the structural beams only slowly and progressively warped and sagged. There was no chance of a sudden collapse.

[Professor Jonathan Barnett, Worcester Polytechnic Institute] In over 20 years, I have not seen, until recently, a protected steel structure that has collapsed in a fire.

[Joel Miller, High-Rise Architect] The World Trade Center Seven building reminds me of the Meridian Bank Building in some ways in Philadelphia. The Meridian Bank Building is a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, suffered extensive damage from the fire, but did not collapse.

[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] I am Dan Barnum with FAIA, a graduate architect from Rice University, with a bachelor of architecture degree. For the 40 plus years that I've been practicing architecture, I have designed a variety of buildings, from small houses to high-rise office buildings. Some of the high rises that I've worked on are one-shell and two-shell here in Houston, and I was project manager for a 22-story office building in Akron, Ohio. I'm a fellow of the American Institute of Architects. I've designed high-rise buildings, and I know what they do in fires, because I've studied that. Later in the day, when World Trade Center Seven collapsed, they had already showed us pictures of a few fires in that building. And they weren't even raging. And how could that cause a building to collapse as if it were imploded? It couldn't happen.

[Jonathan Smolens, P.E., Structural Engineer] My name is Jonathan Smolens, P.E. I'm a professional structural engineer in the Boulder, Denver area for the past 12 years. And one of my specialties is forensic engineering, including evaluation of structures post-disaster. What happened to those columns to all collapse at the same time, the explanation provided does not match the evidence that we have.

[Michael Donly, P.E., Structural Engineer] My name is Michael Donly, P.E. I'm a structural engineer with 14 years of experience. I get involved mostly with the design of steel-framed, fire-proof buildings. We've never had a steel-framed skyscraper collapse in the United States or internationally. So there's no precedent. I don't think Building Seven could have collapsed by fire as NIST tells us, that this collapse mechanism, starting with thermal expansion, that worked its way upward and outward through the building in a matter of seconds -- there's not enough time for the building to collapse the way that NIST tells us it collapsed.

[Edward Munyak, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer] I'm Ed Munyak, licensed fire protection engineer for at least 25 years. And I work for a number of organizations: city, federal, large insurance companies, consultant, always in the area of fire safety and with the goal of keeping the public safe and the first responders safe. I became fascinated with the government's version of the events on 9/11 because this is totally contrary to everything that I ever experienced, either working in the field of fire safety, or knowing what I know about mechanical engineering. It defies many fundamentals of mechanics and materials and physics, and just many fundamental engineering concepts.

[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] World Trade Center Seven, NIST claims the fires were very large, very hot and long lasting, when in reality, observation -- which has been researched by many people -- shows these fires did not last very long, and they were not in the locations where NIST claims they were at given times.

[Tara Carreon]

EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.

World Trade Center 7

5: 47 Stories in 7 Seconds

[Richard Gage, AIA] According to lead investigator Shyam Sunder of the National Institute for Standards and Technology -- NIST -- World Trade Center Seven collapsed at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet of its fall. What does the speed of the collapse reveal to us?

[David Topete, S.E., Structural Engineer] Essentially, in less than 7 seconds, Tower Seven came down upon itself.

[Richard Angle, P.E., Civil Engineer] Building Seven the NIST report admits fell at the rate of gravity for the first 100 feet. Well, that's impossible unless there's nothing resisting it.

[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] It's like taking your car keys out and just dropping them. That's how fast the building came down for over 100 feet. The only way you can get that is when there is zero resistance. And so what we're looking at is a building just coming straight down, falling right through itself, with zero resistance. Buildings don't have zero resistance, which is why you feel comfortable walking into a building.

[Jonathan Smolens, P.E., Structural Engineer] A building cannot do freefall with huge structural, steel structural system in place to support it, without it being blown up. That's the only way it could come down at freefall.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] The failure of all these connections as the primary means of structural failure is inconsistent with a natural gravitational collapse, and indicates the presence of other agents which would dismember these connections.

[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] I'm David Chandler. I have a bachelors degree in physics from Harvey Mudd College, and a masters in education from Claremont Graduate University, and another masters in mathematics from California Polytechnic University. I've been teaching for over 30 years. I heard people say, "Well, it came down at freefall, or close to freefall," so I decided to measure it myself. I had a simple tool at the time called "Physics Toolkit," which allowed me to take a video and put a dot on each frame to follow the motion of things. And so you can measure speeds and accelerations, and it will do the analysis. A fundamental law of nature is the conservation of energy. In order for it to be falling down with zero resistance, it means that resistance had to have been removed by something else.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] NIST claims that the columns were buckling in the first several seconds before the freefall occurred. Now, I don't see how that's possible.

