Category Archives: World Trade Center (WTC)

Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 was admitted by its developer on national television

Garlic & Grass
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm

Issue No. 8 – The Matrix (Spring 2005)

The Best Evidence Available on the 9-11 Conspiracy

By Don Paul

The most revealing statement about the conspiracy that orchestrated mass murder on September 11, 2001 was broadcast across the United States more than two years ago.

On September 14, 2002, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a documentary on reconstrucion of the former World Trader Center site in lower Manhattan. The show’s title was “America Rebuilds.” During this PBS documentary, the developer of World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7, Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties, said that he and “the commander” of the New York City Fire Department had decided to “pull” WTC Building 7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

The developer, then 70 years old, whose Silverstein Properties had become the principal lease-holder of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers just seven weeks before 9/11/01, told PBS:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to pull it”. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”1

To “pull” a building, in the lexicon of realtors and Fire Departments, is to demolish it. Thus, in its context, Larry Silverstein’s repeated use of the phrase “to pull” means “to demolish.” At another point, earlier in this “America Rebuilds” documentary, there is a sequence of quotes about WTC Building 6, a building also brought to ground on the morning of 9-11, which makes clear that “to pull” means to demolish:

First, the PBS documentary plays an official’s voice on that horrendous morning: “Hello? We’re getting ready to pull Building 6.”

Then the documentary presents commentary by Luis Mendes of New York City’s Department of Design and Construction: “We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6. We were worried about Building 6 coming down and then damaging the story walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

The conclusion? Larry Silverstein’s nationally aired statement means, simply, that he and others must have prepared WTC Building 7 for demolition. Could this preparation for demolition have taken place on a single afternoon? As we will see below, because it was a 47-story skyscraper containing 2 million square feet of office space, this preparation must have taken at least several weeks. Several weeks, that is, before Sept. 11, 2001.
For a Controlled Demolition, Call Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Controlled Demoliton, Inc. (CDI), of Baltimore, Maryland is one of the world’s leaders in demolishing large buildings. Owned for three generations by the Loizeaux family, CDI details on its website the ‘World Records’ that the company holds in demolishing huge structures — monuments such as the former Kingdome in Seattle. The CDI website also relates the timespans that have been required for the company’s accomplishments.

How much time would be required for the planning and emplacement of charges for the symmetric implosion of WTC Building 7 that we saw on 9-11? WTC Building 7 was a 47-story tower that sat less than 100 feet from other skyscrapers. We read on the CDI site about a 17-story building of reinforced concrete in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — the Sheikh A. Alaki Apartment Building — which collapsed while under construction by the Bechtel Corporation in 1998.

The CDI site relates: ‘At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition, Inc.’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours, and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.’

96 hours. Four days. This was the time needed for emergency demolition of a 17-story building of reinforced concrete by a CDI team.

A building in Detroit, Mich. of comparable size to WTC Building 7 — the J L Hudson store, standing 35 stories tall and containing 2.2 million square feet — took CDI almost five months to prepare and bring down in 1998.

The CDI site reports that after four months of study by associate contractors:

CDI’s 12-person loading crew took 24 days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequences and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lbs of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

So. Four months, plus an additional 24 days, were needed to place the charges necessary to demolish, within its 420-foot-by-220-foot footprint, a building 12 stories smaller than WTC Building 7.

How, then, could the preparation and emplacement of charges to “pull” WTC Building 7 be accomplished in a single afternoon? In particular, during the tumultuous afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, right there at ‘Ground Zero’?

What It All Means

Larry Silverstein’s statement on national television means that the preparation for demolition of WTC Building 7 must have preceded 9-11 by weeks, if not months.

Upon a moment of reflection, the developer’s statement also means that al Queda could not be at all involved in this most revealing part of the horrific 9-11 crimes.

It means, upon further reflection, that only those with secret access to WTC Building 7’s 25 central columns and 58 perimeter columns of structural steel could have been responsible for placing the charges that accomplished its symmetric, precipitous, inward collapse which took no more than a gravity-like 6.5 seconds as all of the skyscraper’s 570-foot-high mass crashed to the ground. It means that the building’s developer and lease-holder, Larry Silverstein, himself, was probably integrally involved in the 9-11 conspiracy. It means also that WTC Building 7’s mortgage-holders on 9-11, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, were probably also privy to the protracted planning and placing of explosive charges within their property. It means that these three pillars of the United States’ financial establishment were probably integrally involved in the conspiracy both to commit the terrible crimes of 9-11 and to reap enormous profits from the consequent “War on Terrorism.”

When we look at the different, but nearly equally obvious, demolitions of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, and consider the amount of time needed for the planning and placement of charges to collapse these gigantic structures as they actually fell (straight down into their footprints), we see that the entity which controlled the Twin Towers for decades and which awarded the lease of the Twin Towers to the consortium of realtors headed by Silverstein Properties in April 2001 — the New York Port Authority — must also come under suspicion in the emplacement of the charges that were necessary for the demolitions and the killing of more than two thousand people.

Connecting the Dots

Banc of America Securities. The General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The New York Port Authority. We’re led still deeper into the heart of the United States’ financial establishment, for the New York Port Authority is a body long controlled by the family most powerful and manipulative in Manhattan real estate: the Rockefeller family.

Of the Rockefellers, the banker David, head of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations from the late 1960s into the 1980s, was the main mover behind construction of the World Trade Center from the early 1960s forward. During this period of consrtuction, David’s brother, Nelson, was Governor of New York, and thus, as Governor, the ultimate, nominal boss of the New York Port Authority, the entity that was for many years the largest tenant (with 20,000 employees resident) in either Tower.

In October 2000, David Rockefeller’s close associate Peter G. Peterson, who was Chairman of both the Council of Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9-11, led the multifold-investment company of which he was also Chairman, the Blackstone Group, into purchase of the portion of the mortgage on WTC Buildling 7 that was held by the Traveler’s Group.

In February of 2002, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, and Silverstein Properties shared in a award from Industrial Risk Insurers of $861 million for loss of the obviously demolished WTC Building 7. The total investment of the lease-holder and mortgage-holders for WTC 7 was $386 million. Thus they shared in a profit of $475 million for the demolished Building 7.

At the time of the Towers’ transfer from the New York Port Authority to Silverstein Properties they faced much more than $1 billion in costs for renovation and asbestos-removal. Eric Darton’s excellent study of the World Trade Center, Divided We Stand, published in 2000, summarizes the property’s problems as real estate:

‘To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the [Port Authority] would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems.’

These problems were, of course, removed from the Port Authority when it leased away the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Buildings 4, 5, 6 and 400,000 feet of retail space to the consortium led by Silverstein Properties seven weeks prior to 9-11. The $3.2 billion long-term price for the 99-year lease was widely thought to be low for properties estimated to be worth $8 billion over that time-span. JP Morgan Chase, the flagship of Rockefeller-controlled Banks, advised the Port Authority in the award of this lease. The new lease-holders immediately took out insurance policies worth more than the total, long-term price of their new WTC holdings. Silverstein Properties itself invested only $15 million of the less than $600 million actually transferred to the Port Authority. The British Financial Times reported on September 14, 2001:

The lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism,” the new owners’ obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapses or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.

Taking It to the Bank

In April 2004, Silverstein Properties and its partners won an award of $4.8 billion from their claim for $7.1 billion in losses to their 2001 World Trade Center acquisitions as a result of the 9-11 attacks.

