BEYOND MISINFORMATION

What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

BEYOND MISINFORMATION

What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

Review Committee

Sarah Chaplin, Architect and Urban Development Consultant, Former Head of School of Architecture and Landscape, Kingston University, London

Dr. Mohibullah Durrani, Professor of Engineering and Physics, Montgomery College, Maryland

Richard Gage, AIA, Founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dr. Robert Korol, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario

Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Retired Professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies, McMaster University, Ontario

Robert McCoy, Architect

Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University

Author

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Technical Editor

Chris Sarns

Contributing Writers

Craig McKee Chris Sarns Andrew Steele

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704

Introduction

................................................................................................... 2

1. Formulating a Hypothesis

........................................................................ 4

High-Rise Building Fires and Failures ..................................................................... 4 The Features of Controlled Demolition vs. Fire-Induced Failure ........................................ 7 What Is the Most Likely Hypothesis? ...................................................................... 9

2. The Official Investigations

...................................................................... 10

The FEMA Building Performance Study ................................................................. 10 The NIST Investigation .................................................................................... 13 NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequences for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 .................................. 14

3. The Destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2

................................................... 16

Sudden Onset ............................................................................................. 17 Constant Acceleration through the Path of Greatest Resistance ...................................... 18 Pulverization, Dismemberment, and Explosive Ejection of Materials ................................. 20 Demolition Squibs ........................................................................................ 21 Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions ...................................................................... 22

4. The Destruction of WTC 7

...................................................................... 24

Sudden and Symmetrical Free Fall ...................................................................... 24 Structural Dismemberment into a Compact Debris Pile ............................................... 27 Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions ...................................................................... 27 Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction.................................................................. 28

5. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

................................................. 30

Molten Metal Pouring out of WTC 2 ...................................................................... 31 Molten Metal in the Debris ............................................................................... 32 Sulfidated Steel in WTC 7 ................................................................................. 33 Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the WTC Dust ................................................... 34 Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust ......................................................................... 35 NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues ........................................... 36

6. NIST’s Evidence for Fire-Induced Failure

............................................... 38

Hypothetical Blast Scenarios and Thermite Use ........................................................ 39 Estimates of Fireproofing Dislodgement ................................................................ 40 How Hot Did the Steel Become? ......................................................................... 41 NIST’s Computer Modeling ............................................................................... 42

Appendix A: Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions ................................................................ 44 Appendix B: Accounts Indicating Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction ..................................... 46 Endnotes ........................................................................................................... 47 References ......................................................................................................... 48

According to the official explanation, the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) collapsed due to damage from airplane impacts and ensuing fires, while World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story skyscraper also in the World Trade Center complex, collapsed completely and symmetrically into its own footprint due to office fires ignited by debris from the earlier collapse of WTC 1. Though few people have studied it closely, a majority of the public, including most architects, engineers, and scientists, accept the official explanation.1

Much of the public, however, including a consider- able number of architects, engineers, and scien- tists, do not accept the official explanation.2 3 Among those who reject it, the most common explanation is that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed in a procedure known as “controlled demolition,” whereby carefully placed explosives or other de- vices are detonated to bring down a structure in a desired manner. September 11, 2001, aside, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building in history has been caused by controlled demolition.

According to this second explanation, the demo- lition of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 would need to have been prepared before September 11, 2001, by demolition experts who had unrestricted access to the buildings. This explanation also implies that the demolition was planned in coordination with the other attacks of that day. Most importantly, if the goal were to make it appear that the airplanes had caused the destruction of the buildings, it could not be left to chance that airplanes would successfully crash into WTC 1 and WTC 2. This explanation, therefore, contradicts the official account of 9/11.

Introduction

What caused the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001? More than a decade later, this question continues to be discussed by many people around the world.

What Does Science Say?

