PART 3:: BEYOND MISINFORMATION:DESTRUCTION OF W.T.C 7,HIGH TEMP THERMITIC REACTIONS

Review Committee 
Sarah Chaplin, Architect and Urban Development Consultant, Former Head of School of Architecture and Landscape, Kingston University, London 
Dr. Mohibullah Durrani, Professor of Engineering and Physics, Montgomery College, Maryland 
Richard Gage, AIA, Founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
Dr. Robert Korol, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario 
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Retired Professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies, McMaster University, Ontario Robert McCoy, Architect 
Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University 
Author 
Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
Technical Editor 
Chris Sarns 
Contributing Writers 
Craig McKee 
Chris Sarns 
Andrew Steele 
BEYOND MISINFORMATION 
What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704

The Destruction of W.T.C 7

Turn this on its side,you are looking at
W.T.C.7 Debris Field from above
This chapter provides an overview of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 7 during its destruction. The features that will be examined include W.T.C 7’s free fall, its dismemberment and compact debris pile, and eyewitness accounts of its destruction. In addition, anticipation by local authorities of W.T.C 7’s eventual collapse will be examined. 

In the last chapter, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 during their destruction and found that the hypothesis of controlled demolition much more readily, simply, and completely explains the available evidence than does the hypothesis of fire-induced failure. This was illustrated in part by the fact that N.I.S.T ignored and provided virtually no explanation in its final report for the behavior of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 after the point of collapse initiation. 

We will now examine the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 7 during its destruction and, in the same manner, evaluate whether it is more consistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition. Whereas N.I.S.T’s approach to W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 was to stop its analysis at the point of collapse initiation, N.I.S.T went beyond the point of collapse initiation with W.T.C 7. Yet, as we will see below, N.I.S.T still ignored a large amount of the relevant evidence, even going as far as attempting to deny the most important evidence: W.T.C 7’s sudden and symmetrical free fall. 

Sudden and Symmetrical Free Fall 

Today, N.I.S.T acknowledges that W.T.C 7 fell at a rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to slow down.1 David Chandler, a physics teacher who has studied the behavior of W.T.C 7 extensively, explains the significance of free fall in the article titled Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11: 
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html
Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down…. 

Applying this to W.T.C 7, he explains: 

Free fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall…. Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible…. 

Chandler and others therefore interpret W.T.C 7’s free fall as evidence of controlled demolition. How does N.I.S.T explain the occurrence of free fall according to its hypothesis of fire-induced failure? To answer that question satisfactorily, we must first examine N.I.S.T’s initial attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall. 

N.I.S.T’s Denial of Free Fall 

On August 21, 2008 — six years to the day after N.I.S.T’s World Trade Center investigation was first announced — N.I.S.T released its draft report on W.T.C 7 for public comment. In it, N.I.S.T described the collapse time of W.T.C 7 as being 40 percent longer than the time it would take to collapse in free fall: 

The time the roof line took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 seconds…. Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time…. 

N.I.S.T repeated this claim in its Questions and Answers about the N.I.S.T W.T.C 7 Investigation (W.T.C 7 F.A.Q's), stating unequivocally, “W.T.C 7 did not enter free fall.” N.I.S.T’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, repeated it again at N.I.S.T’s W.T.C 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, when asked the following question, which had been submitted by David Chandler: 

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of W.T.C 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside? 

Dr. Sunder responded by articulating the meaning of free fall in the clearest terms possible, but denied that is what happened in the case of W.T.C 7: 

A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. What the analysis shows…is that same time it took for the structural model to come down…is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. 

N.I.S.T’s Alleged 5.4

Second Collapse Time 

The reason for the discrepancy between Chandler’s measurement and N.I.S.T’s measurement is contained in Dr. Sunder’s statement above, where he explains that N.I.S.T’s computer model showed a collapse time of 5.4 seconds. As Chandler comments in Part 1 of the video series N.I.S.T Finally Admits Free Fall: 

Don’t you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds N.I.S.T measured for the collapse time just happens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model? That kind of precision is incredibly rare when modeling real world events. 