Other insurance-related profits followed from the mass destruction and death in lower Manhattan on 9-11. There were huge increases in the premiums subsequently paid to the largest surviving insurer corporations. In this regard, an interview CDI Executive Mark Loizeaux gave to New Scientist in July 2004 is instructive. The CDI executive was asked: ‘But 9/11 has also sent your insurance up, hasn’t it?’ Mark Loizeaux replied: ‘It’s gone up about 2000 percent since 9-11. Not only because of 9-11 but because insurance companies lost a great deal of money in the stock market collapse just preceding 9-11 with the collapse of dot.coms.’

The amounts of revenue and profit for two of the largest US insurer Corporations — Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway and Maurice Greenberg’s American International Group — between 2002 and 2003 were exorbitant.2

Large as these amounts to insurer corporations are, they’re dwarfed by the post-9/11 financial gains from the “War on Terrorism” accruing to: oil-and-gas corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, British Peteroleum and Royal Dutch Shell; weapons-making corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grunman, and General Dynamics; and money-laundering banks and stock markets through which the post-2001 $180-billion-per-year in profits from Afghan-grown opium are flowing. These profits are charted or noted in Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9-11 Crimes in New York City, a book Jim Hoffman and I have written.

All of these corporations are connected in multiple ways through their interlocking boards of directors and major stock-holders. As of 1993, the Rockefeller family was among the top five vote-holders in 93 of the United States’ 122 largest corporations. As of 1997, the Chase Bank and Citigroup controlled more than half the stock of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

All of these corporations have vital connections to the heart of the US financial establishment, which is thoroughly represented among the financiers who constructed or controlled the World Trade Center before the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

Thus, developer and lease-holder Larry Silverstein’s nationally televised statement concerning the decision to “pull” WTC Building 7 is itself the most clear-cut key we now have on the public record for unlocking the whole of the conspiracy which orchestrated the demolitions and the resulting murder of thousands in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, as the pretext for more war outside the US and more repression inside.

Don Paul, author and activist, recommends www.wtc7.net for more information on what really happened on 9-11. Books and albums of his are up at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul.

Energetic materials a potential cause of 9/11 first responder illnesses

Energetic materials a potential cause of 9/11 first responder illnesses


The Bloomington Alternative, February 4, 2011

 

The tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC) on Sept. 11, 2001, continues to affect many thousands of first responders who sacrificed their own health while restoring lower Manhattan and attempting to recover survivors and victims’ remains.

 

Recently, H.R. 847, otherwise known as the James Zadroga Bill, was signed by President Obama in an effort to provide services and compensation for those whose health was compromised through exposure to the toxic dust and gases at Ground Zero. However, these first responders also need help to understand how their illnesses originated so that improvements in treatment can be made.

In response to this need, concerned citizens should consider the possible correlation between evidence for energetic materials at the WTC and the environmental exposures that appear to have caused so many illnesses in the first responders.

The 9/11 first responders suffer from a range of different illnesses, some of which are rare in the general population. Some of the illnesses can be attributed to the high pH of the WTC dust. We know the extent of the pH problem thanks to EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins. The very high pH of the dust inhaled by 9/11 first responders is a probable cause for the general deterioration of lungs and their function, due to the dust’s corrosive state.

“The 9/11 first responders suffer from a range of different illnesses, some of which are rare in the general population.”

 

Some of the illnesses can be attributed to the high pH of the WTC dust. We know the extent of the pH problem thanks to EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins. The very high pH of the dust inhaled by 9/11 first responders is a probable cause for the general deterioration of lungs and their function, due to the dust’s corrosive state.

 

As Dr. Jenkins wrote, “Corrosivity would have acted directly to cause respiratory chemical burns, and also would have increased the toxic properties of other pollutants from the WTC by facilitating their entry into the body through the respiratory system.”

 

Commonly observed conditions among first responders include reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), caused by exposure to high concentrations of irritants such as caustic and metallic dusts; upper respiratory illnesses such as sinusitis and laryngitis; and lower respiratory disorders such as asthma and what is known as World Trade Center cough.

Less understood, and requiring further study, are unusual illnesses of the immune system commonly observed in the WTC first responders. These include various types of interstitial lung disease, such as eosinophilic pneumonia, granulomatous pneumonitis and bronchial obliterans. Environmental triggers for these illnesses include aluminum silicates, which have been found in the lungs of WTC first responders at high levels in “unusual platy configurations,” as reported in December 2009 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Other common WTC lung ailments include sarcoidosis, which is known to be caused by aluminum dust, and pulmonary fibrosis, which can be caused by aluminum oxide.

Until now, these findings have lacked an adequate scientific explanation. But recent research suggests a correlation with the causes of the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Aluminum oxide — a potential cause of the observed pulmonary fibrosis — is a product of the thermite reaction, and there is now considerable evidence for the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Additionally, aluminum and silicates — potential causes of the observed illnesses of the immune system — are components of nanothermite formulations.

 

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that, when ignited, exhibits an extremely exothermic reaction producing aluminum oxide and the metal in molten form. The thermite reaction has been utilized for welding railroad ties and for cutting metal as with anti-tank grenades. Thermite has also been used to develop patented devices for the demolition of structures. One such device allows for demolition of a concrete structure “at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like,” according to U.S. Patent 5532449 – Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete. A recent experiment shows that thermite can cut structural steel efficiently.

Sulfur is often added to thermite mixtures to improve the burn qualities, and it is then called thermate. Nanothermite, or superthermite, is a more recently developed variation on thermite in which the aluminum and metal oxide are mixed on the nanometer scale, allowing more rapid energy release. Nanothermite can be a simple mixture of nanometer-scale powders or can be made in a silicon matrix, through a solution-based technique, resulting in “sol-gel” nanothermite. The sol-gel process allows the use of organic materials that expand during the reaction, providing more explosive power.

In 2009, an international team of researchers discovered what appear to be sol-gel nanothermite formulations in every WTC dust sample tested. Additionally, similar to the findings of aluminum silicates in the lungs of first responders, the aluminum found in the nanothermite of WTC dust samples was present, along with silicon, in platelike (platy) configurations. Whether or not the platy configurations of aluminum silicates in the lungs of WTC workers are related to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in WTC dust samples is a question that should be answered through further investigation.

Environmental factors

A review of WTC environmental testing results produced by EPA and the University of California was published in 2008. That review showed that air and aerosol emissions of sulfur and silicon compounds at Ground Zero provided evidence that energetic materials such as thermite and nanothermite were present. The silicon compounds (i.e., silicates) were indicative of the sol-gel variety of nanothermites, and the sulfur compounds suggested the presence of thermate, a sulfur-containing derivative of thermite.

EPA also found very high levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) that, like the aluminum, sulfur and silicon compounds, were discovered to be present in unusual spiking patterns. These spiking patterns suggest that extremely violent, explosive or incendiary events were occurring within the pile at Ground Zero over a period of months.

If fires were the cause of these events, they would have had to have been fires that were driven by an agent that contained its own oxidant, as a thermite or nanothermite mixture does. This is because extensive efforts were made to put out the fires at the WTC site, including the use of millions of gallons of water and chemical fire suppressants, with little or no effect. In addition to the tons of dust from the buildings’ destruction and the rainfall that occurred, these firefighting efforts ensured that normal fires would not have continued.

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

The pattern of energetic events at Ground Zero, indicated by the spikes in emissions, was different than the expected trend of emissions from a typical structure fire. As was the case for other structure fires, particulate matter (PM) emissions at Ground Zero were high at first and then died down completely. However, PM emissions occurred for a longer duration, and the extreme, spiking emissions of VOCs, and components typical of thermitic mixtures, continued for many months after the particulate matter had died down.

Other unusual results from EPA monitoring included a compound called 1,3-diphenylpropane (1,3-DPP), which had never been seen before in any EPA studies yet was said to be abundant and pervasive at the WTC. Further investigation is called for due to the fact that 1,3-DPP is used to functionalize nanostructured silicas that are similar to nanothermite materials.