The purpose of this booklet is to provide a careful examination of these competing explanations — which we will refer to as “hypotheses” from this point forward — and a comprehensive overview of the available evidence, so that readers can begin to evaluate which of the two hypotheses is more consistent with the evidence. Because this booklet only skims the surface of this subject, readers are strongly encouraged to study the official reports and the papers referenced herein before reaching their own conclusions.

The position taken in the following chapters is that very little of the evidence can be explained by the hypothesis of fire-induced failure and that all of it can be explained by the hypothesis of controlled demolition. Nonetheless, this booklet will make the best attempt to describe how the authors of the of- ficial reports have explained the evidence according to their hypothesis. In many cases, however, we will find that the authors of the official reports denied or ignored the available evidence.

In the end, the goal is to move our collective under- standing of the World Trade Center’s destruction beyond misinformation so that we as a society may arrive at an accurate account of one of the most important events in our recent history.

The World Trade Center site in New York City. The former footprints of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are center. The former footprint of WTC 7 is at the bottom left. 3

One principle of the scientific method is especially relevant in the early stage of an investigation when data is being gathered and a hypothesis is being formulated. “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences,” observes David Ray Griffin, a profes- sor emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology who has written extensively about the philosophy of science and about the events of September 11, 2001. “[W]e properly assume, unless there is ex- traordinary evidence to the contrary, that each in- stance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.”1

With that principle in mind, we will review the his- tory of high-rise building fires and failures to help

Formulating a Hypothesis

This chapter provides a starting point from which to examine the competing hypotheses of fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. First, it will review the history of high-rise building fires and failures. Then it will examine the features that distinguish fire-induced failure and controlled demolition.

us establish what should be considered, or should have been considered, the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

High-Rise Building Fires and Failures

The history of steel-framed high-rise buildings spans about 100 years. Setting aside the events of September 11, 2001, every total collapse of a steel- framed high-rise building during that period of time has been caused by controlled demolition. In comparison, fires have never caused the total col- lapse of a steel-framed high-rise building, though high-rise building fires occur frequently.

Before and after photos of World Trade Center Building 7.

WTC 5 on September 11, 2001.

WTC 5 on September 21, 2001.

Modern steel-framed high-rises generally endure fires without being structurally compromised be- cause they have fire protection to prevent the steel from heating to the point where it loses a significant amount of its strength. This is usually in the form of gypsum board (drywall), concrete, or sprayed-on insulation.

To illustrate the performance of steel-framed high- rise buildings throughout history, let us first exam- ine the instances in which fires have caused the total or partial collapse of high-rise buildings.

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an international historical survey of fires in multi-story buildings (defined as four or more stories) of all kinds that

resulted in total or partial collapse.2 From news data- bases, published literature, and direct inquires with 23 organizations, the survey identified 22 fire-induced collapses between 1970 and 2002.

Originally, the survey included WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. However, it was revised in 2008 to remove WTC 1 and WTC 2, because, according to NIST, their destruction did not result solely from fire, but from a combination of structural damage, dislodged fire- proofing, and fire caused by the airplane impacts. However, in this chapter, because fire was report- edly the proximate cause, we will discuss WTC 1

and WTC 2 as fire-induced failures. In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether the structural damage and reported dislodging of fireproofing are sufficient reasons to differentiate WTC 1 and WTC 2 from other steel-framed high-rise buildings that have experienced fires.

The results of NIST’s survey were as follows:

Partial Collapses

Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, 15 were partial collapses, with five of those occurring in buildings that were comparable to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in terms of size or construction (over 20 stories or steel-framed or both). The five are:

■■ One New York Plaza, a 50-story steel-framed

building that experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams on the 33rd and 34th floors dropping onto their supporting girders;

■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza, a 15-story steel-framed

building in Montreal, Canada, that experi- enced a partial collapse of its 11th floor;

■■ WTC 5, a nine-story steel-framed building

in the WTC complex that experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays on September 11, 2001;

■■ The Jackson Street Apartments, a 21-story

reinforced concrete building in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, that experienced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly; and

■■ CESP 2, a 21-story reinforced concrete

building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, that experi- enced a substantial partial collapse of its central core.