Indeed, when we count backwards 5.4 seconds from the point at which the roof line disappears from view, we find that there is no obvious, continuous movement of the building that could be reasonably interpreted as the start of the collapse. According to Chandler, “Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4-second measurement to match the model.” Then, N.I.S.T assumed that the downward acceleration during those 5.4 seconds was “approximately constant”2 — even though the building was almost entirely motionless for more than a second. Based upon this inaccurate characterization of W.T.C 7’s motion, N.I.S.T denied the occurrence of free fall. 

N.I.S.T’s Acknowledgment of Free Fall 

To the surprise of many observers, N.I.S.T reversed its position in its final report, acknowledging that W.T.C 7 did enter free fall for 2.25 seconds. But N.I.S.T still maintained the total collapse time of 5.4 seconds, which now comprised three separate stages: 

■ Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall) 

■ Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 

■ Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity 3 

However, in the first stage — which N.I.S.T characterizes as “a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded with the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors” — the building is actually nearly motionless. By asserting a first stage in which we are to imagine “the buckling of exterior columns” causing “a slow descent,” N.I.S.T is obscuring an important feature of W.T.C 7’s free fall: its sudden onset. In Part 3 of the video series N.I.S.T Finally Admits Free Fall, Chandler observes: 

What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [plotting the rate of acceleration] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly…. 

Chandler then describes a second important feature of W.T.C 7’s free fall: 

The onset of free fall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building. My measurement of the acceleration was based on the northwest corner. N.I.S.T’s recent measurement confirming free fall was based on a point midway along the roof line. 

Taking the rate of acceleration, suddenness, and symmetry of W.T.C 7’s descent into account, Chandler concludes: 

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled. 

N.I.S.T’s model of W.T.C 7’s collapse shows large deformations 

to the exterior of W.T.C 7 not observed in the videos, 

while failing to show 2.25 seconds of free fall.

While the hypothesis of controlled demolition explains W.T.C 7’s free fall readily, simply, and completely, N.I.S.T’s final report provided no explanation for how free fall was accomplished. It simply asserted, “The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of N.I.S.T N.C.S.T.A.R 1-9,” (the chapter that presents the results of N.I.S.T’s “global model”). But that statement is incorrect. The free fall in Stage 2 is not shown in N.I.S.T’s model. The failure of N.I.S.T’s computer model to replicate the observed descent of W.T.C 7 will be examined more closely in Chapter 6. 

WTC 7’s steel structure was dismembered 

and deposited into a compact debris pile.

Structural Dismemberment into 

a Compact Debris Pile 

As with the destruction W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, the steel structure of W.T.C 7 was almost entirely dismembered, though, unlike the debris from W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, “The debris of W.T.C 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building,” according to N.I.S.T. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, structural dismemberment is a key feature of controlled demolition. In a 1996 interview with NOVA, Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. described the process that is used to dismember a building’s structure and have it fall into its footprint: 

Depending on the height of the structure, we’ll work on a couple different floors — usually anywhere from two to six…. We work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces…. The term “implosion”… is a more descriptive way to explain what we do than “explosion.” There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn’t erupting outward. It’s actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we’re really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down. 

It is difficult to imagine an outcome that requires this high degree of planning and engineering being achieved by a spontaneous, fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse. Indeed, N.I.S.T’s computer model terminates shortly after the initiation of collapse, and N.I.S.T does not attempt to explain the structural dismemberment and compact debris compile in any other section of its report. 

Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions 

N.I.S.T claims in its W.T.C 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds were heard on audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of W.T.C 7 or reported by witnesses.” However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of W.T.C 7 contradict N.I.S.T’s claim. 

Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness accounts of explosions in W.T.C 7 as in W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly suggest explosions occurred immediately before and during W.T.C 7’s destruction. These include: 

■ Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: All of a sudden…I looked up, and… the thing started peeling in on itself…. I started running…and the whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it.4 

■ First-year NYU medical student identified as Darryl: We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder…. Turned around — we were shocked…. It looked like there was a shock wave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out…. About a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.5 

■ Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer first responder: And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.6

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield hears a loud sound from several blocks 

north of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my god…. This is it.

These eyewitness accounts are corroborated by M.S.N.B.C video footage of reporter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of W.T.C 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to W.T.C 7, and says, “Oh my god…. This is it.” About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, W.T.C 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video Sound Evidence for Explosions: 

There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: “The whole time you’re hearing ‘thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.’”…. 

When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall…. The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.

In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of W.T.C 7’s destruction, there were eyewitness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of W.T.C 7 prior to the collapse of W.T.C 1 at 10:28 AM.7 It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from W.T.C 1 impacting W.T.C 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of W.T.C 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed occurred before the collapse of W.T.C 1.8 

Foreknowledge of WTC 7’s Destruction 

About an hour after the destruction of W.T.C 1 at 10:28 AM, the authorities at the World Trade Center began anticipating the collapse of W.T.C 7 with a high degree of confidence and precision. Their anticipation was so strong that the media widely reported on W.T.C 7’s imminent collapse, with some news outlets even reporting the collapse before it occurred. A selection of accounts showing this widespread anticipation is presented in Appendix B on page 46. 

The official hypothesis would have us believe that the authorities’ anticipation was “evidence-based,” a prediction made on the basis of assessing the damage and fires in W.T.C 7. However, when examined closely, the high degree of confidence and precision suggests that it was instead knowledge-based. In other words, someone at the scene had foreknowledge that W.T.C 7 was going to be brought down and began warning others in order to avoid casualties and to create the cover story of a fire-induced failure. Thus, the warnings were couched as an evidence-based prediction that the building would collapse due to structural damage and fire. 

The view that the anticipation was knowledge-based rather than evidence-based is strongly supported by the following facts: 

■ N.I.S.T’s probable collapse sequence consists of an unprecedented and undetectable series of structural failures that could not be predicted on the basis of observing structural damage (which N.I.S.T later claimed did not contribute to the collapse) and fires. If we assume N.I.S.T’s hypothesis to be true, there would be no reason to anticipate a total collapse, even within the seconds before it occurred. Based on N.I.S.T’s scenario, the event that the authorities predicted had an infinitesimal probability of occurring until just seconds before it did. At that point, an extremely improbable chain of events unfolded and made their prediction correct. Such a scenario is not plausible. 

■ A number of buildings in the vicinity were on fire and sustained much greater damage from the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2. Yet authorities seized on W.T.C 7 as the one building that was certain to go down and established a safety zone around it. 

■ The F.E.M.A Building Performance Study concluded that the best hypothesis it could come up with had “only a low probability of occurrence.” How were the authorities able to predict such a low-probability event? 

■ Engineers were “stunned by what happened to 7 World Trade Center” and unable to explain it. Even as late as March 2006, N.I.S.T’s lead investigator told New York Magazine, “I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” How were the authorities able to predict an event that engineers would be unable to explain even four and half years later? 

■ A CNN video captured both the sound of an explosion coming from W.T.C 7 and an emergency worker’s warning that W.T.C 7 was “about to blow up” just seconds before its destruction: 

[Sound of explosion]. Unidentified voice: “You hear that?” Voice of emergency worker #1: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down….” Voice of emergency worker #2: “Building is about to blow up, move it back…. Here we are looking back, there’s a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down.”9 

■ There are at least four accounts showing that a controlled demolition was being considered or planned. (See Appendix B on page 46.) 

Table 5: 

How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Regarding the Structural Behavior of WTC 7 

NIST: 

FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE 

Sudden Symmetrical Free Fall: 

Attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall. Then acknowledge it but obscure its significance and 

provide no explanation.

Structural Dismemberment into a Compact Debris Pile Terminate computer model shortly after collapse initiation and provide no explanation for observed phenomena

Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions 

Deny the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Foreknowledge of Destruction 

Provide a hypothesis that is incompatible with the high degree of confidence and precision with which the destruction of W.T.C 7 was anticipated.

INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS: 

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION 

Sudden Symmetrical Free Fall 

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives were used to remove all of the columns simultaneously. 

Structural Dismemberment into a Compact Debris Pile Acknowledge and interpret as evidence that explosives dismembered the structure and deposited it 

into a compact debris pile. 

Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions 

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of explosives. 

Foreknowledge of Destruction

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of foreknowledge that W.T.C 7 was going to be brought down.

Conclusion 

In this chapter we examined three areas of evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 7 during its destruction, as well as the anticipation by local authorities of W.T.C 7’s eventual collapse. Table 5 above presents each area of evidence and shows how researchers supporting the competing hypotheses have accounted for this evidence. 

First, we found that N.I.S.T attempted to deny the most important evidence regarding W.T.C 7’s destruction: its sudden and symmetrical free fall. N.I.S.T later acknowledged that W.T.C 7 entered free fall, but it obscured the significance of free fall and provided no explanation for how it was accomplished. We then saw that N.I.S.T provided no explanation for W.T.C 7’s structural dismemberment and compact debris pile, and that it denied the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions. Finally, we saw that N.I.S.T provided a hypothesis of fire-induced failure that is incompatible with the high degree of confidence and precision with which the destruction of W.T.C 7 was anticipated. 

On the other hand — as with W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 — the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 7 during its destruction. It also explains the high degree of confidence and precision with which W.T.C 7’s destruction was anticipated. 

5

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

This chapter provides an overview of evidence showing the occurrence of high temperature thermitic reactions in the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. The evidence that will be examined includes molten metal seen pouring out of W.T.C 2, molten metal in the debris of all three buildings, sulfidated steel in W.T.C 7, and iron spherules and nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust.
 

In the last two chapters, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 during their destruction. We will now turn to evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature chemical reactions before and during the destruction of the buildings. As in previous chapters, we will evaluate whether this evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis of fire-induced failure or the hypothesis of controlled demolition. 

To guide our evaluation of the competing hypotheses, we will apply the third principle discussed earlier — “None of the relevant evidence should be ignored” — to the investigation of high-temperature chemical reactions. “Chapter 23: Explosions” of N.F.P.A 921, which is the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations, states: “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria as well as any other significant data.” On the potential use of exotic accelerates, including thermite, N.F.P.A 921 advises: “Indicators of exotic accelerates include…melted steel or concrete.” 

As we will see below, N.I.S.T did not follow N.F.P.A 921. Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions in much the same way it handled the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical explanation for the occurrence of high-temperature chemical reactions other than controlled demolition using thermite-based mechanisms. 

Molten Metal Pouring out of W.T.C 2 

A thermite reaction.

Molten aluminum

Just before 9:52 AM, molten metal began pouring out of W.T.C 2 near the northeast corner of the 80th floor and continued to flow with increasing intensity until the collapse at 9:59 AM. N.I.S.T provided ample documentation of the pouring molten metal, which it described and hypothesized as follows: 

KEY TERMS 

Thermite: A mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). When ignited, the aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron at 2,500°C (4,500°F). It is typically used for welding railroad ties and in grenades. It is not typically used in controlled demolitions. 

Nano-thermite: Thermite made of nano-particles (~four billionths of an inch). Its increased surface area causes it to burn much faster than conventional thermite. 

Just over a second [after 9:51:51 AM], a bright spot appeared at the top of one window…and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location…. 

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum…. The Aluminum Association Handbook…lists the melting point ranges for the alloys [comprising the Boeing 767 structure] as roughly 500°C to 638°C and 475°C to 635°C…. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (c. 1,000°C)….1 

But, as Dr. Steven Jones writes in Why Indeed Did the W.T.C Buildings Completely Collapse, this claim is untenable due to the color of the molten metal: 

Is the falling molten metal from W.T.C Tower 2…more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction OR pouring molten aluminum? 

The yellow color implies a molten metal temperature of approximately 1,000°C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce…. Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground…further rules out aluminum…. 

We also noted in our experiments that…the falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. 

In its FAQs posted in August 2006, almost a year after the release of its final report, N.I.S.T attempted to address the criticism that molten aluminum would have a silvery appearance: 

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials… which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. 

While N.I.S.T did not test its hypothesis — merely asserting that it was “very likely” — Dr. Jones did: 

N.I.S.T states the hypothesis that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, “can display an orange glow.” But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out…. Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum…. 

In the videos of the molten metal falling from W.T.C 2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude from all of these studies that the falling metal which poured out of W.T.C 2 is NOT aluminum. 

Nine years later, N.I.S.T still has not conducted its own experiments to verify its hypothesis, nor has it revised its F.A.Q's to account for the results of Dr. Jones’ experiments. 

Molten Metal in the Debris 

Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of W.T.C 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below: 

■ Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, told an audience: “We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this.’ And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing.”2 

■ F.D.N.Y Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” Other firefighters chimed in: “Like lava.” “Like lava from a volcano.”3 

This photograph, taken by Frank Silecchia on September 27, 2001, 

shows a piece of metal being dug up that is salmon-to-yellow color, 

indicating temperatures from 845°C (1,550°F) to 1,040°C (1,900°F)

■ Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”4 

According to N.I.S.T, the highest temperature reached by the fires was 1,100°C. Yet structural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F). How then did N.I.S.T explain the evidence of molten metal? N.I.S.T’s first approach was to omit the evidence of molten metal from its final report. Then, in its August 2006 F.A.Q's, it addressed that evidence with the following question and answer. 

13. Why did the N.I.S.T investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the W.T.C towers? 

N.I.S.T investigators…found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the W.T.C towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the W.T.C towers were standing…. 

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. 

Each claim in N.I.S.T’s answer is demonstrably unscientific: 

■ In the first sentence, N.I.S.T assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face. 

The eroded, sulfidated steel from WTC 7 at the scrapyard 

before it was cut off and taken for testing

John Gross, who represented NIST on the FEMA Building Performance 

Study, poses next to the eroded, sulfidated steel. NIST would later 

claim that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, and 

John Gross would deny the existence of molten metal.

■ N.I.S.T’s next claim — “The condition of the steel in the wreckage…was irrelevant to the investigation…since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the W.T.C towers were standing” — flies in the face of forensic investigation principles. Recall N.F.P.A 921, which explicitly advises, “Indicators of exotic accelerates include…melted steel or concrete.” Furthermore, in science, evidence is not ignored on the basis that it is not conclusive by itself. N.I.S.T’s claim is yet more problematic because molten metal was observed pouring out of W.T.C 2 — “when the W.T.C towers were standing” — as N.I.S.T documented extensively 

■ N.I.S.T’s next claim is simply false. It is impossible for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach temperatures close to the 1,482°C (2,700°F) required to melt steel, particularly in an oxygen-starved debris pile. 

■ Finally, with the expression “Any molten metal in the wreckage,” N.I.S.T neither confirmed nor denied the existence of molten metal. In an investigation that followed N.F.P.A 921, N.I.S.T would have sought to establish whether molten metal was present and, if so, what its source was. 

However, outright denial would be the approach used by N.I.S.T investigator John Gross. In a talk at the University of Texas in October 2006, he responded to a question about the presence of molten metal with the following answer: 

First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who has said so, nobody who’s produced it. I was on the site. I was on the steel yards. So I don’t know that that’s so. Steel melts at around 2,600°F. I think it’s probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a fire.5 

Sulfidated Steel in W.T.C 7 

In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote: 

Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [W.P.I]…suggests that sulfur released during the fires—no one knows from where may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.6 

The W.P.I professors, who were “shocked” by the “Swiss cheese appearance”7 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the F.E.M.A Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation: 

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified…. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed….” 

A simple explanation for the source of sulfur, as well as the high-temperature corrosion and erosion, is “thermate,” which is produced when sulfur is added to thermite. In Revisiting 9/11—Applying the Scientific Method, Dr. Steven Jones explains: 

When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the steel melt at a much lower temperature, so instead of melting at about 1,538°C it melts at approximately 988°C, and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel…. 

The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. 

How did N.I.S.T respond to 

F.E.M.A’s recommendation? 

First, N.I.S.T ignored it — thus ignoring what the The New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 

Second, N.I.S.T claimed that no identifiable steel was recovered from W.T.C 7, providing the following answer in its W.T.C 7 F.A.Q's: 

Once debris was removed from the scene, the steel from W.T.C 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike pieces of steel from W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, W.T.C 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics. 

Third, when asked at N.I.S.T’s W.T.C 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, whether N.I.S.T had tested “any W.T.C 7 debris for explosive or incendiary chemical residues,” N.I.S.T lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder replied:

There is reference often made to a piece of steel from Building 7…. But that piece of steel has been subsequently analyzed by Professor Barnett and by Professor Rick Sisson, who is also from W.P.I…and they reported in a B.B.C interview that aired on July 6 2008 that there was no evidence that any residue in that…piece of steel had any relationship to an…incendiary device in the building. 

Besides contradicting N.I.S.T’s position that no identifiable steel was recovered from W.T.C 7, Dr. Sunder’s response raises the question: Why did N.I.S.T not ask to study that piece of steel if they knew it existed? Furthermore, why did N.I.S.T not perform experiments to verify the leading fire-based explanation for the source of sulfur, which was the buildings’ gypsum wallboard? 

Though N.I.S.T was not up to the task, a civil engineer named Jonathan Cole was. In his experiment documented in the video 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel, he used a wide flange beam packed with crushed gypsum board, crushed concrete, aluminum scraps, steel scraps, and diesel fuel, and he burned it for 24 hours, continually adding fuel such as brush, furniture, floor panels, and wood logs. At the end of his experiment he reported: 

The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel, and building materials did not cause any intergranular melting. So, if these materials did not cause the intergranular melting and sulfidation, then some uncommon substance that is not normally found in buildings must have caused it…. 

There is a reason why NIST…never conducted any experiments or found that source of sulfur in order to solve this deepest of mysteries. Perhaps NIST knew the most logical cause of the sulfidation of the steel is from some type of thermitic reaction…. 

Iron Spherules and Other 

Particles in the WTC Dust 

Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the W.T.C dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 — and possibly W.T.C 7. 

The R.J Lee Report 

Released in May 2004, the R.J Lee report titled W.T.C Dust Signature identified “spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust. 

An earlier 2003 version of R.J Lee’s report observed: 

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the W.T.C event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the W.T.C dust…but are not common in normal office dust. 

The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the W.T.C dust. 

Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in R.J Lee’s report: 

The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool. 

The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F). 

The U.S.G.S Report 

Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the W.T.C dust and presented micro-graphs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.” 

Steven Jones et al. 

Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier R.J Lee and U.S.G.S reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of W.T.C dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors: 

The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air. 

In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the U.S.G.S study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the U.S.G.S study was obtained through a F.O.I.A request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F). 

Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the R.J Lee report (quoting from the R.J Lee report): 

Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)…. These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. 

Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed: 

If the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the R.J Lee report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C. 

They then provided a table (see Table 6 below) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.

Table 6: 

Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required 

PROCESS AND MATERIAL °C °F 

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with 

~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 

To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 

To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 

To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000 

The closest N.I.S.T has come to acknowledging the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the W.T.C dust was in an email communication with an independent researcher following the release of N.I.S.T’s draft report on W.T.C 7. N.I.S.T replied to the researcher’s inquiry with a single sentence: “The N.I.S.T investigative team has not seen a coherent and credible hypothesis for how iron-rich spheres could be related to the collapse of W.T.C 7.”8 

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust 

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent W.T.C dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite. 

Features Indicative of Thermite 

■ The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide. 

■ Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron. 

■ They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions. 

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite 

■ The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.” 

■ The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed. 

■ When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.” 

■ They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C. 

■ Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material. 

■ Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.” 

The presence of the above-described substance in the W.T.C dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. What other explanations for this substance exist? 

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the redgray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not. 

The second possibility is that the W.T.C dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red/gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of W.T.C 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day. 

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has N.I.S.T responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the W.T.C dust. 

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the W.T.C dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials. 

N.I.S.T’s Refusal to Test for 

Explosives or Thermite Residues 

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, N.I.S.T has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. N.I.S.T provides the following question and answer in its F.A.Q's on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2: 

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? 

N.I.S.T did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel…. Analysis of the W.T.C steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the W.T.C towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions. 

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, N.I.S.T conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive (see Chapter 6). Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during N.I.S.T’s investigation, N.I.S.T had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive. Moreover, N.I.S.T’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. 

This argument was made in the Appeal of N.I.S.T’s response to the Request for Correction filed in 2007, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.: 

When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition…. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…. The results of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present…. 

The Appeal therefore argued: 

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive…. Unless N.I.S.T can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive. 

N.I.S.T ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario. 

Table 7: 

How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Showing the Occurrence of High-Temperature Chemical Reactions 

NIST: FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE 

Molten Metal Pouring out of W.T.C 2 

Document extensively. Without performing experiments, claim that it was molten aluminum from the airplane mixed with organic materials.

Molten Metal in the Debris Neither confirm nor deny. Speculatively and erroneously suggest that steel could have melted in the rubble.

Sulfidated Steel in W.T.C 7 

Ignore F.E.M.A’s recommendation for further study.

Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the W.T.C Dust 

Ignore completely. 

 Nano-thermite in the W.T.C Dust 

Ignore completely. 

INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS:

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION 

Molten Metal Pouring out of W.T.C 2  

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of a thermite reaction. Conduct experiments that rule out N.I.S.T’s explanation. 

Molten Metal in the Debris 

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of thermite reactions. 

Sulfidated Steel in W.T.C 7  

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of thermate reactions. 

Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the W.T.C Dust 

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of extremely high temperatures caused by thermite reactions. 

Nano-thermite in the W.T.C Dust 

Acknowledge and interpret as evidence of the use of nanothermite in the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7.

Conclusion 

In this chapter we examined five areas of evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic reactions in the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. Table 7 above presents each area of evidence and shows how researchers who support the competing hypotheses have accounted for this evidence. 

We found that N.I.S.T provided woefully inadequate and erroneous explanations for the molten metal seen pouring out of W.T.C 2 and in the debris of all three buildings. Furthermore, N.I.S.T provided no explanation for the sulfidatation of steel in W.T.C 7 and no explanation for evidence of extremely high temperatures in the W.T.C dust, except to deny that a coherent and credible hypothesis to explain it existed. Finally, N.I.S.T has not commented on the discovery of unreacted nano-thermite in the W.T.C dust. 

On the other hand — as with the structural behavior of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 — the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic reactions. 

NOTES
Chapter 4 
1. NIST: NCSTAR 1A, p. 48. 
2. NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 40. The term “descent speed” was an error made by NIST. “Acceleration” was meant. 
3. This condensed description of the three stages of WTC 7’s collapse appears in NIST’s WTC 7 FAQs. 
4. https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4. 
5. http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ wtc7_med2.wma. 
6. https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8. 
7. Hess: https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc; Jennings: https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4. 
8. Griffin, pp. 84–111. 
9. https://youtu.be/cU_43SwWD9A. 

Chapter 5 
1. NIST: NCSTAR 1-5A, pp. 374–376. 
2. https://youtu.be/lDnbfXLUyI4. 
3. https://youtu.be/nsw2j-3MCMg. 
4. https://youtu.be/KtyrMt7GzyE. 
5. https://youtu.be/wcqf5tL887o. 
6. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric: “A Search for Clues in the Towers’ Collapse,” The New York Times (February 2, 2002). 
7. Killough-Miller, Joan: “The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations (Spring 2002). 
8. Griffin, pp. 43, 282. Griffin describes an email exchange between researcher Shane Geiger and NIST public affairs officer Gail Porter, which Geiger shared with Griffin.