Related to these environmental findings is the fact that first responders have been getting cancer at elevated rates. Many types of cancer have been reported, including leukemia and the rare disease called multiple myeloma. The most prominent environmental cause of leukemia is benzene, which is one of the VOCs seen prominently in energetic spikes of emissions at Ground Zero. Benzene was detected at the WTC at levels that were dramatically higher than ever seen before in structure fires, even higher than what was seen at a large fire in a plastics factory.

As for multiple myeloma, researchers associated with the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine examined many sick first responders. One result was that they found eight times the expected level of multiple myeloma in people below the age of 45.

Environmental factors that cause multiple myeloma include phenoxyacetic acids, which are compounds that are structurally similar to 1,3-DPP. Another causal factor is DDT, a highly chlorinated diphenylethane. Diphenylethane is structurally very similar to diphenylpropane (DPP). This suggests that the observed presence of 1,3-DPP could be a causal factor of the multiple myeloma seen in WTC first responders, in that derivatives of 1,3-DPP might be responsible for the illnesses.

Carbon nanotubes

In 2010, researchers reported the presence of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of WTC first responders. Carbon nanotubes are high-tech nanostructured materials, which exhibit unique properties like ballistic conduction. The health effects of carbon nanotubes have been shown to be similar to the health effects produced by exposure to asbestos.

Carbon nanotube formation requires three basic components: a source of carbon, a source of heat and the presence of certain metals. In particular, formation of the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) found in the lungs of first responders requires that the metals be present. All of these requirements were met at the WTC site on, and for months after, Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The three most effective metals for the synthesis of SWCNTs are iron, nickel and cobalt. Both iron and nickel were present in high concentrations near Ground Zero, as shown by aerosol testing done by a team from the University of California, Davis. Iron oxide and nickel oxide are common oxidants in thermite mixtures.

Airborne carbon compounds were certainly present in abundance at Ground Zero in the form of particulate matter resulting from the fires. Heat was also in abundance, as extremely high temperatures were present on 9/11 and afterward at Ground Zero. These temperatures were at least 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than first reported by government scientists, and were far higher than temperatures seen in a normal structure fire.

The molten metal and vaporized silicates that have been reported in the WTC dust can only be explained by the presence of an exothermic reaction like the thermite reaction. Large quantities of carbon nanotubes might have been formed at Ground Zero due to the high temperature environments created by the thermite reaction and the airborne metal catalysts that were also present.

A second possible explanation for the carbon nanotubes in the lung tissue of the first responders is that the carbon nanotubes were components of actual energetic materials that were used in the destruction of the buildings. Carbon nanotubes have been used as energetic modifiers, to improve stabilization of explosives and to enhance ignition properties.

Conclusion

Some of the illnesses suffered by the WTC first responders might be explained by the existing evidence of energetic materials, like thermite, at Ground Zero. For example, aluminum, aluminum oxide and aluminum silicates are known causal factors for some of the common illnesses seen, such as sarcoidosis, pulmonary fibrosis and the as-yet-unexplained immune system diseases.

 

Furthermore, the rare cancers found in some first responders could be the result of environmental factors, such as the unusually high levels of benzene and derivatives of 1,3-DPP, which suggest the presence of energetic materials like thermite and nanothermite.

 

Analysis of the lung tissue of first responders has also indicated that energetic materials might be involved. The unusual platy configurations of aluminum silicates found in those lung tissue samples seem similar to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in the nanothermite that has been discovered in WTC dust samples.

The finding of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of first responders suggests two possible explanations. The nanotubes might have been formed in the unusual environment at Ground Zero, where extremely high temperatures and the presence of airborne metallic species gives yet more evidence for the presence of thermitic materials. Alternatively, the nanotubes might have been components of energetic materials.

In either case, the presence of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of WTC first responders suggests the use of energetic materials and should be studied in more depth.

These facts and research findings warrant further study of the correlation between environmental testing results, first responder health study results and the use of energetic materials at the WTC.

Kevin Ryan can be reached at  kncryan@msn.com. This article originally appeared in the Foreign Policy Journal, where it is fully sourced.

Sifting Through the Dust at Ground Zer

Sifting Through the Dust at Ground Zero


by Daniel A. Martino, Environmental Risk Limited

Like most Americans, I can vividly remember the morning of September 11th. I was sitting at my desk discussing mold sampling with a client. The next thing I knew, a colleague handed me a picture of the World Trade Center North Tower in flames. Within minutes, our entire firm migrated to our training room to watch the events unfold live on television. We all watched together as the towers fell, and there was a shared feeling in the pit of our stomachs that couldn’t quite be put into words. If you told me that day that I would be spending the next several months working in and around “ground zero,” I would have said you were crazy.

I was fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) enough to see the many sides of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. From working behind the police line of ground zero, to talking to rescue workers including police officers, fire fighters, OSHA staff, and FEMA workers, to working inside buildings that remained standing but were heavily contaminated as far as 15 blocks away from ground zero, I got to see first-hand how much of the city was actually impacted from the terrorist attacks.

A majority of the work at the site involved collecting bulk dust samples and conducting air monitoring. A contracting firm representing several building owners had retained ERL to collect dust samples to be analyzed by a certified laboratory for a number of constituents and to perform air monitoring at those selected locations. Their request for analysis was prompted by the fact that building owners were frustrated by hearing from federal agencies that the dust wasn’t harmful, yet after spending a day in lower Manhattan, your nose and eyes often became irritated. In fact, as a member of the health and safety community, I often found myself being asked for advice by members of the rescue effort, as well as by residents of lower Manhattan, on topics such as respiratory protection and the proper use of personal protective equipment.

The dust, which has come to be known to those of us who collected it throughout the city as the World Trade Center (WTC) dust, can be described as a pale gray colored fibrous material that to the touch feels like a powder similar to baking flour. Most people don’t realize what actually makes up the WTC dust. When the twin towers collapsed, every part of the buildings, as well as everything inside, was literally pulverized. Components of the buildings included items like HVAC systems, lights, carpets, ceiling tiles, and glass. Furnishings inside the building would have included computers, desks, chairs, books, toilets, sinks, and other basic office items. All of these elements make up the composition of the WTC dust. Rescue workers have told me that in months of digging and searching, not only were human remains few and far between, but very few items resembling office paraphernalia were discovered, even though the Twin Towers included hundreds of floors of offices. To attempt to put this in perspective, the next time you’re in an office building, take a look around you and imagine everything that you can see completely pounded into dust. Even now, that’s hard for me to imagine as I look around my office.

Another thing that most people don’t realize is the extent of the contamination of the WTC dust. To understand this, you must first understand how a typical HVAC systems works within a New York City skyscraper. In many cases, the HVAC system sucks in air from a fresh air intake, usually located on the roof of the building; the system then disperses this air throughout the entire building. On September 11th, shutting down their HVAC systems was not foremost on the minds of building engineers throughout Manhattan; most explained that they left work immediately after the first plane hit to get their children out of school, or to rush home to find their significant others. Many of the images of New York City after the attacks showed the massive cloud of smoke that engulfed buildings throughout Manhattan. Since air intakes were still operational, dust was being drawn into these buildings and dispersed throughout. As a result, not only were entire HVAC systems contaminated, they also delivered the dust to every square inch of these buildings.

Locating samples of the WTC dust to collect was never a problem because it was everywhere. As long as four months after the attacks, I could locate the dust inside ductwork, within elevator systems, on elevator cables, and in basements within elevator pits. The dust could also be found on window ledges, on rooftops, within electrical and mechanical rooms, and even in carpets that had been cleaned professionally many times over.