The remaining 10 partial collapses occurred in buildings with eight or fewer stories and construct- ed of materials including concrete, brick, wood, or masonry with cast iron. None were steel-framed.

Total Collapses

Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, seven of them (including WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7) were total col- lapses. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 stand out from the

other four buildings, which ranged from four stories to nine stories and were made of concrete, wood, or unknown materials.

In summary, the survey identified four other doc- umented instances in which fires caused the total collapse of a multi-story building. None were steel- framed and the tallest was nine stories. Fifteen buildings suffered partial fire-induced collapse, but only five of them occurred in buildings that were over 20 stories and/or steel-framed. The survey concluded, “A fire-induced collapse in a multi-sto- ry building can be classified as a low-frequency, high-consequence event.”

Other notable fire-induced collapses have occurred since 2002. In 2005, the 29-story Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain, constructed of steel exterior columns and reinforced concrete core columns, burned for almost 24 hours and suffered a partial collapse, in

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, 2005. The Windsor Tower after having burned

for almost 24 hours.

stages over several hours, of floors where the steel support columns and beams had no fire protection. In 2008, the 13-story Delft University Faculty of Ar- chitecture Building in the Netherlands, constructed of reinforced concrete, burned for seven hours and experienced a partial collapse of a 13-story section of the building. Yet there remains no documented instance of a steel-framed high-rise building suffer- ing total collapse from fire, and only a small number have experienced partial collapse.

Let us now examine the incidence of high-rise building fires that do not cause total or partial

collapse. In 2013, the National Fire Protection As- sociation (NFPA) published the most recent edition of its periodic report titled High-Rise Building Fires. According to the report, which defines high-rise buildings as having seven stories or more, there were an estimated 15,400 high-rise building fires in the U.S. annually from 2007 to 2011. Fifty percent of those occurred in buildings typically considered high-rise buildings (that is, with multiple separate floors such as apartments, hotels, facilities that care for the sick, and offices). The incidence in that five-year stretch is similar to the number of fires observed in earlier time periods.

The NFPA report notes that, by most measures, the risks of fire and of associated losses are lower in high-rise buildings than in other buildings of the same property use. The difference, says the report, can be attributed to the much greater use of fire protection systems and features in high-rise build- ings as compared to shorter buildings.

In terms of buildings that are more comparable to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, the report estimates that 1,610 fires occur each year in buildings with 13 or more stories. Since the report does not categorize fires by size, severity, or duration, it is difficult to tell how many of these fires are comparable to the fires in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

One method of comparison, though, is to identify high-rise building fires that resulted in significant fire damage and property loss. Using those criteria, NIST’s 2002 historical survey (updated in 2008), referenced above, identified seven major high-rise building fires that did not result in total or partial collapse. Those included:

■■ One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, PA

(height: 38 stories; fire duration: 19 hours)

■■ Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in

Basingstoke, United Kingdom (height: 12 stories; fire duration: unknown)

■■ Broadgate Phase 8 in London, United

Kingdom (height: 14 stories; fire duration: 4.5 hours)

■■ First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles, CA

(height: 62 stories; fire duration: 3.5 hours)

■■ MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, NV (height:

26 stories; fire duration: 8 hours)

■■ Joelma Building in Sao Paulo, Brazil (height: 25 stories; fire duration: one hour and 40 minutes)

■■ Andraus Building in Sao Paolo, Brazil

(height: 31 stories; fire duration: unknown)

The NIST survey also noted two major fire test pro- grams conducted at the Building Research Estab- lishment (BRE) Laboratories in Cardington, United Kingdom. The first series of tests, conducted on a representative eight-story composite steel-framed office building, resulted in significant fire damage but did not result in collapse, even with unprotected steel floors. The second series of tests conducted on a seven-story concrete building also did not re- sult in collapse.

