9-11/WTC Controlled demolition

From Wikispooks
Jump to: navigation, search
Event.png 9-11/WTC Controlled demolition 
Date 11 September 2001
Blamed on “19 Hijackers”
Type bombing
Interest of Zdeněk Bažant, Robert Korol, Kevin Ryan, Ted Walte
Description On September 11th, 3 steel reinforced buildings from the World Trade Center suddenly collapsed at freefall speed into their own footprints, a set of events to which Wikipedia devotes only a single article, one purged of 'fringe' scientific evidence at odds with the official narrative.

Three buildings from the World Trade Center suddenly collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints on September 11th, 2001, after reports of bombs going off in the building. The buildings left no large pieces of wreckage, just tons of powdered concrete and small sections of steel. The US government's claim that all three collapsed due to the two plane impacts earlier that day is belied by evidence such as the warnings that the buildings were going to collapse[1] and by the post-collapse actions, such as the treatment of the building debris, which was quickly removed from the scene and recycled immediately under conditions of high security.

Official Narrative

Wikipedia provides a quick summary of the official narrative, that the steel reinforced skyscrapers collapsed due to fire and structural damage, an historically unprecedented event. It is noteworthy that English Wikipedia deems this set of three unprecedented collapses worthy of only a single article (as of April 2014, around 10,000 words, just longer than their article on Toilet paper orientation).

Evidence of Controlled demolition

The following evidence was compiled by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. [2]

Picture shows Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of controlled demolition.

  • Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  • Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  • Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  • Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  • Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  • Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  • 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  • Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
  • Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  • Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  • Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  • Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

WTC 7 also exhibited characteristics of controlled demolition.

  • Rapid onset of collapse
  • Sounds of explosions
  • Symmetrical structural failure
  • Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
  • Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
  • Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  • Corroboration from Danny Jowenko, a European controlled demolition professional

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

Evidence for use of nano thermite

Full article: Nano-thermite
Evidence for nano thermite

In the years after 9-11, evidence accumulated that explosives were used to destroy the towers. 2009 was a breakthrough year in that a paper was published in a peer reviewed journal by an international team of academically credited researchers providing evidence of such an "exotic accelerant" (i.e. the explosive nano-thermite) in several dust samples from the 2001 attack on the World Trade center.[3] Although Wikipedia suggests that peer reviewed journals are a reliable source, that finding was termed a "fringe theory" and as of August 2014, all links to the 9/11 collapse have been removed from their article on nano-thermite (see the talk page to understand this process better).


Many people were undoubtedly involved in organising the demolition of the three WTC buildings that were demolished on 9/11. Larry Silverstein profited financially to the tune of several billion dollars, having just taken out special insurance against acts of "terrorism"[4] and few serious researchers (if any) doubt his involvement. The effectiveness of the cover-up points to deep state involvement, suggesting that the cabal organised it. The question of who was the point man for organising the demolition of the trade center towers is a harder one. In January 2013, Joël van der Reijden named David Cohen as "a potential suspect of having ran the operation to take down the WTC towers".[5] Mark Gorton terms Brian Michael Jenkins "an absolutely key figure for understanding the core of the 9/11 operation", noting that he lead Kroll's work on the WTC after the 1993 bombing and that he advised US Secretary of State George Shultz on matters of "terrorism".[6]

Paul Bremer, the leader of the occupation forces in Iraq and an executive of Marsh and McLennan (whose office was hit on 9/11) was absent that morning, and almost immediately blamed Iran, Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, without offering any evidence. Interestingly Bremer was also on the board of the Japanese machinery company Komatsu which in 1996 developed a nano-thermite demolition patent that could "demolish a concrete structure at high efficiency, while preventing noise and flying chips".[7]


Nano thermite iron rich spheres

"Debunkers" have made various claims attempting to discredit the evidence of usage of nano thermite on 9/11. One claim made by debunkers such as NIST contractor James Millette is that the red-gray thermite chips are primer paint chips. This is false because, several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray thermite chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by professor Niels Harrit and his team showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium. To further disprove this claim, Harrit and other scientists, conducted a test where a red-gray thermite chip was soaked in paint solvent methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours. Additionally, the red-gray chips are shown that they ignite at approximately 430º C, while the primer paint chips are demonstrated by NIST and recorded in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D (pages 440, 442) that it can reach temperatures exceeding 650º C without burning. Since primer paint is primarily a ceramic material, it is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800º C. The thermal tests on the red-gray chips revealed that when they are ignited at around 430º C, they create molten iron microspheres as a byproduct. Since iron does not melt until it reaches approximately 1538º C, this means a high-temperature chemical reaction occurred. This volatile reactivity makes this type of material extremely dangerous, disqualifying it from ever being used as primer paint. [8]

Another "debunker" argument is that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was lots of steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum (ingredients of thermite). They argue that during the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips. However, the red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components. Random mixing of building material can't create such uniform highly engineered materials.