When submitting samples for laboratory analysis, initially, we didn’t know what we were looking for. We soon learned that we would be sampling the WTC dust for almost everything under the sun. The dust has undergone metal scans and asbestos fiber counts; it has also been analyzed to determine pH levels, as well as the levels of carbonate and OH alkalinity. Additional analysis included fluoride, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate levels. You might think that after all this analysis, everything has been resolved; in fact, many, many issues are still pending.

I also had the task of collecting samples from within many residential buildings surrounding ground zero. Listening to people relate their stories of 9/11, I saw firsthand the ways in which their lives were forever changed. I witnessed the devastation of homes, and heard of the precious personal belongings that were lost or ruined. Nothing could spare these people from the loss of personal valuables and the loss of homes that had been filled with emotion and memories.

My work in New York City has been a poignant experience. Not only has it changed my outlook on life, but it has also affected the way I look at my role as a health and safety professional. I still perform my duties as a health and safety consultant, but am now also part of ERL’s vulnerability assessment team. With a focus on Emergency Action Plans and Emergency Response Plans, I’m working with companies to help them prepare for emergencies of any sort. We all know now that “It can’t happen to us” just isn’t true.

Dan Martino is a health and safety consultant with Environmental Risk Limited in Bloomfield, Connecticut. For more information, please contact him at (860) 242-9933 or via e-mail at dmartino@erl.com.

Missing gold from the WTC vaults

Missing Gold

A King’s Ransom in Precious Metals Seems to Have Disappeared

[Source: 9-11 Research]

The basement of 4 World Trade Center housed vaults used to store gold and silver bullion. Published articles about precious metals recovered from the World Trade Center ruins in the aftermath of the attack mention less than $300 million worth of gold. All such reports appear to refer to a removal operation conducted in late October of 2001.

On Nov. 1, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that “more than $230 million” worth of gold and silver bars that had been stored in a bomb-proof vault had been recovered. A New York Times article contained:

Two Brinks trucks were at ground zero on Wednesday to start hauling away the $200 million in gold and silver that the Bank of Nova Scotia had stored in a vault under the trade center … A team of 30 firefighters and police officers are helping to move the metals, a task that can be measured practically down to the flake but that has been rounded off at 379,036

Reports describing the contents of the vaults before the attack suggest that nearly $1 billion in precious metals was stored in the vaults. A figure of $650 million in a National Real Estate Investor article published after the attack is

Unknown to most people at the time, $650 million in gold and silver was being kept in a special vault four floors beneath Four World Trade Center. 2

An article in the TimesOnline gives the following rundown of precious metals that were being stored in the WTC vault belonging to Comex. 3

  • Comex metals trading – 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million
  • Comex clients – 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million
  • Comex clients – 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million
  • Bank of Nova Scotia – $200 million of gold

The TimesOnline article is not clear as to whether the $200 million in gold reported by the Bank of Nova Scotia was part of the $220 million in gold held by Comex for clients. If so, the total is $750 million; otherwise $950 million.

There appear to be no reports of precious metals discovered between November of 2001 and the completion of excavation several months later.

Assuming that the above reports described the value of precious metals in the vaulst before the attack, and that the $230 million mentioned by Giuliani represented the approxmiate value of metals recovered, it would seem that at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. (It is not plausible, of course, that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are dense, inert metals that are extremely unlikely toparticipate in chemical reactions with other materials.)

An article in The Sierra Times suggests that gold was recovered from two trucks in a tunnel under 5 World Trade Center, giving rise to suspicions that the trucks were being used to remove the gold from the vaults before the South Tower fell. 4 However, this report may have been based on an erroneous reading of other reports that describe the removal of crushed vehicles from a tunnel under 5 WTC in order to gain access to the vaults under 4 WTC to remove their contents. 5

Why is there this huge discrepancy between the value of gold and silver reported recovered, and the value reported to have been stored in the vaults? There are a number of possible explanations, from outright theft using the attack as cover, to insurance fraud. Until there is a genuine investigation that probes all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the attack, we can only speculate.

References

1. Below Ground Zero, Silver and Gold, New York Times, 11/1/2001

2. Thanksgiving at Ground Zero, National Real Estate Investor, [cached]

3. Crushed towers give up cache of gold ingots, TimesOnline, 11/1/02 [cached]

4. Cache of Gold Found at WTC Two truckloads retrieved through a tunnel in rubble2, [cached]

5. , Reuters and New York Daily News, [cached]

Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued from WTC-7

The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued

by David Ray Griffin

Shortly after the first strike on the World Trade Center, which occurred at 8:46 AM on 9/11, Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, headed to the Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operating Center, which was on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, where they assumed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be. But when Hess and Jennings arrived, the place was empty. Jennings then telephoned someone to ask what they should do and was told that they should leave immediately. Finding that the elevators would not work, they started down the stairs. When they reached the sixth floor, however, there was a powerful explosion beneath them, which, Jennings told the makers of Loose Change Final Cut, [1] caused the landing on which they were standing to give way. Making their way back up to the eighth floor, they were able to break a window and call for help. Hess later reported: “[W]e were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half [before] the New York Fire Department . . . came and got us out.” [2]

Hess made this statement while being interviewed by Frank Ucciardo of UPN 9 News “on Broadway about a block from City Hall,” almost a half mile from WTC 7. This interview began before noon, most likely at 11:34. The conclusion that it began at 11:34 is based on evidence derived from a DVD containing UPN 9 programs from that morning, in which the Hess interview begins at the 57-minute mark. According to a note on the DVD itself, its video began at 10:37 AM, which would mean that the Hess interview began at 11:34. It is possible, however, that the video might have actually started at 11:00: At the 111-minute mark, the UPN 9 program switched to live coverage by CNN of a Taliban news conference, and the only reference we have been able to find to this coverage indicates that it began at 12:51.[3] This would mean that the video began at 11:00 and the Hess interview, therefore, at 11:57. Nevertheless, whether the earlier or the later starting time is correct, UPN 9 News began interviewing Michael Hess before noon.

However, NIST—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—which was tasked with providing the official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, claimed that the two men were rescued at “12:10 to 12:15 PM.” [4] Why might NIST have made this claim? The reason becomes evident in another NIST document’s statement about Hess and Jennings, which begins:

"With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase." [5]

According to NIST, therefore, Hess and Jennings, upon finding the OEM center vacated, started downstairs just after 9:59, when the second tower collapsed. It was this collapse, NIST suggested, that was responsible for the elevator’s failure to work.

As we saw earlier, however, Jennings said that they had arrived at the OEM center shortly after the strike on the North Tower, hence around 9:00 AM. He added, in fact, that he had to have been on the 23rd floor “when the second plane hit” (which was at 9:03). [6] Besides contradicting Jennings’ testimony on that point, the NIST account went on to say:

"When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 [the North Tower] collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help." [7]

According to NIST, therefore, what Hess and Jennings took to be an explosion in WTC 7 was really just an effect of the collapse of the North Tower. That collapse occurred at 10:28. Accordingly, if the two men were then trapped for about 90 minutes before they were rescued, this rescue must have occurred at about noon—hence NIST’s claim that they were rescued at “12:10 to 12:15 PM.”

NIST’s timeline is clearly implausible. Claiming that Hess and Jennings started down the stairs after the collapse of the South Tower caused the elevator to fail, NIST implies that it took them 29 minutes—from 9:59 to 10:28—to descend from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor.