[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] And in the final report they modified it. They tried to doctor it up. They still tried to say it was essentially correct, but then they modified it. And they actually admitted there was a period of freefall involved. But they never changed their model. Like, how do you all of a sudden allow for freefall, when they just got done explaining how it couldn't have been in freefall? If I were a scientist at NIST, I'd be embarrassed to try and put forward something like that. It was clearly a fraudulent argument.

[Richard Angle, P.E., Civil Engineer] In other words, NIST is telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse of the building. Well, things in physics just don't cease to exist, and cease to resist the forces that are on them. [LC-3]

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] Freefalling for eight stories. So, we know that happened. It's been measured, and it's on videos. Everyone can see it. NIST has admitted it went into freefall for eight stories. That's a bothersome part of the puzzle, because NIST never explained it.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] Absolutely no resistance in its descent whatsoever.

[Richard Angle, P.E., Civil Engineer] The building didn't disappear so the building can fall for 100 feet at freefall speed. That's impossible. That's a violation of the fundamental law of physics that says for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. So that evidence alone would indicate that the official story doesn't hold water.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] There was no time for this elastic deformation, and plastic deformation, which would have absorbed energy and decreased the descent to less than free-fall speed. As energy is drained away from the system to deform those members, it would slow down the descending mass, and cause a descent at less than freefall speed.

[Jonathan Smolens, P.E., Structural Engineer] 40,000 tons of structural steel and its structural system, and that is intended to keep it from going anywhere. A building cannot do freefall with huge structural, steel structural system in place to support it.

[Robert E. McCoy, High-Rise Architect] There's no resistance until the building gets down maybe half way.

[Steve Barasch, High-Rise Architect] Buildings tend to be delayed as they collapse. They don't just pancake down like this in a very short period of time.

[Steve Luce, Former U.S. Army Combat Engineer, Explosive Demolition of Structures] If the pancake theory works, it's going to hit hesitation. And there was no hesitation.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] Going from motionless to freefall -- instantly.

[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] One continuous motion. There couldn't have been any structural resistance.

[Steve Barasch, High-Rise Architect] Buildings just don't behave like that. If floors fall, they tend to fall and are braced by the floor directly beneath it. And there's some delay there.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] This is inconsistent with the energy redistribution that would be required from the descending mass to the remaining structure.

[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] It's completely impossible. And NIST themselves have to recognize the implications of this. The fact they haven't is fraudulent.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] The connections are designed with a safety factor of 1.5-3.0 times the failure load for the member. This assures that the member will always fail first, first in an elastic mode, and then a plastic mode.

[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] Ideally, the member would fail before the connection. You don't want the connections to fail first.

[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] The connections failed first without any of the members exhibiting large deformations or deflections. Over 400 connections per second had to fail in order for the members to be released, and for the structure to descend at almost freefall rate.

[Casey Pfieffer, S.E., Structural Engineer] To fail at the rate that they did, progressively across the building, even if a floor were to collapse, it still wouldn't be able to collapse all of the connections simultaneously at the rate that it did, without secondary explosions.

[Steve Luce, Former U.S. Army Combat Engineer, Explosive Demolition of Structures] There was no hesitation. There was no hesitation when it was to hit story after story.

[Casey Pfieffer, S.E., Structural Engineer] If you were to look at a standard moment frame steel connection, which is a welded connection between the beam and the column, it would take on the order of around 500,000 pounds to shear off one connection. And if you multiply that by 400, put maybe a safety factor of 4, you would require 50 million pounds of force per second in order to collapse the building the way it was shown based on the NIST report, and what we saw on the video evidence of the video of the building that day. It's highly unlikely. I don't know how that could ever happen without secondary explosions. It's not logical or reasonable.

[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] The fact that it's coming down at freefall says all of the energy is being used to just make it go straight down. Which means it's coming down through itself and not breaking up the building as it goes? Something else has to be clearing the way. And that is smoking gun evidence to me. I think that's one of the primary pieces of evidence that these buildings really were demolished. They weren't just accidents that happened.

[Tara Carreon]

[Tara Carreon]

[Tara Carreon]

Strauss's tyrannical elements of "force" and "terror" seem common enough in our government.

[Tara Carreon]