Given the high frequency of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings and the low frequency of fire-in- duced collapses, the probability when a fire occurs in a steel-framed high-rise building that it will result in a partial collapse is extremely low. The probability that it will result in a total collapse appears to be even lower.

Let us take WTC 7 as an example. According to the official explanation, its collapse was due solely to normal office fires and not from structural dam- age caused by debris. The probability when WTC 7 caught fire that it would totally collapse as a result of those normal office fires was exceedingly low.

BRE tests in Cardington, United Kingdom.

The Features of Controlled Demolition vs. Fire-Induced Failure

Let us now move from examining the occurrence of collapse to the manner of collapse produced by controlled demolition and fire-induced failure, respectively. Table 1 on the following page lists several common features that generally distinguish controlled demolitions and fire-induced failures.

As Table 1 illustrates, the corresponding features of controlled demolition and fire-induced failure are virtually the opposite of each other. Not every controlled demolition exhibits all of the features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, nor does ev- ery fire-induced failure exhibit all of the features of fire-induced failure listed in Table 1. However, there is very little crossover: When a building’s cause of collapse is controlled demolition, the building ex- hibits virtually none of the features of fire-induced failure. Similarly, when a building suffers a fire-in- duced failure, it exhibits virtually none of the key features of controlled demolition (with the exception

Fire damage in WTC 5 (2002 NIST survey of fires that resulted in total or partial collapse).

Partial connection and floor failures in WTC 5 (2002 NIST survey of fires that resulted in total or partial collapse).

Table 1: The Features of Controlled Demolition versus Fire-Induced Failure

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE

The collapse is total, leaving virtually no parts of the building standing.

The collapse is usually partial (always partial in the case of steel-framed buildings), leaving much of the building standing.

The onset of collapse is always sudden. The onset of collapse is gradual, with visible building

deformations appearing prior to the actual collapse.

The collapse lasts a matter of seconds. The collapse takes place over many minutes or hours.

The collapse typically starts at the base of the building, though they can be engineered as top-down also.

The collapse occurs randomly anywhere in the building.

The building descends symmetrically through what was the path of greatest resistance, though asymmetrical collapses are sometimes engineered on purpose.

Collapse is always asymmetrical.

The building typically descends to the ground at near free-fall acceleration.

The descent of falling portions of the building is slowed or stopped by the lower sections of the building.

“Demolition squibs” (isolated explosive ejections) are visible outside the main zone of destruction.

Explosions only occur at the location of fires, if at all.

Concrete and other materials are sometimes pulverized, resulting in fine dust clouds.

Concrete and other materials are not pulverized. Most of the building’s remaining structure is left intact or in large sections.

The building’s steel structure is totally or mostly dismembered.

The building’s steel structure is left mostly intact, even if heavily damaged.

of the four smaller non-steel-framed buildings that NIST’s 2002/2008 survey identified as having suffered total collapse from fire).

If we look closely at the five buildings in NIST’s survey that were over 20 stories or steel-framed or both, and that suffered partial fire-induced collapse, we find that none of them exhibited the features of controlled demolition in Table 1 above.

■■ One New York Plaza experienced local

connection failures resulting in filler beams dropping onto their supporting girders on two floors.

■■ Alexis Nihon Plaza experienced a partial

collapse of its 11th floor, which was arrested by the floor below it.

■■ WTC 5 experienced partial collapses of four

floors and two bays.

■■ The Jackson Street Apartments experi-

enced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly.

■■ CESP 2 experienced a substantial partial

collapse of its central core. The degree of deformation prior to collapse is unknown. Other than possibly experiencing little defor- mation prior to collapse, CESP 2 exhibited no other feature of controlled demolition.

In comparison, as we will discuss in the chapters ahead, the destruction of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, while WTC 1 and WTC 2 exhibited eight out of the nine features listed in the table (the collapse WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not start at their bases).