NIST’s timeline is also directly contradicted by the testimony of Jennings, who said: “After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark . . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing. Because I looked . . . one way, looked the other way. . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing.” [8]

The strongest evidence against NIST’s timeline, however, is Hess’s interview with UPN 9 News. Defenders of the official account, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7, might challenge the truth of Jennings’s testimony. But if Hess was giving an interview almost a half mile away before noon, then NIST’s timeline, according to which the two men were not rescued until after noon, is objectively disproved. This is the case whether we accept the 11:34 or the 11:57 starting time for this interview.

Given the fact that the interview occurred almost a half mile from the WTC, it would probably have taken Hess at least a half hour to get there after he was rescued (he surely would have talked to firefighters and other officials about the ordeal before taking off). So if the interview began at 11:34, he and Jennings would have been rescued before 11:05. If the interview began at 11:57, they would have been rescued before 11:30.

In either case, NIST’s explanation for the event that Hess and Jennings took to be a massive explosion in WTC 7 itself is disproved. If the two men were rescued before 11:05 after having been trapped, as Hess said, for about 90 minutes, the event must have occurred before 9:35. Even if they were not rescued until closer to 11:30, the event must have occurred at least by 10:00. In either case, the event could not have been the collapse of the North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28.

That said, I endorse the earlier times—11:34 for the beginning of the Hess interview, 11:05 or earlier for the rescue, and 9:35 or earlier for the explosion—for three reasons. First, the note on the DVD says that the video started at 11:34. Second, the account by Hess and Jennings suggests that they would have reached the 6th floor, where the landing was knocked out from under them, at about 9:15. Third, whereas the later times would suggest that this event occurred around 10:00, Jennings stated, as we saw, that after the explosion occurred and he and Hess made it back up to the 8th floor, the South Tower, which collapsed at 9:59, was still standing.

As I pointed out in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, a BBC special on WTC 7 that aired July 6, 2008 (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower”), distorted Jennings’ testimony. Although he evidently told the BBC interviewer the same story he had earlier told to the makers of Loose Change Final Cut, the BBC placed his testimony within the time-framework suggested by NIST. So, after playing footage in which Jennings described a massive explosion in WTC 7 (which was probably at about 9:15), the BBC says: “At 10:28, the North Tower collapses. . . . Tower 7 takes a direct hit. . . . Early evidence of explosives were just debris from a falling skyscraper.” [9]

However, Jennings will apparently not be available to correct the record. Jennings, 53 years old, evidently died in August 2008, reportedly only a few days before NIST issued its report on WTC 7. [10]

In any case, UPN 9’s interview of Michael Hess is now publicly available, thanks to Dylan Avery, who made a copy of it available, and Fred Burks, who posted it at The Transformation Team (click here).

NOTES

[1] This interview was not included in Loose Change Final Cut at Jennings’ request, after he had, he said, received threats to his job. But after Jennings participated in a BBC documentary about WTC 7 (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower”), Dylan Avery, who had conducted the interview, put it on the Internet: “Barry Jennings Uncut,” Loose Change 911, July 9, 2008 (http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105). The term “uncut” in that title alludes to the fact that extracts from this interview had already been posted on the Internet. The interview is also included in a video, Fabled Enemies, produced by Jason Bermas, another member of the Loose Change team.

[2] For documentation of the information provided in this article, see Chapter 1 of David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 45-48.

[3] Michael Ventura, “9/11: American Ungoverned” (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A83213).

[4] NIST, Appendix L: Interim Report on WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf), L-18. No source for this claim is cited.

[5] NIST NCSTAR 1-8, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf), Section 5.9.

[6] Quoted in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 46.

[7] NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Section 5.9

[8] Quoted in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 46.

[9] Ibid., 276-77 n184.

[10] Aaron Dykes, “Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53,” Infowars.com, September 16, 2008 (http://www.infowars.com/?p=4602).

Was WTC 7 a Dud?


Was WTC 7 a Dud?
by Jeremy Baker

Facts support the theory that World Trade Center Building 7
was originally meant to implode seconds after the North Tower's collapse

 

The following is a condensed version of the main premise presented
in the original article "Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC

Scott Forbes Interview on Power-Down in WTC

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

Killtown

December 24, 2005

Scott Forbes Interview

Scott Forbes is a Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust and used to work in the South Tower of the WTC. This interview with him began last September and was conducted through a series of instant messaging and e-mails. Scott can be reached at:
scottforbes2002@hotmail.com

Killtown: Scott, you have an interesting story to tell. Where were you working the week before 9/11?

Scott Forbes: In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9.

KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?

SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.

KT: Was it unusual for you to be working on the weekend?

SF: I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working 'out of business hours.' I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.

KT: Who were you working for and what was your position there?

SF: Fiduciary Trust, an Investment Bank, who had just been acquired by the Franklin Templeton Group and I was (and am) a Senior DBA or Database Administrator.

KT: So you are an IT personnel?

SF: Yes.

KT: How long did you work in the WTC 2 before 9/11?

SF: I started in the company as a consultant in June 1998 and I joined full time in December 1998.

KT: During all this time, how many times did the WTC have a "power down"?

SF: None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to may outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

KT: How many floors did this power down effect?

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so.

KT: Was there a power down in the WTC 1 also?

SF: Not to my knowledge.

KT: Did you think that was kind of odd that one tower (South) had a power down and the other one (North) didn't?

SF: Not really – I remember that we were notified some 3 or 4 weeks in advance by the Port Authority-NY/NJ that there would be a power outage – so we had to co-ordinate and plan efforts in the IT departments to ensure we had everything shut down in time and ready to restart. Frankly at the time I didn't think about WTC 1.

KT: What did the Port Authority say the power down was for?

SF: As far as I recall it was for re-cabling, though I don't remember the wording on official documents or the detail, as I wasn't in the Management Loop.

KT: What did they say the "re-cabling" was for?

SF: I understood it was something to do with the power supplies.

KT: Did you think it was odd that they had to power down for "re-cabling?"

SF: Well at the time I didn't question it — neither did anyone else. We just got on with the work that needed to be done. There was a lot of mumbling and grumbling, I certainly remember that, and I got the Tuesday off in lieu of 9/11, so I was at home watching events unfold from my my apartment window on that day.

KT: You had gotten the day of on 9/11, was this because you worked the previous weekend?

SF: Yes.

KT: If your company hadn't scheduled you to work that weekend, would you normally have been at work that Tuesday?

SF: Yes and I was usually in the office at 7 am EST, so I would have been there for sure. In fact on 9/11 my first response after the first plane hit WTC 1 was to call my office and speak to my colleagues.

KT: Your company, Fiduciary Trust, is located on floors 90, 94-97, correct?

SF: Yes, we were located on those floors. The Executive Offices were on 90, 94-97 were Administration Offices, with the Data Center and Tech Staff on floor 97.

KT: Did you normally work mainly on the 97th floor, or did you work on all of those floors?

SF: 97 was my floor, but inevitably I was on all floors for staff meetings, etc.

KT: Had you or any of your colleagues ever heard or experienced a power down before?

SF: No, except when the bomb went off in the car park in '93.

KT: Did the Port Authority ever say if they were going to power down the bottom half of the WTC 2?

SF: No, not that I recall.

KT: I was reading an article about the WTC saying that it was not very modern in terms of it's high tech infrastructure. Is that true?

SF: Correct, not if you compare the WTC to recently built and opened buildings. It was a little dated and faded which I liked actually.

KT: Why is that?

SF: The building was retro, some of the features were so old, like the central heating and a/c systems, which were really really bad and inefficient.

KT: I read about how it was very expensive to heat and cool the towers.

SF: Yes, in summer the heat inside the building could be really bad. We had a manual way of setting up fans on desks to keep the air circulating around the floors.

