Architects and Engineers Question The Official 9/11 Story

It may come as a surprise to many readers who are unfamiliar with the evidence surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but explosives were indeed found in all of the dust samples taken from the World Trade Center.  Of course, the state organized investigation failed to turn up any, but that was because they didn’t look for the particular type of explosive used.  A team of private investigators, physicists and engineers conducted an independent analysis of the dust and found it to contain unreacted nano-thermite, which is a special type of military grade explosive.  Engineer Jim Hoffman explains the various properties of the explosives used to destroy the towers:

“The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.”

“Because the particle sizes of the reactants must be very small to attain rapid reaction rates, such thermites are often referred to as nano-thermites. Such nano- or “super-thermites” typically have particle diameters on the order of a few hundred nanometers, requiring their synthesis by special methods. The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car’s engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite explosive will blow the car apart.”


Explosive residue found in WTC dust.

You can watch a video of one of these chips being ignited in a lab experiment.

I find the fact that a super sophisticated military style explosive was found in all the trade center dust to be a rather obvious pointer to a controlled demolition.  However, the evidence doesn’t stop there.  Three skyscrapers fell on 9/11, but only two were hit by a plane.  The third and last tower to fall that day was World Trade Center building 7, a 48 story tall building made of steel and concrete.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on this collapse was delayed for nearly a decade, and when it was finally presented, it failed to produce a complete model of a plausible collapse scenario.

The NIST model that was released to the public, which purports to show how WTC 7 collapsed, stops about 1 second after the building started its descent, leaving out the most crucial part of the collapse sequence.  Had NIST let the model run to its conclusion, it would have been obvious to everyone that the model resulted in a collapse that looked nothing like what actually happened.   WTC 7 came down inside of its own footprint, which is only possible if explosives were used to remove all of the core columns simultaneously.  Analysts say that the NIST simulation suggests that the building should have toppled over, rather than collapse.  This video of faulty demolitions show what should have happened if the building actually collapsed the way the NIST model suggests it collapsed.  It should have toppled over with whole sections remaining intact.

Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was rescued along with Michael Hess from WTC 7 just prior to its collapse.  His account of what happened vastly differs from the official narrative.  You can watch his shocking account of events here.  Jennings suggests explosions shook the building prior to its collapse.

Of course, this isn’t the only evidence to suggest that all of the buildings were brought down by explosives.  In this hour long documentary, numerous architects, engineers,  physicists and explosive experts explain in great detail why the evidence suggests explosives were used to bring down the towers.  The documentary focuses exclusively on the evidence for explosive demolition, forgoing any finger pointing as to who carried out the acts.  The documentary features Richard Humenn, the original WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer, along with Tom Sullivan, a demolitions explosive expert who worked for Controlled Demolitions Inc.

The total amount of evidence suggesting a cover up is actually too big to fully list in a single article, so I will  try to hit a few main points that people may not be aware of:

- The black operations intelligence team Able Danger discovered the terrorist plot prior to it taking place and was stonewalled when they tried to report it up the chain of command. Further, a separate intelligence agent also uncovered the same threat and was subsequently stonewalled as well.  The implication being that the upper command knew about the threat, but allowed it to go forward.  Several CIA analysts are on public record saying the official report is a whitewash.

- Whistle-blower Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories, says the NIST lied in its investigation, using contrived tests to get the results they were looking for.

“In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.  NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”  … At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL).”

- Nearly 1800 certified engineers and architects have signed a petition calling for a new investigation, saying that the official explanations don’t add up in light of the evidence.  They are joined by hundreds of pilots and military personnel who also question the official version of events.  The list of former military pilots is staggering.  Lt. Col. Robert Bowman had this to say, “they have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.”

For a documentary that goes into detail about who may have been responsible for the explosive destruction of the World Trade Center, look here.