Debunkers also make claims against the validity of the nano thermite paper. The nano thermite paper was published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. They claim the paper is invalid because it was published in a "non-peer-reviewed vanity publication". However there is no evidence of this. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. While, closed journals require you to purchase a subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. An Open journal was chosen because it is a superior format. They allow the paper to be freely accessible to anyone instead of being closed off to a group of subscribers. Although, Bentham Open claims to be a peer reviewed journal, and is known as a peer reviewed journal, "debunkers" have disputed this fact because of a fake paper submitted to another Bentham open access journal called The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been flawed in this particular case. "Debunkers" of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. But this was not the same journal as the one which published the nano thermite paper. What the "debunkers" have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument. In reality, there is absolutely no substance to this argument, this does not dispute the validity of the Nano thermite paper, among the authors being Professors of Chemistry and Physics, and an executive at Underwriter Laboratories, the company that contracted the steel at the WTC. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with it's peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on one penny. Debunkers also like to mention that the editor in chief resigned after the paper was published. Little do they consider that the publishing of this paper would prove, some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign? [9]

Many debunkers (including a BBC documentary hit piece[citation needed]) wrongly confuse regular thermite with nano thermite. Thermite is a mixture of aluminum and rust powder, that can be purchased online, or homemade. When ignited it creates intense heat able to melt steel. It is often used for welding railroad tracks. Nano thermite however is much more powerful and advanced material not available on the normal market. It also produces intense heat but develops more quickly. Combined with additives it can be use as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite. [10]

Critics of the nano thermite theory point out that nano thermite by itself only has a detonation velocity of only 895 m/s and alone could not have been powerful enough to demolish the WTC. In response, proponents of the nano thermite theory cite aluminothermic preparations known to exist particularly those for military purposes to make nano thermite much more powerful and formulated to be explosive. Referencing a study from the University of Houston. [11]

Excerpt from a summary report released at the 2008 AIChE conference by chemists at the University of Houston describes how nano-thermite composites can be engineered to create explosives:

“Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications, such as rocket propellants, aircraft fuel and explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials, as they enable flexibility in energy density and power release through control of particle size distribution, stoichiometry and choice of fuel and oxidizer. The reduction of the reactant powders from micro- to nano-size generates a more intimate contact between the particles. This, in turn, increases the reaction front propagation velocity in some systems by two to three orders of magnitude.”
Leizheng Wang,  Arol Vicent,  Dan Luss   —   [12]


Perhaps 50,000 pounds (22.5 tons) of nano thermite explosives would have sufficed for WTC 1 or 2. Depending on the crew needed, it would take anywhere between 10 and 25 small moving vans to transport the materials into the WTC's underground parking lot. From there everything would have been taken up the elevators by pallets, quite possibly placed through the elevator shafts, as well as in the perimeter box columns. This would have had to been snuck past World Trade Center employees, and would take a few weeks to plan.[13]

According to World Trade Center employees Scott Forbes, Ben Fountain, William Rodriguez and Gary Corbett there were power cuts the weekend before 9/11 - disabling not just electricity but also the WTC cameras and locks. Evacuations also took place. People[Who?] reported seeing men in overalls carrying huge toolboxes and long wheels of cables, with the explanation that internet cables were being upgraded.[14] This would give opportunity for conspirators to plant explosives in the World Trade Center under the guise of building maintenance. Steven Jones has also pointed out that the material could have just been painted on meaning the people applying the thermite to the World Trade Center wouldn't even have to know what the substance was. [15] It is also noteworthy that Marvin Bush was a director of Stratasec which was in charge of security at the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles International airport.

Motivations to destroy the WTC

The WTC had an asbestos problem that would have needed costly removal had they remained standing, and evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves. [16] Many first responders died later on due to exposure of the asbestos in the WTC. Larry Silverstein put out an insurance plan which covered acts of "terrorism", took to court, and walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever. [17] Additionally the Towers demolition helped financial institutions and insurance companies cover up billions of dollars in fraud by eliminating those who were asking questions about it, and documentation relating to it. [18]

Cover up

On the day of 9/11 itself, the commercially-controlled media was already interviewing highly suspicious "witnesses" who seemed well versed in what was later to become the official narrative.[19]

The FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) which looked into the collapse of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was headed by Charles Thornton, who also headed the FEMA BPAT after 9-11.[20] Three senior engineers who had worked with Thornton on the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 were Paul Mlakar, Gene Corley and Mete Sozen, all of whom also worked on the post 9-11 report.[21]

Evasion by NIST

It has been publicly acknowledged that, in their investigation of the World Trade Center’s destruction, federally-funded laboratories and commissions did not follow the scientific method. In August 2006, NIST publicly released a statement that they found no evidence of the involvement of explosives in the collapse of the World Trade Centers.[22] In fact, NIST never even tested for explosive residue.[citation needed] In response to independent researchers’ questions for clarification of their statement, NIST confessed that the federally-funded investigators did not check for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive. when asked the question, “Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?” The public response was that NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.[23] NIST did however admit WTC 7's free fall. This, despite the fact that standard operating procedure requests that checks be made for "exotic accelerants", indicators of which "include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth (which could not be put out for several months), brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete" and other evidence.[24] [25]  

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
File:Demolition access to the WTC towers.pdfessay22 February 2012Kevin Ryan
Dimitri Khalezov Interviewinterview14 October 2010Daniel Estulin
Dimitri Khalezov
Daniel Estulin probes the startling claims of Dimitri Khalezov - an ex-Soviet army nuclear weapons specialist - about the events of 9-11 and the then pending extradition of his colleague Victor Bout from Thailand to the USA on arms trafficking charges
Donald Rumsfeld and the demolition of WTC 7article22 May 2014Kevin RyanFurther evidence of Donald Rumsfeld's complicity in the events of 9/11, with particular reference to his substantial connection to WTC7 and his lying about it and its destruction..
E-mail from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayleemail11 November 2004Kevin RyanAn Email expressing puzzlement at NIST's unreasonable claims about steel melting from a jet fuel fire, after which the author was dismissed
Kevin Ryan - A personal Decisionarticle17 March 2011Kevin Ryan
File:NIST Analyses Brookman.pdfpaper26 March 2010Ronald Brookman
File:The physics of high-rise building collapses.pdfpaper24 August 2016Steven E. Jones
Robert Korol
Tony Szamboti
Ted Walte
On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.
File:Traces of Tritium at WTC.pdfarticle7 April 2002T.M. Semkow
R.S. Hafner
P.P Parekh
G.J. Wozniak
D.K. Haines
L. Husain
R.L. Rabun
P.G. Williams
This article was submitted to 23rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The Official Culprit

Use the Up/Dn symbols to sort

9-11/The 19 Hijackers

See Also


  1. For example, by Rudy Giuliani or the BBC
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20151005160936/http://www1.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/345-twin-towers-evidence-blows-away-fire-theory.html
  3. File:Nano-Thermite.pdf The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (2009): 7-31.
  4. http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/images/thumb/e/e8/723.jpg/50px-723.jpg
  5. https://isgp-studies.com/911-supranational-suspects
  6. Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State
  7. http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
  8. http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/617-faq-7-arent-the-red-gray-chips-identified-in-the-wtc-dust-merely-primer-paint-from-the-wtc-steel-structural-elements.html
  9. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
  11. http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html
  12. a b https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P131370.HTM
  13. https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC
  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFalp_wM7Y
  16. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
  17. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24insure.html?_r=3&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin&
  18. https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/
  19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z45hI6YuC-I
  20. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fema_911.html
  21. http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor
  22. “NIST Video: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Building Fell.” August 2008. NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology. July 2009
  23. Fletcher, Catherine S. “NIST Response to Request for Correction.” 27 September 2007. Journal of 9/11 Studies. July 2009 <http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf>
  24. section 19.2.4 on “Exotic Accelerants” of the National Fire Protection Association N.F.P .A. 921.
  25. The New Pearl Harbor, a 2013 video compiling 9-11 evidence by Massimo Mazzuco