KT: Besides the "power down" the weekend before 9/11, was there any other unusual activity going on related to the WTC? There was one guy, Ben Fountain, who worked on the 47 floor of the WTC 2 who said there was an unusual amount of evacuation drills. Did you experience any of those?

SF: We had regular fire/evacuation drills, but not an unusual number.

KT: How often were those and when was the last one before 9/11?

SF: I couldn't tell you the frequency or when the last one was held, I just can't remember, sorry.

KT: Back to the weekend of the "power down," when did they turn the power off and when did they turn it back on?

SF: Off on Saturday afternoon – around 12 noon I think – and back on at about 2 pm on the Sunday (my timings on this are hazy).

KT: When you were working these two days, did you notice anything suspicious going on in or around the WTC?

SF: Well there were several guys in overalls, carrying building gear, toolboxes, etc inside the building. Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many 'strangers' who didn't work at the WTC was unusual.

I'd make one other point at this juncture also, because of the power down backups of system were an absolute necessity and they would have been taken offsite for security. Because of the power outage all our systems backups had to be 100% valid and available in case of an emergency. These were taken offsite, like normal, for security.

KT: So the people you saw coming in and out of the building, did they have badges and what were their ethnic makeup, were they Arab?

SF: No ethnic consistency at all and I don't remember any badges or labels of any sort.

KT: Where did you see all these strange workers? Was it just the floors you were working on that Saturday and Sunday, or also in the lobbies and elevators and what floors were you working on that Saturday and Sunday?

SF: I was working on the 97th floor and as I recall I saw guys in the main lobby, on the ground floor and in the elevator lobby on floor 76. This was on the Saturday.

KT: You mentioned you didn't notice them wearing any badges. Is this unusual? I take it there must be a lot of construction going on in the WTC from time to time. Do construction workers not need identity badges?

SF: They would all need to have stick-on badges, with their photo and name. I can't remember seeing those badges or not.

KT: After 9/11, did anybody you worked with or know in the building also notice these strange workers running around on Saturday and Sunday?

SF: Well anyone who worked those days saw them. After 9/11, things were a blur.

KT: When did you know that you would have Tuesday, the day of 9/11 off?

SF: On the Monday, I was taking off Friday but I swapped it with a colleague, who got out on 9/11 unscathed fortunately.

KT: So you were scheduled to work that Tuesday?

SF: Originally yes, but I swapped a day off with a colleague, so I had Tuesday off and he was in the Office.

KT: So in a sense, and for a lack of a better word, you were really lucky to be off that day?

SF: Very lucky. Usually I was in the office at 7 am and having breakfast with colleagues in the 96th floor cafeteria by 8:30 am. In fact one of my colleagues was there in the cafe when the first plane hit the Tower 1. He watched it coming in over Manhattan.

KT: He saw it coming? How did you find this out?

SF: Well he survived and we talked about it often. We used to joke about the planes over Manhattan and that one day one would hit the Trade Center. He ran from the cafe and took his colleagues from his team and left the building. Had he not seen the plane with his own eyes, he and his team would have been far more relaxed I'm sure.

KT: Was this the same colleague you swapped days with?

SF: No.

KT: Can you tell us real quick where the colleague you swapped with was at the time of the plane crash and how he managed to escape?

SF: He was at his desk on the 97th floor, looking South toward the statue of liberty. He heard the plane hit the other tower and just picked up his backpack and left our tower by elevator. I had other colleagues who did not leave so quickly — some survived, others did not.

KT: How many people from your company did not make it out of there that morning?

SF: 89 were lost I believe. 20 from my department. [See list]

KT: So a lot of these people must of been your friends and also colleagues you worked with and saw everyday at work?

SF: Yes, many close friends.

KT: One thing I have to ask is when I was reviewing those from your company who perished that day, it seemed to me that no high-level employees in your company — such as managers, directors, VP's, etc — were among the victims. Was I reading that right?

SF: Not quite. Certainly in my department six of the 20 were managers. However it is a statement of fact that no Directors or VP's were lost.

KT: Of the floors your company occupied in the WTC 2, floors 90, 94-97, were most of your executives on the 90th floor?

SF: Yes.

KT: Do you know if most of the executives from your company were in the building when the plane crashed?

SF: Frankly I don't know. I know some were absent from the building and some were in the building and escaped.

KT: Were you at home on 9/11? Can you tell us what you were doing up to the time you heard about the 1st plane crash?

SF: I was at home having coffee when I heard the 1st plane hit the North tower. I thought it was a car crash on the street below (I lived on the 15th floor) and so I went to the window and opened the blind to look down (the blinds were closed due to the bright sunshine) and there in front of me I saw the smoke coming from the North Tower.

Forbes' apartment in relation to the WTC. (See map)

KT: What did you immediately think about what happened to the North Tower?

SF: I thought it was explosion from the windows on the world restaurant, but I turned on my TV and coincidentally at the same time the news programme began showing the event from the northern direction and gave out the news that a plane had hit.

KT: Did the news say what kind of plane?

SF: A "passenger jet" I believe.

KT: Do you remember about how long it was after you heard the crash until the news said it was a passenger jet?

SF: Almost instantly.

KT: After you heard a plane had crashed there, did you think anything suspicious of it, or just a freak accident?

SF: No, I didn't think it was an accident – I was highly suspicious, so much so that I called the office, spoke to colleagues and told them to get out right away.

KT: Just to be clear, you were suspicious right away after the 1st plane crash into the North Tower and before the 2nd plane crashed?

SF: Yes.

KT: Can you elaborate why you felt suspicious right away?

SF: It just didn't seem right. Commercial passenger jets don't crash seemingly intentionally in clear bright sunshine in Manhattan.

KT: So it was mostly a "gut feeling"?

SF: Yes. Then when the second plane hit the South Tower, I immediately thought about the power down condition in the South Tower that previous weekend and I watched the second plane coming in over New York Bay from over Staten Island, miles away.

KT: Were you able to get a close look of the 2nd plane coming in, or did you just see it's silhouette?

SF: It would have been about 1.5 miles away from my apartment at its closest. I saw it for some time, not closely, but for some time.

KT: Were you able to make out what kind of plane it was, or from what airlines?

SF: No, I couldn't tell what kind of plane or what airline it was – all I could tell was that it was a two engine jetliner going extremely fast.

KT: Did you have any idea what type of plane it was (commercial airliner, military, large, small)?

SF: No, actually my naivety made me think it was a tanker of some kind, coming in to drop water on the flames from the North Tower!

KT: Let me back up a bit, after the 1st plane crash, did you try to call any of your colleagues in the WTC?

SF: Yes. I called the guy I sat next to — his number was the first I could remember — he answered and I spoke to him and one other. They had heard the crash, rushed to the windows and saw the smoke but didn't know what it was. I was able to tell them and I told them to get out right away.

KT: Did they leave right away?

SF: Some did and some didn't. Some took elevators and some took the stairs.

KT: Did you feel that you probably had helped save some of their lives by telling them to leave right away and did you happen to know anybody in the North Tower?

SF: I knew no one in the North Tower and I don't think I helped anyone. In fact in retrospect I wonder why I didn't call more people.

KT: The next question I want to get at is there have been lots of reports of people in the WTC's said that they heard popping noises, rumblings, and other noises associated to explosions going off in the buildings. Did anybody you have talked to that were in the WTC on 9/11 speak of this too?

SF: Not directly that I spoke to, but I am aware of one member of staff who was lost whose wife reported that he told her on the phone that explosions were going off.

KT: Do you have any idea at what time he was talking to her or what time he heard these explosions going off?

SF: Between 9:15 am and 9:58 am approx – you can read her account of the conversation in the New York Times archive [See: Edmund McNally]

KT: What floor was he on?

SF: 97th.

KT: There have been reports of explosions in the basements of both towers and video evidence shows damage in both lobby areas which looks a bomb went off. Did anybody you know who escaped from the South Tower ever mention any damage to the lobby area?

SF: No, apart from broken glass from the plane impacts and crashing elevators. Several elevators cables were broken/slashed so they crashed to the ground.

KT: Are you still in contact with anybody who escaped from the South Tower?

SF: Yes.

KT: Has any of these people, or anybody else who was in the South Tower for that matter, have come out publicly about the "power down" the weekend before or reports of hearing bombs in the building when they were inside?

SF: Many, many people have talked to me about the power down and one person was contacted by a journalist as a backup source for my information.

KT: Let's recap a little, you said you felt something wasn't right when the first crash happened and when the 2nd crash happened, you felt that this had something to do with the "power down" in the South Tower that you worked in. Did you immediately think it was an "inside job" at this point and did you think it just involved maybe the owners of the WTC, or did you also suspect that this may have also involved someone in the government?

SF: I didn't think that one group specifically were the cause, but I immediately was very suspicious about the power down. The timing was so coincidental.

KT: I guess at what point did you start to feel that the plane crashes were some sort of inside job? Did you think it was an inside job?

SF: Again that's putting it a little too specifically. I put together what I saw with my own eyes and the knowledge of the power down and came up with a great deal of suspicion on the "official" story. It just doesn't seem to be the total truth to me.

KT: When the towers came down, did that just create a ton of more suspicion for you?

SF: When the first tower collapsed, that's when my suspicion started.

KT: One aspect of 9/11 that probably has created the most suspicion the attacks for most people is the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7. Many people didn't even learn about this strange collapse until many months later when it first started appearing on conspiracy websites (that's how I learned about it!). Did you happen to witness the collapse of the WTC 7 from you apartment building and did you hear anything about it afterwards on your local NYC news?

SF: Yes, I was alerted by an item on TV (CNN I think) and when I looked out of the window I saw a new plume of smoke rising from the site. I did not see it actually collapse however.

KT: Did you see much news about this collapse immediately afterwards or ever see any video coverage of the WTC 7 collapsing on TV?

SF: I remember seeing coverage on CNN at the time and on other programmes and channels subsequently.

KT: Would you say there was a lot of follow-up news on the WTC 7 collapse in your area, or relatively few?

SF: Little — it was considered only in context of the other tower collapses.

KT: When did you first start coming out in public talking about the "power down" in the South Tower and your general feelings of suspicion about the attacks?

SF: From day one, but more loudly about two months after when my company had rebuilt itself in a Disaster Recovery site in NJ.

KT: Who did you start talking to about it at first?

SF: My colleagues and friends.

KT: What was their reactions?

SF: Some were skeptical in the immediate aftermath in the midst of that very vengeful and angry reaction.

KT: Did any of them start to come around and take your story and thoughts seriously after everybody's initial anger and rage subsided a bit?

SF: Sure, some did and have, but many remain skeptical and frankly many do not want to revisit that time, as it was very painful.

KT: When did you go back to England?

SF: I came back to the UK in May 2003.

KT: When did you start trying to tell your story to government officials? Have you tried to contact the media also?

SF: I've sent emails and letters to the 9/11 commission and the Port Authority of NY/NJ, without response, and I've emailed, IM'd and spoken to several independent authors and broadcaster. No mainstream media outlets.

KT: So the 9/11 Commission and Port Authority never even contacted you back?

SF: No.

KT: Did that just make you feel that there might be a cover-up going on?

SF: Sure – that's natural isn't it – though it could just be inefficiency. All I am looking for is an acknowledgement that the power down did take place and that it has been investigated.

KT: So no "officials" have acknowledged the "power down" in the South Tower that you witnessed?

SF: Not that I know of.

KT: How many times have you tried to contact the 9/11 Commission or other officials?

SF: Three times in total.

KT: Has anybody else from your company or who witnessed the "power down" try to contact any officials?

SF: That I do not know.

KT: When did you try contacting alternative media outlets to try to tell your story?

SF: I entered a three or four line entry on a blog site in 2003. That was my first entry.

KT: Have any foreign news media or any of your local British media ever try to contact you about your story?

SF: Yes, recently I spoke face to face and on-camera with a Dutch Journalist, working on a documentary on 9/11 and I was interviewed by two English journalists also.

KT: Do you feel like the U.S. mainstream media has been less interested in your story than the foreign mainstream media?

SF: Yes, very much so.

KT: Any thoughts to as why?

SF: I feel that the US media and Americans in general have an over-sanitized and safe character. They are far less willing to be critical of their government and country than foreign media and individuals and this extends to the point of not questioning accepted half-truths. Also, 9/11 is now part of an American History that is cherished and almost Holy – to question it is to be traitorous.

KT: How interested has your alternative media and other foreign alternative media compared to the US alternative media about your story?

SF: I've spoken to English, Dutch and Australian journalists, as well as a number of American media-folk. I'm surprised that US media folk are not as aggressive – but then I am outside the US now.

KT: Do you feel more people in your country and the rest of Europe are more suspicious about 9/11 than most Americans?

SF: For sure! Let me put it this way, I am British working in US on 9/11. I was contacted by Police from London to interview me (debrief me), but none of my American colleagues were contacted by police or FBI or any agency. Kind of weird.

Testimony of explosions at the Twin Towers

Letter From a New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician.

9/11 Blogger
Thursday, February 8, 2007

Dylan Avery posted the following letter which he and Mark of "Screw Loose Change" received. Well worth the read.

"I don't know what to say, I'm not sure where I stand, and I don't know what to think anymore… not about 9/11, but society in general.

I was a NJ EMT for 6 years. I was in NY at the WTC before, during, and after the collapse. I ran from the falling towers. I hid behind a plexi-glass bus stop panel, as if that would have helped me if anything large came hurtling in that direction. My lungs are full of dust and I can barely breathe without holding back a cough and the ever-present faint taste of blood in the back of my throat. I wake up gasping for air. Those towers fell, and I was there. I don't know why the "official story" of what happened isn't questioned more than it is. Nobody listens to the people who KNOW. The 9/11 commission was made up of puppeteers, and the tesimony was given by the puppets. It's so obvious. It was a failure. If the things I, and hundreds of other people saw, felt, and heard didn't make it into that attrocious failure called the 9/11 Commission Report, then there is no other con clusion than accepting the fact that the whole thing was a whitewash.

Mark… listen to me. There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings- anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions- the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions- they happened. We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there… we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions. One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exlploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes. THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us! There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story". "

(more after the break..)


"I tried to explain that wasn't what happened. I kept telling people there were explosions. I kept explaining what I saw, and wrote to the newspapers, the networks, and the government about what I saw. I called to speak to the FDNY, and NYPD. I told them what I knew and wanted know why the news reports were wrong. I wasn't told I was wrong. I wasn't even given a different explaination. I was just told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good". I told my EMT Coordinator In Charge what we saw. The four of us from my squad who went were first congratulated for responding and doing such a good job, and later, two of us (the two that refused to "let it go") were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for the uniforms and equipment we used on 9/11 because they were ruined. The other two (who are women, one a mother of two, the other a mother of 3) now ref use to admit they were even there, even to us! They just won't speak about it. The four of us were heroes. Two of us were harrassed and fired, and the other two have to deny ever being there.

There is no doubt in my mind what happened in New York on 9/11. Yes, some of the conspiracy theories are far fetched. A few are even rediculous. But MOST of them, hold much more validity than the "official story". The government has one theory, and it is very weak, at best. Loose Change may be questionable, but that's what it is doing… providing theories and asking questions. Some of those questions get answered, others come up. THAT is why there is a 2nd Edition and a future final cut. Yes, the truth must be updated, of course it does. To say it doesn't is silly. What do you think an investigation is? You formulate a theory, ask questions, and get answers. When you come across new information or rule out false information, you update your theory. Why do you ridicule that concept? Why do you take so much pride in claiming "I didn't know the truth needed a 2n d Edition"? That's like your main motto and it's the weakest thing I've ever heard. Would it make more sense to you to write a story, or make a documentary, and NOT update it if you found new information? Would you want today's school children learning out of a 1977 1st Edition History textbook? Would you criticize an updated edition for them to learn out of? What about following editions? Of course not. My point is this: Loose Change may not be 100% accurate or complete, but it offers more plausible explanations, no matter how diabolical, than the 9/11 commission report fiasco.

In case you are wondering, no. I'm not going to give you my full name or what city I worked for. I had enough trouble having it dragged through local newspapers for two years. I don't want to lose another job. I don't want you unfoundedly slandering my name all over the net like you do with Dylan, Jason, and whoever else offers a point of view other than yours. I'm not giving you my name, so do as you wish with what I've told you. Just remember something. It's very easy to deny something, and even easier to "debunk" it with a simpler story, and simpler still to present that information to millions of people who not only have heard it as truth before, but WANT to believe it. It is much harder to piece together a series of events that makes much more sense, provides a motive, a means, and more capable suspects, and harder yet to present that information to millions of people who not only DON'T want it to be true, but have already heard a much happier story that they would rather believe.

Trust me, I'd much rather believe the official story. I'd also rather believe that Columbus discovered America and DIDN'T torture and murder the natives he encountered on the way here. But history had a 2nd Edition to that story. I can't wait for the Final Cut."

Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of WTC 7

March 2, 2002
Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
New York Times

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

"It's certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system," said a person knowledgeable about the investigators' draft report on the World Trade Center. "The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge."

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city's nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses' reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. "It ended up with tenants who had diesels," Mr. Cantor said. "I know none of that was planned at the beginning."

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority's chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four- story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team's findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

"What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?" said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

"We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility," said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. "This building had an awful lot of transfers."

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. "The pieces have come together," he said. "Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine."

Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of WTC 7

March 2, 2002
Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
New York Times

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

"It's certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system," said a person knowledgeable about the investigators' draft report on the World Trade Center. "The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge."

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city's nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses' reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. "It ended up with tenants who had diesels," Mr. Cantor said. "I know none of that was planned at the beginning."

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority's chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four- story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team's findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

"What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?" said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

"We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility," said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. "This building had an awful lot of transfers."

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. "The pieces have come together," he said. "Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine."

Foreknowledge of the WTC collapse

Nobody expected that the World Trade towers would collapse. Yet New York Mayor Giuliani was told in advance of the impeding collapse of the World Trade towers.

George Washington (pseudonym), 14 August 2005
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-did-they-know.html


How Did They Know?

On September 11th, none of the New York City rescue people thought any of the World Trade Centers would collapse. For example:

The battalion chief of the New York Fire Department stated "there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down" (page 15)

The Emergency Medical Services Division Chief, in charge of planning for the Chief of Department’s office said "No one feared that the building was in any danger as a result of two airplane attacks and subsequent fires . . . ."(page 7)

A lieutenant firefighter said "I never thought the whole thing would come down"

A firefighter stated "I never expected that a tower might collapse"

A lieutenant Investigator with the Bureau of Investigations and Trials said "no one ever expected it to collapse like that" (page 18)

The firefighters killed in the towers clearly never expected that they would collapse

And no engineer in the country, including the designers of the world trade centers, thought they would collapse. Indeed, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire" (summary is free if you register with the New York Times; full article is pay-per-view), and the twin towers were designed to survive airplane strikes.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report itself states:

"They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. NO ONE ANTICIPATED THE POSSIBILITY OF A TOTAL COLLAPSE" (Page 291)

"Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse" (page 304)

"Though almost no one at 9:50 on September 11 was contemplating an imminent total collapse of the Twin Towers, many first responders and civilians were contemplating the possibility of imminent additional terrorist attacks . . . " (page 320); and

"Contrary to a widely held misperception, no NYPD helicopter predicted the fall of either tower before the South Tower collapsed" (page 321)

And yet, somehow, on 9/11, Mayor Rudy Giuliani knew in advance that the world trade center was going to collapse.

And newly-released tapes of firefighters and other emergency personnel show that New York's Office of Emergency Management told a handful of people that the twin towers were going to collapse BEFORE any building had actually collapsed. For example, a paramedic testified that, before ANY of the world trade center buildings had collapsed, the following occurred:

John came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following message: that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse . . . .

I mentioned to the EMS people there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you need to get away from here, the building might collapse, we need to leave this spot . . .

I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get
out . . . .

He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down? (page 6)

And there was also warning that building 7, which was not even hit by a plane, was going to collapse. Indeed, people “waited around? for the building to collapse.

For example, right before WTC7 came down, a NYPD police officer said clear away, the whole building is "about to blow up"

A firefighter stated "They moved us back south. We ended up back up on Vesey Street and West Street and just hanging out until tower 7 came down. After tower 7 came down, we went right to work over at tower 7 to put the fires out" (page 9)

Another firefighter testified "Once they got us back together and organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down" (page 14)

A firefighter said "I don't know what happened to No. 7. I knew the building was coming down" (page 8)

A lieutenant firefighter said Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess" (page 17)

A paramedic testified “Then it was about 5:00 . . . We didn't do any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down? (Pages 13-14)

Indeed, many news reporters, including reporters from the BBC (and see this BBC clip; BBC clips authenticated here, here, and here), CNN and other stations reported the collapse of Building 7 before it actually fell, thus strongly implying that someone informed the reporters of the collapse ahead of time.

See also this collection of evidence regarding building 7.

And if you have any doubt about the foreknowledge concerning the collapse of Building 7, watch this 13-minute video.

What if a police detective was investigating the murder of a guy named Joe, who had previously been healthy, and discovered that a suspect had said on the day of the murder "Joe will be dead within 2 hours"? The detective would believe that the suspect killed Joe, or at least conspired with those who did.

Similarly, the foreknowledge of the collapse of buildings 1, 2 and 7 ? when steel-framed buildings simply do not collapse due to fire ? is strong circumstantial evidence that Guiliani and some key people within New York's Office of Emergency Management — or their superiors in the chain of command — are guilty for the demolition of those buildings.

We've all watched enough detective shows on TV to recognize this foreknowledge as evidence of guilt.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

The BBC announced the collapse of WTC nr. 7 in New York half an hour before it actually collapsed.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

digg_url = ‘http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm’; digg_title = ‘The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes of footage from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.’; digg_bodytext = ‘The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?’; digg_topic = ‘politics’;

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.


BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
—————————————————————————————————————

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

The BBC announced the collapse of WTC nr. 7 in New York half an hour before it actually collapsed.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

digg_url = ‘http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm’; digg_title = ‘The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes of footage from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.’; digg_bodytext = ‘The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?’; digg_topic = ‘politics’;

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.


BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
—————————————————————————————————————

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says

Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says

By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.
"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

[Webmaster's comment: Ten days after the publication of this interview, Van Romero gave a new interview to this journal in which he retracted his previous views on the collapse. He now said that he believed that the towers collapsed because of fire.

Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

New York Times

Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

November 29, 2001

By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.

"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' "

Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.

"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it."

In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.

Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.

With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.

Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.

"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.

Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."

Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.

"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.

The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.

Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."

The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.

"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."