Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

Skip to first unread message


Jan 6, 2008, 1:14:34 PM1/6/08
to freepa...@googlegroups.com
[ please forward widely ]

Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7*

NIST <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST> conducted a WTC 7 update
teleconference meeting on 12/18/07. Public comments were invited and
Richard Gage, on behalf of AE911Truth <http://www.ae911truth.org/>,
provided a stinging 5 minute verbal comment
This week our written submission was emailed to NIST and we received
confirmation that it is a part of the official record along with the
documented meeting. Below is that e-mail response and links to the
attached documents, with an excerpt.


*/Response to NIST's Invitation for Written Comments/*

Expanding on and documenting spoken remarks presented on December 18
conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee

Emailed to NIST on December 31, 2007

*Richard Gage, AIA:*

I’m Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years. I represent
Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth,[1] a fast-growing body of more than 230 architects and
engineers dedicated solely
to bringing out the truth about all three high-rise building collapses
on 9/11. We believe that we
have answers to your questions about the puzzling collapse of World
Trade Center 7.

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot,
very large and very long-
lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your
own former chief of
NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at
real alternatives that might
have been the cause of these collapses.”[2]

Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340 ? F. temperatures, recorded in
thermal images of the surface
of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS
equipment on
USGS overflights.[3] Such temperatures cannot be achieved by
oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires.
Such fires burn at only 600 to 800 ? F.[4] Remember, there was no fire
on the top of the pile. The
source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the
rubble, where it must have
been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired
for the Building 7
cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.”[5] Leslie
Robertson, World Trade Center
structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the
attacks, the fires were still
burning and molten steel was still running.”[6] Fire department
personnel, recorded on video,
reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails... like
you're in a foundry – like
lava from a volcano.”[7] Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane
lifting a steel beam
vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the
molten steel.”[8] Bart
Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated
about the multi-ton
“meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”[9]

The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your
top engineers, John
Gross, in his appearance at the University of Texas in April of this

Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the
temperature of the World Trade
Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?

Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents
steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.[11] A liquid
eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel,
gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost
razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest
mystery uncovered in the

NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why?
Because it didn’t fit in with
the official conspiracy theory.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist
analyzed the slag at the
ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal.[12]
They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of
thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like
a hot knife through butter.
The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There’s no other
possible source for all
the molten iron that was found. One of thermate’s key ingredients is
sulfur, which can form the
liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.

In addition, World Trade Center 7’s catastrophic structural failure
showed every characteristic of
explosive, controlled demolition. You can see all these characteristics
at our website
www.AE911truth.org. The destruction began suddenly at the base of the
building. Several first
responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the
collapse. There was the
symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of
greatest resistance – with
40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into
its own footprint. This
requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second
of each other – perimeter
columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of
mistimed explosions
(squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of
the collapse. And we have
expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who
said “This is
controlled demolition... a team of experts did this... This is
professional work, without any

Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual
deformations and asymmetrical
collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction
with linear shaped
charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has
been accomplished at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very

The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and
Investigations (1998 Edition) dictates in fire investigations that
certain residues should be tested
for. Thermate would leave behind signs of sulfidation/corrosion by
sulfur. Such residues were in
fact noted in Appendix C of the FEMA BPAT report (see note 11). “If the
physical evidence
establishes one factor, such as the presence of an accelerant, that may
be sufficient to establish
the cause even where other factors such as ignition source cannot be
determined.”[15] Thermate
and sulfur obviously qualify as accelerants in this case (with regard to
the destruction of steel
which in turn could have caused the near-free-fall-speed collapse). (The
fires were not
particularly suspicious, but Building 7’s collapse was, because of its
symmetry and speed.)

Because NIST seems to have forgotten or neglected to apply key features
of the scientific
method, I am including as an attachment to this submission Steven E.
Jones, “Revisiting
9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method”, Journal of 911 Studies,
April 2007,
How much longer must we endure NIST’s cover-up of how Building 7 was
actually destroyed?
Millions of Americans,[16] including the 230+ architects and engineers
and 600 others of
AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully
resourced and
transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled
demolition of Building 7.

*PDF Version:*

*References *
James Quintiere, Ph.D., presentation at the 2007 World Fire Safety
Conference June 4 and June 5, 2007, “Questions on the
WTC Investigations,” quoted in Alan Miller, “Former Chief of NIST's Fire
Science Division Calls for Independent Review
of World Trade Center Investigation,” OpEdNews.com, August 21, 2007,

OFR 01-0429: World Trade Center USGS Thermal,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html, cited in
Roger N. Clark, Robert O. Green, et al., OFR 01-0429: World Trade Center
USGS Imaging Spectroscopy, USGS Open-File
Report 01-0429, “Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area
after the September 11, 2001 attack,” November
27, 2001, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/.
This is a correction from my spoken statement. Moreover, according to
(http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf), p. 29, the
highest temperature typically reached by fires of
common building combustibles is 1,100 ? C. Moreover, even for WTC 1,
where the fires were ignited by jet fuel, NIST
estimated the temperature range as between 500 ? and 1,000 ? C. The high
end of this range is about 2/3 the melting point of
steel. There is no evidence to support the idea that the fires in WTC 7
were any hotter than this. On the contrary, the holes in
WTC 7 caused by falling steel from WTC 1, which would have fed oxygen to
the fires in WTC 7, were much smaller than
those in WTC 1 and farther from the observed flames.
Christopher Bollyn, “New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation,”
American Free Press, September 3, 2002,

James Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers
Association of Utah, October 2001, page 3,
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf. The words appear without
quotes, so they might be Williams’ paraphrase.
“Molten Metal Flows at Ground Zero,” posted November 16, 2006,
Jennifer Lin, “Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero,"
May 29, 2002, Knight-Ridder, cited in David
Ray Griffin, 9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith, May 5, 2006,
Global Research,
Relics In The Rubble,
excerpted as
“Molten Steel Found in Ruins of World Trade Center,” posted May 31, 2007,

“NIST Lead Engineer Questioned About 9/11 ~ Denies Molten Metal,” posted
May 21, 2007,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7609798949445498784. One of
AE911Truth’s member-signers was present when
Dr. Gross made his denial. He denied not only that the reports of molten
steel or iron were true, but even knowing of any
such reports having been made by any eyewitnesses. This video provides
another copy of the clip referenced in “Molten
Metal Flows at Ground Zero,” cited above.
Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited
Metallurgical Examination,” undated,
Steven Jones, “Can one PROVE the use of thermate/superthermate?”,
“Answers to Objections and Questions,” July 18,
2006, Journal of 9/11 Studies,

Posted on YouTube in three parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=related, and
John Gartner, “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review (MIT),
January 21, 2005,
“NFPA 921 Section 12-2.4 : Undetermined Fire Cause,” reproduced at
Mike Berger, “Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans
Support New 9/11 Investigation,” May 22,
2006, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421.

/Informant: John Calvert/

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages