15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
Neither the name “Marvin Bush” nor “Wirt Walker” appears in the Commission Report. The report does not discuss the security system at the World Trade Center, or who operated it.
There are numerous claims inherent in this allegation. But first we have to identify the company in question. On page 31 of Dr Griffin’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission and Distortions the name of the company is provided in a quote from another book:
Quote:
One of many of the ironies of the attack was that Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, owned stock in and had served as a director of a company, Stratesec, that handled security for three clients that figured prominently in the attack – United Airlines; Dulles Airport, from which American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked; and the World Trade Center itself.
Unger, C.; House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties, New York & Lindon: Scribner (2004), pg.249.
Dr Griffin further clarifies in the footnotes:
Quote:
The company at the time was named Securacom.
Thus:
Quote:
a) The claim inherent in the allegations is that Marvin Bush is President Bush’s brother, and Wirt Walker III is President Bush’s cousin.
b) The claim inherent in the allegation is that both Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III were principals in Securacom.
c) The claim inherent in the allegation is that Securacom were in charge of security at the WTC.
In regards to Marvin Bush:
Quote:
Marvin Pierce Bush (born October 22, 1956) is the youngest son of George H. W. Bush and Barbara Pierce, and brother of George W., John (Jeb), Neil and Dorothy. He is named for his maternal grandfather. He and wife Margaret have two adopted children: a daughter, Marshall, and a son, Walker.
However any relationship to Wirt Walker III is questionable:
Quote:
Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no connection between the families.
The oldest descendant with the surname “Walker” is David Davis Walker (1840 – 1918):
Quote:
David Davis Walker was born in near Bloomington, Illinois 19 Jan 1840. David died 4 Oct 1918 in Kennebunkeport, Maine, at 78 years of age.
He married Martha Adela Beaky in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, 25 Dec 1862. Martha was born in Emmitsburg, Frederick, Maryland 1 Jun 1841. Martha was the daughter of Joseph Ambrose Beaky and Mary Ann Bangs.
David Davis Walker and Martha Adela Beaky had the following children: - Joseph Sidney Walker was born in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 11 Oct 1863. - William Hargadine Walker was born in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 10 Sep 1864. - Rose Marion Walker was born in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 10 Aug 1867. - David Davis Walker was born in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 7 Apr 1870. - George Herbert Walker was born 11 Jun 1875.
So it would appear Wirt D Walker III is unrelated to President Bush. But what of the role of these individuals is Securacom/Stratesec?
Quote:
Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
…
While on the board, Marvin Bush served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. He acquired 53,000 shares of stock in the company at 52 cents a share, partly through his private company, Andrews-Bush, located in northern Virginia. Shares in the 1997 initial offering sold at $8.50.
Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold.
It would appear that Marvin Bush was on the board of Securacom, although this position appears to have ceased in June 2000 – a full 14 months before the September 11 Attacks.
The question then becomes, what was Securacom’s role at the World Trade Center? At this point it is worth identifying what Dr Griffin contends the significance of their presence is:
Quote:
Of course, if the Twin Towers as well as WTC-7 had been fitted with explosives so that they could be “pulled” at the appropriate time, we would have an explanation as to how some people could have known in advance that the buildings were going to collapse. Relevant to this possibility might be the fact that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principals in the company that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.
Griffin, D.R.; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, pg.31
It appears Griffin’s allegation is that Marvin Bush’s position, as a member of the Board of Securacom, allowed unknown persons to enter the World Trade Center buildings undetected and wire them with explosives. The notion itself is absurd. Fifty thousand people worked in the Twin Towers alone, and some of the offices were occupied around the clock. Assistance from the company that controlled security might indeed allow demolition crews to bypass security, but it could not conceal their work from the thousands of people who worked in the towers.
Bearing this in mind, did Securacom run security at the World Trade Center? The short answer is, no. Securacom’s work at the World Trade Center started as a result of a security upgrade in the aftermath of the 1993 Bombing. But they weren’t the major contractor:
Quote:
E-J Electric Installation Co., the country's oldest independent electrical contractor, won a $28 million contract in 1996 to tighten security at the World Trade Center. The Long Island City, N.Y.-based contractor installed 2 million feet of fiber-optic cable, hundreds of security cameras, access control and 110 turnstiles, including systems integration. The parking garage also became restricted after a terrorist drove a van, containing a bomb, into the underground parking garage in 1993.
Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor.
Securacom’s United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings reflect this:
Quote:
Revenues increased by 108.6% from $5.8 million in 1996 to $12.1 million in 1997. The increase was due to work completed for new clients and an increase in work completed on existing projects. Revenues from the World Trade Center project, which commenced in October 1996, increased from $1.6 million in 1996 to $6.6 million in 1997.
All of Securacom’s SEC filings are available online.
It appears Securacom were not “in charge” of security at the WTC at all, much less on 9/11. These records suggest they were involved in a particular aspect of upgrading the security system from 1996 until 1998.
So who was running security at the World Trade Center? That responsibility appears to have been somewhat shared between the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) and a private company called Kroll Inc.
Quote:
I am a Police Officer in the employ of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. I have been such for the greater part of the last 23 years. On Sept. 11th, 2001, our Police Department suffered the greatest single day loss in Law Enforcement history at the World Trade Center. 37 Officers from every rank (Superintendent to Police Officer) as well as my partner, explosive detector K-9 Sirius were killed in the attack. Many would ask what the PAPD was doing in the World Trade Center. A little known fact was that we were always there. Since the Port Authority owned the buildings, we (the Police) were responsible for the public safety therein.
Kroll Inc. were responsible for security at the entire WTC site on 9/11, and they appointed former FBI counter-terrorism expert John O’Neill as head of security less than a month before the attacks.
Quote:
He hears about a job opening as head of security at the World Trade Center. It would mean a significant salary increase, but also it would mean leaving the FBI. By this point, however, O'Neill realizes his chances for a promotion were severely hurt by the briefcase incident. In addition to career problems, entertaining foreign visitors and O'Neill's lifestyle had left him in debt. The job at the World Trade Center would give him a chance to pay off that debt.
O'Neill, 49, became chief of security at the World Trade Center last month following a 25-year career with the FBI. While with the FBI, O'Neill was in charge of national security in New York, and he may have died at the hands of terrorists he had trailed in the role.
"That's the irony here, that he would perish in this way,” said Bucknam, who was an adviser to former FBI director Louis Freeh and now is managing director of the Kroll Associates security consultants. "He ate, drank and slept fighting terrorists. Apart from the human loss, it's a real loss of talent.”
John P. O'Neill : A Career Fighting Terrorism McGinty, J.C.; Newsday, September 14, 2001 Source
Quote:
O'Neill had recently retired from the FBI and had just taken over security for the World Trade Center, said New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.
"That Tuesday was his first or second day on the job," Kerik said Friday in an interview with CNN's Larry King Live. . "He was going to go into One World Trade, the tower one, and when the strike came he went into the second tower in an attempt to help people get out of the building and he died there. We found his body today."
Some of us did see the emerging pattern and shouted out in alarm. John O'Neill, for example, who was named the head of security at the World Trade Center in New York two weeks before September 11, was one. I knew and respected John; Kroll helped to place him in the job that cost him his life.
Upon investigation, Dr Griffin’s claims appear weak at best. Many of those responsible for security in the World Trade Center site were killed in the collapse of the buildings; an unlikely outcome had they been party to the attacks.
Quote:
a) The claim that Marvin Bush is President Bush’s brother, and Wirt Walker III is President Bush’s cousin is partially rejected. While Marvin Bush is the President’s brother, Wirt Walker III appears to be unrelated.
b) The claim that both Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III were principals in Securacom is conditionally accepted. Marvin Bush was involved in the company, however his involvement ended long before the 9/11 Attacks. Given that Wirt Walker III appears to be unrelated to President Bush, his involvement in the company is irrelevant.
c) The claim that Securacom were in charge of security at the WTC is rejected.
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
Regarding advanced knowledge of the collapse of WTC2, the 9/11 Commission Report states:
Quote:
To our knowledge none of the chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible. One senior chief did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the 60s. (p.302)
Quote:
At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC has just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse. (p.302)
Quote:
At 9:51, an aviation unit warned units of large pieces of debris hanging from the building. Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse. (p.304)
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that Mayor Giuliani made a statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.
As with many of Dr Griffin’s claims, there’s also an implied claim in this allegation.
The implied claim is that there is something sinister regarding this statement. This is supported by Dr Griffin’s reference to this statement in his book Omissions and Distortions.
Quote:
This is a remarkable statement. There was no publicly available reason to believe that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. After all, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never before collapsed because of fire, and the fires in the Twin Towers were even raging, all-consuming fires.
Griffin, D.R.; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, p.30-31
As previously discussed, Dr Griffin’s representation of the WTC fires is entirely dishonest and untrue, and this goes a significant way towards refuting his claim. In the fire at One Meridian Plaza we saw that firefighters evacuated the building out of fear that it would collapse.
The first question is, what did Mayor Giuliani actually say? Here’s the recording that is being discussed:
Quote:
I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
A number of things are immediately apparent from this statement. Firstly, he doesn’t say they were told either building was going to suffer a total collapse. Some firefighters reported that they felt a partial collapse of the upper floors was likely in a few hours.
Quote:
As the conditions deteriorated, the FDNY commanders had to judge whether the buildings were in danger of collapse. Building collapse, like other dangers to response personnel, is a constant concern in firefighting.
Specific chiefs are tasked with responsibility for tracking these safety issues. The best estimate of one senior chief, provided to the chief of the department sometime between 9:25 and 9:45, was that there might be a danger of collapse in a few hours, and therefore units probably should not ascend above floors in the sixties.
The second thing of note is he doesn’t indicate how many minutes or seconds before collapse he was notified. What he does say is: and it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building. How much warning were they given? Minutes? Seconds? The Mayor had others with him at that moment, and some of their accounts may hold the answer:
Quote:
In addition to the Mayor and the Police Commissioner, several Deputy Mayors and Senior City Hall staff were at the command post. The Mayor was on the phone with the White House, and had been told the White House was being evacuated. Suddenly, the building began to shake, and someone yelled the towers were coming down. We could hear the roar of the building collapsing, and then there was silence and darkness.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek Magazine provides a similar account (he himself was not present at the time):
Quote:
From there Giuliani, needing phone lines, commandeered a Merrill Lynch back office at 75 Barclay Street. After 45 minutes someone yelled, "Get down! It’s coming down!"
Joseph J. Lhota, the deputy mayor for operations, was also present:
Quote:
As Fire Department officials headed toward the Trade Center, Lhota and the others went to 75 Barclay Street, formerly a Merrill Lynch office, searching for working phone lines — “communications meant everything at that point, and cell phones were useless, overloaded with calls,” Lhota says. “We got through to the governor’s office and peppered them with questions: Is this terrorism? Are more planes on the way? Are the airports closed? Should we close the tunnels? The mayor also wanted to talk to the White House. As I handed him the phone, saying, ‘Vice President Cheney is about to get on the line,’ a police official ran in yelling, ‘Get down! Everybody get down! It’s coming down!’ ”
Emmons, G.; Back in Business, Harvard Business School Bulletin, April 2002
These accounts suggest that the advanced notice the mayor received wasn’t advanced at all, but was a direct response to the beginning of the collapse. This indeed, would not be enough time to get out of the building.
Finally, Giuliani clarifies the matter in response to a direct question (from timecode 00:01:00:00):
Quote:
Well the fact is that, ah, I didn’t realise the towers would collapse, I never realised that, what I… [interruption] …if I can complete the sentence, if you’d give me the courtesy to complete the sentence. Our understanding was that over a long period of time, the way other buildings collapse, the towers could collapse. Meaning over a seven, eight, nine, ten hour period. No one that I knew of had any idea that they would implode. That was a complete surprise. Thank you.
-Rudolph Giuliani
Certainly these accounts bring into question the assertion that Mayor Giuliani even received prior warning. But even if he did, is Dr Griffin’s secondary claim, that there was no publicly available reason to believe that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, valid?
There’s certainly some indicators that perhaps the collapse of the towers wasn’t entirely unexpected by everyone.
Quote:
By 9:30 a.m., after both planes had struck, a rumor was circulating that a third hijacked plane was headed to New York. Assistant Chief Joseph Callan recalled feeling the north tower move. "I made the decision that the building was no longer safe," the chief told the Fire Department's oral history interviewers.
"All units in Building 1," he announced over the radio at 9:32. "All units in Building 1, come out, down to the lobby. Everybody down to the lobby."
Dwyer, J., Flynn, K. and Fessenden, F.; Fatal Confusion, New York Times, July 7 2002
Chief Callan provided more detail of his reason for this evacuation call in his FDNY testimony:
Quote:
Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.
There’s also more information about the engineer who notified an EMS outside WTC7 that the towers would collapse, as recounted in the Commission Report.
Quote:
I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I’m not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him ‘You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse.’ So, he left off in that direction.
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 said okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.
Q. You were by yourself?
A. I was by myself, me and my helmet and my radio. I got to the corner of Vesey and West. I found some EMS vehicles. I think I saw Chief Gombo there. I'm not really sure. 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.
As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. 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 escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the [expletive removed] 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.
There’s also anecdotal evidence that others foresaw a building collapse:
Quote:
My Thayer School engineering training came back, and I realized that with that intensity of heat in a building in which the steel girders were insulated with asbestos, it had to collapse within one hour. I called the fire department, police, etc. and told them the building was guaranteed to collapse. I was told that 911 was only for emergencies, and I should call somewhere else.
The claim, that Mayor Giuliani made a statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse, is conditionally rejected. It appears he was notified of the collapse as it happened.
Quote:
The implied claim, that there was no publicly available reason to believe that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, is rejected.
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).
The 9/11 Commission Report addresses the events of the attack itself, and does not detail the clean-up process at Ground Zero.
12. The claim inherent in the allegation is that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analysed for evidence of explosives.
13. The claim inherent in the allegation is that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel – that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel – made no sense in this case.
Complaints about the debris from the WTC disaster being removed without being analysed are one of the few Conspiracy Theory claims ever supported by the mainstream media:
Quote:
The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be know.
Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall New York Times, December 25, 2001
And professionals in the relevant fields:
Quote:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
Manning, B.; $elling Out the Investigation Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002
Conspiracy Theorists often cite the rapid removal of steel as evidence that the WTC site was never treated as a crime scene, despite being the site of the worst crime in American history. This is often coupled with a claim that there has never been a criminal investigation of the attacks.
This is, in fact, completely false. In earlier claims I referenced FBI press releases concerning the hijackers. The FBI did undertake a criminal investigation of the September 11 attacks, and it began with a low key press release on the day itself:
Quote:
The FBI has established a location on the Internet for individuals to report information concerning today's incidents in the United States.
What began as a brief press release quickly became the largest criminal investigation in the FBI’s history. This investigation ultimately resulted in the successful prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui who, on May 4 2006, was sentenced to serve six consecutive life terms without possibility of parole for his involvement in the attacks.
The magnitude of the FBI response is summarised in a testimony by Michael E. Rolince, Acting Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 25th June 2003.
Quote:
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI's response was immediate. In a matter of hours we had deployed to each of the crash sites, ordered dozens of seasoned management personnel back to Washington, and fully staffed a 24/7 operation at our Command Center with up to 500 persons representing approximately 30 federal agencies. At the height of the 9/11 investigation, known as PENTTBOM, the FBI assigned 7,000 agents to assist full-time. The majority were reassigned from other national security and criminal investigative work. The lack of prior counterterroism training and experience, although not recognized by the OIG, needs to be factored into this discussion.
…
Meanwhile, PENTTBOM became the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. In spite of operating under severe handicaps, the New York Office - relocated to a garage on 26th street, and lacking a proficient infrastructure - began a 24/7 operation utilizing 300 investigators from 37 agencies. The 1-800 toll-free line set up in our Atlanta office received 180,000 calls from a shocked public eager to assist. 225,000 e-mails were received on the FBI's internet site. Evidence response teams from throughout the country were dispatched to New York, Washington and Pittsburgh.
Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs.
Testimony of Michael E. Rolince Acting Assistant Director in Charge Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 25 June 2003
A document produced by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. gives some insight into the enormous scale of the Fresh Kills crime scene where the debris from the WTC site was processed.
Quote:
The last debris was processed on July 26, 2002, day 321 of the project. At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed • 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero) • 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour • 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process • 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination • Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked • Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered • 4,257 body parts had been recovered • 209 victims had been positively identified
The FBI supports this with their own specific information about the Fresh Kills crime scene:
Quote:
• The site covered 175 acres. • 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day • 17,000 tons of material were processed daily. • 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists. • New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero -- and one, Special Agent Gerry Fornino, personally worked over 1,818 hours at the vehicle recovery operation with the Port Authority and NYPD.
Furthermore, NIST – the agency that investigated the collapse of the towers – did have access to steel from the buildings, and used it in their study.
Quote:
Within weeks of the destruction of the WTC, contractors of New York City had begun cutting up and removing the debris from the site. Members of the FEMA-sponsored and ASCE-led Building Performance Assessment Team, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley, CA, with support from the National Science Foundation, had begun work to identify and collect WTC structural steel from various recycling yards where the steel was taken during the clean-up effort. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) also collected structural steel elements for future exhibits and memorials.
Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. These samples ranged in size and complexity from a nearly complete three-column, three-floor perimeter assembly to bolts and small fragments.
NIST NCSTAR1: Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, p.87
Explosive residue is not the only sign of a controlled demolition. Use of explosives leaves a great deal of easily visible evidence including unique damage markings and remnants of materials used to carry out the detonation, including blasting caps, brackets used to secure explosives to columns, and thousands of feet of detonation cord. In regular demolitions these are littered throughout the debris pile in vast quantities.
During the cleanup process at Ground Zero, approximately 40,000 people worked on the site. These people came from a diverse range of industries, with a wide range of experience and expertise. These included ironworkers, search and rescue teams, forensic scientists, FBI special agents, FBI evidence response teams, engineers, construction workers, military personnel, CIA agents, FEMA staff, aviation crash investigators, police officers, firemen, paramedics, and demolition crews. Not one single person who worked in this site has ever testified to having found any evidence of a controlled demolition, despite the fact that some have suffered severe medical harm and even death as a result of toxic dust at the site. People who are dying due to destroyed lungs because the government said it was safe to work at Ground Zero have no vested interest whatsoever in hiding evidence that the official account of the attacks is false.
Dr Griffin’s contention simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of debris from the WTC disaster was repeatedly handled by literally thousands of experts whom would have immediately identified more obvious evidence of explosives. In addition it was also thoroughly examined (in the case of smaller pieces; by hand) by criminal investigators specifically looking for crime scene evidence.
Of the larger steel pieces removed directly from the site to recycling yards, pieces were recovered and used in detailed analysis by NIST, refuting the allegation that they were immediately shipped overseas.
In regard to the removal of WTC7 debris, Dr Griffin is making the error of treated the WTC1 and WTC2 debris separate to the WTC7 debris. As we have previously seen, the debris from the collapses was scattered over an enormous area. Immediately after the events, tens of thousands of people were feared dead or trapped in the wreckage. It is simply nonsensical to claim that authorities knew without a doubt no one was trapped in or near the WTC7 debris. In addition, in order to gain access to the central areas of the collapse site, first peripheral debris had to be cleared. Thus the rapid removal of all debris at Ground Zero, including debris from WTC7, was paramount.
12. The inherent claim that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analysed for evidence of explosives is rejected.
13. The inherent claim, that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel – that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel – made no sense in this case, is rejected.
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
As previously mentioned, the 9/11 Commission Report does not mention the collapse of WTC7.
The only reference to Larry Silverstein or his company is:
Quote:
Six weeks before the September 11 attacks, control of the WTC was transferred by net lease to a private developer, Silverstein Properties. (p.281)
The claim inherent in the allegation is that Larry Silverstein made a statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7.
There is also an implied claim in this allegation, which is revealed in Dr Griffin’s book; The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions:
Quote:
Because “pulling” a building is slang for having it demolished by explosives, this statement seems to say that Silverstein and the fire department decided to have the building deliberately destroyed. (pg.28)
The statement made by Silverstein appeared in the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year At Ground Zero which aired in September 2002.
Quote:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
In an effort to implicate Silverstein, many Conspiracy Theorists repeatedly misquote Silverstein as saying and we made that decision to pull it.
An example is the exchange in this video between Mark Roberts and prominent 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones, at Ground Zero on the 5th anniversary of the attacks.
The discussion of the quote begins at timecode 00:18:10:00.
Dr Griffin makes this mistake by alleging that Silverstein and the FDNY together “made that decision to pull”, however Silverstein clearly states that the FDNY made this decision, not him.
The key question is what “pull” and “it” actually mean.
The person that called Silverstein was 32-year veteran Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro. After Chief of Department Peter Ganci died in the collapse of WTC1, Nigro took over FDNY operations at the World Trade Center. He supports Silverstein’s claim that the decision to “pull” was made by him, not Silverstein, and he adds insight into what “pull” and “it” referred to:
Quote:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro Fire Engineering Magazine, Volume 10 (October), 2002
Other firefighters collaborate this version of events:
Quote:
Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse.
Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse, 4/2002
Consider two alternative explanations:
“pull” = explosively implode, “it” = WTC7 Or “pull” = withdraw, “it” = fire-fighting operations around WTC7
The two alternative statements, therefore, are:
“We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is explosively implode WTC7.” Or “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is withdraw fire-fighting operations around WTC7.”
One of the above quotes is logical and makes sense. The other is utterly absurd.
There are a number of other basic logical problems with Dr Griffin’s interpretation of the statement. Assuming the FDNY did indeed to decide to explosively implode WTC7, there are only two possible scenarios.
Either The FDNY entered a severely damaged, structurally unsound, fire-engulfed building, rigged it with explosives in a matter of hours, detonated it, and then lied about it later Or The FDNY knew that WTC7 had been rigged with explosives prior to the attacks, detonated it, and lied about it later
The first scenario simply is not possible. Buildings take weeks and weeks to prep for a building implosion, involving careful planning. This is under ideal conditions, with full access to the building. WTC7 was, until the morning of 9/11, a fully occupied office building.
The largest building ever brought down by implosion is the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Michigan. It was demolished on 24th October, 1998 by Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI). The implosion of this building took nearly eight months to prepare for:
Quote:
CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, NASDI/Homrich's 21 man crew needed 3 months to investigate the structure and 4 months to complete preparations per CDI's implosion design.
…
In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system.
I have previously highlighted some of the many FDNY accounts about the structural damage and severe fires at WTC7. Even assuming it were possible to rig a 2 million square foot building with explosives in a matter of hours, the notion that the FDNY (who do not carry out building demolitions) would enter such an unsafe building simply to blow it up is ridiculous.
Thus, the only possible conclusion is that Dr Griffin is claiming WTC7 was rigged with explosives before the attacks occurred, and that the FDNY knew this before the building collapsed. Given the FDNY’s support of the official explanation for the collapses, Dr Griffin is therefore accusing the FDNY of, at least, accessory after the fact in the murder of nearly 3,000 people, if not direct involvement in the crime.
Three hundred and forty three of those victims were FDNY firefighters or paramedics, including the First Deputy Commissioner (William M. Feehan) and the Chief of Department (Peter Ganci).
In the nearly six years since the attacks not one single firefighter has come forward and admitted the organisation’s role in the 9/11 attacks. None of the firemen whose work colleagues and in some cases relatives died in the attacks has confession in a panic of guilt.
This particular Conspiracy Theory is perhaps the most distasteful and disrespectful of all 9/11 theories, as it accuses one of the groups that suffered most from the attacks of covering up, or potentially aiding in the attacks.
Another problem with Dr Griffin’s theory is that he claims “pull” is demolition jargon for an explosive demolition, however there is no logical explanation for either Larry Silverstein (a property developer) or any member of the FDNY to use demolition jargon.
The word “pull” is used in a wide variety of contexts to mean a variety of things, most relating to cancelling or withdrawing something.
A final problem with Dr Griffin’s claim is that “pull” is not demolition jargon for an explosive demolition, as explained by Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services Inc.
Quote:
We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.
Had Conspiracy Theorists watched all of the PBS documentary from which they acquired Silverstein’s comments, they would already know this.
Quote:
Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.
Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”
The Controlled Demolition website ImplosionWorld.com confirms that none of the damaged buildings at the WTC site were demolished using explosives:
Quote:
ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO EXPLOSIVELY DEMOLISH THE REMAINS OF NEARBY BUILDINGS?
Not at this time, and probably not in the future. Engineering officials have expressed concern over the risk of causing additional damage to sensitive underground liabilities such as subway tunnels and below-grade retaining walls. Therefore any future demolition activities will likely be performed piecemeal, using heavy equipment.
Editor's update 12/20/01- With the removal of the 8-story U.S. Custom's House yesterday morning, all condemned structures have now been removed from the site. Explosives were not used in these operations.
This evidence, collectively, seems to suggest that Silverstein’s remarks were regarding firefighting operations at WTC7, and not some devious plot to blow the building up. And this is the version of events Silverstein himself supports:
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Quote:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
The 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss the design of the towers in the body of the text, however in the footnotes to Chapter Nine:
Quote:
In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. (pg.541)
There are a number of inherent claims in this allegation:
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that 47 massive steel columns in reality constituted the core of each tower.
The claim inherent in the allegation is that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, [the core columns] should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air.
As with previous discussions about the World Trade Center towers, the appropriate official document to refer to is the NIST report, not the 9/11 Commission Report.
Quote:
A second structural subsystem was located in a central service area, or core (Figure 1-5), approximately 135 ft by 87 ft, that extended virtually the full height of the building. The long axis of the core in WTC 1 was orientated in the east-west direction, while the long axis of the core in WTC 2 was orientated in the north-south direction (Figure 1-3). The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size at the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns. The core columns were interconnected by a grid of conventional steel beams to support the core floors.
NIST NCSTAR1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, pg.8
The description of the building core as a “hollow steel tube” does not necessarily deny the existence of the core columns. For example, NIST describes the exterior columns as a tube:
Quote:
The first, the exterior structural subsystem, was a vertical square tube that consisted of 236 narrow columns, 59 on each face from the 10th floor to the 107th floor (Figure 1-3).
NIST NCSTAR1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, pg.6
The WTC tower design has, since its creation, been commonly referred to as a "tube-within-a-tube design", as demonstrated by C P Wang, one of the key architects of the Taipei 101 tower:
Quote:
C. P. Wang: So we had an emergency meeting with the owner we tried to simulate what if the similar incident would happen to this building? We know the WTC in NY is basically a tube in a tube design with very thin exterior wall. It is a very smart and genius design to me but in Taipei with the earthquake and typhoon we are not able to do that. We need a very strong building and we have very big steel columns.
Innovation: Life, Inspired - Episode One: Building to Extremes, aired February 10, 2004 Thirteen/WNET Episode Transcript
A January 2002 article at Graduating Engineer uses the same phrase:
Quote:
The strength and redundancy of the structure itself, however, was the direct result of careful planning by the engineers who designed the buildings. The WTC towers utilized tube in tube construction, which provided primary support to the structures from external sheathing.
Although the 47 core columns were large, they accounted for a fraction of the total floor space of the core of the towers. Each core was 26m by 41m, totalling 1066m2 in area. In contrast, at their largest dimensions in the base of the towers the core columns measured 0.3m by 1.3m, giving a footprint of 0.39m2, with a total footprint area of 18.3m2 for all of the core columns – about 1.7% of the total core area.
In Dr Griffin’s book Omissions and Distortions he states:
Quote:
One of the major problems with the official account is why, even if the fire could have somehow caused the floors of the building to “pancake” (as the generally accepted explanation has it), the resulting pile of rubble was only a few stories high. Why were these massive steel columns not still sticking up hundreds of feet in the air?
Griffin, D.R.; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, pg.27-28
There are many problems with this statement by Dr Griffin, the first of which is the “pancake collapse” contention. This is addressed by NIST, who undertook the official investigation of the collapses:
Quote:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Another problem with Dr Griffin’s statement is that, as we have seen previously, the core of each tower did remain “sticking up hundreds of feet in the air” for some time after the initial collapse.
These core sections did not remain standing for very long, for the simple reason that they were incapable of remaining standing. The core of the towers were never designed to stand on their own. With the majority of the structure gone, the cores were subjected to forces that greatly exceeded their structural limits.
A final problem with Dr Griffin’s assertion is his claim that the debris pile at ground zero was “only a few stories high”.
In previous parts of this document I have provided links to numerous ground zero photographs, and more are included at the following links:
The inherent claim that 47 massive steel columns in reality constituted the core of each tower is accepted.
The inherent claim that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, [the core columns] should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air is rejected.
The buildings did not suffer “pancake” collapses, video evidence reveals the core of each tower did remain standing for some time, and it is entirely expected that, bereft of the support of the rest of the structure, these core sections quickly collapsed.
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
The term “controlled demolition” does not appear in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition.
The claim that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition is by far the most common Conspiracy Theory relating to the September 11 Attacks. While Theorists often disagree on other details of the attacks, and disagree on the method of demolition used (theories range from regular explosives through to more exotic methods such as orbiting energy weapons and nuclear explosives) almost all theorists agree that the buildings did not collapse as a result of fire and structural damage.
In previous claims we have seen the efforts by Theorists to refute the accepted explanation for the collapses. This claim is the first to address the Theorists’ counter-explanation.
In his book Omissions and Distortions, Dr Griffin defines a “controlled demolition” as:
Quote:
…explosives placed throughout a building and set to go off in a particular order. (pg.26)
Dr Griffin then proceeds to list the ten features suggestive of a controlled demolition. Dr Griffin does not, at any point, provide evidence that these are actually features present in a controlled demolition. We are expected to take his word for it. Dr Griffin is a Professor of Theology. He is not a demolition expert, in any shape or form. He provides no examples of other known controlled demolitions displaying the same characteristics, nor does he cite testimony of controlled demolition experts to support his claims.
As I investigate each of the ten characteristics, there are a number of questions to bear in mind: 1) Did the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 feature this characteristic? 2) Do explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic? 3) Is this characteristic unique to controlled demolitions?
Unless the answer to all three questions is “yes”, the point has no validity. By way of illustration:
CHARACTERISTIC: The buildings all fell downwards towards earth. 1) Yes, all three collapses on 9/11 featured this characteristic. 2) Yes, all explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic. 3) No, all buildings that collapse must fall downwards towards earth, due to gravity, regardless of what caused the collapse.
The first step is to identify known building implosions. Here is some examples:
JL Hudson Department Store. Detroit, Michigan. Oct 24, 1998. 133m. Tallest building ever imploded.
First Hawaiian Bank Building. Honolulu, Hawaii. Jan 9, 1994.
Logicon Building. San Pedro, California. Aug 7, 2006.
Intel Building. Austin, Texas. Feb 25, 2007.
Aladdin Hotel & Casino. Las Vegas, Nevada. Apr 27, 1998.
Tencza Terrace Apartment Building. Fort Myer, Florida. Jun 4, 2006.
Two 16-story buildings. Edinburgh, Scotland. Nov 26, 2006.
50 High St. Buffalo, New York. May 25, 2007.
CN Building. London, Ontario. Date unknown.
Now, on to the characteristics:
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed. Free fall is the speed an object falls at when the only force applied to the object is gravity. Free fall can only occur in a vacuum as any object falling through an atmosphere will experience friction from the atmosphere which will slow its descent.
Acceleration due to earth’s gravity is 9.8ms2.
The time taken for an object to free fall a given distance can be calculated using the formula:
Where d = the distance fallen and g = acceleration due to gravity.
The height of the three buildings in question were:
WTC1 = 417m WTC2 = 415m WTC7 = 174m
Thus the time for free fall from the top of each building would be:
WTC1 = 9.2s WTC2 = 9.2s WTC7 = 5.9s
The key word in Dr Griffin’s claim is “virtually”. Because objects falling under force of gravity are in a constant state of acceleration, minor changes in time can result in significant height changes.
For example, although an object falling 415m would do so in 9.2 seconds, in 10.2 seconds – only one second longer – an object would fall 509m, almost 100m further. An object falling for 11.2 seconds – only two seconds longer – would fall 614m. The distance increases exponentially, so that by the time you double the duration of the fall – to 18.4 seconds, the object would fall 1,659m – almost four times as far! If you multiply the time by four times, the distance fallen will increase by sixteen times.
It is difficult to determine the precise time that each collapse lasted, for several reasons. Firstly, when the collapses occurred they sent up huge walls of dust and debris that covered the ground and obscured the latter stages of the collapse. Secondly, anyone close to the building during the collapse was desperately running for their lives rather than filming the event.
While determining the precise duration of the collapse is difficult, it is a little easier to determine whether the collapse occurred near to free fall speed or not.
This page has a video frame analysis of the collapse of both towers:
Note that at 16 seconds the collapse wave of WTC1 is just passing the top of WTC7, which is itself 174m high. Quite clearly WTC1 collapsed significantly slower than free fall speed.
WTC2’s collapse wave is still above WTC7 at 14 seconds, thus it too collapsed significantly slower than free fall.
In regards to WTC7, the following video is telling:
The collapse begins with the failure of the building’s east mechanical penthouse at about 5s (you will see part of the top left of the building collapse). At 18s the building disappears from view, and has not yet reached the ground. Thus we know that WTC7 took longer than 13s to collapse – more than twice as long as at free fall speed.
It is somewhat a moot point whether imploded buildings fall near free fall speed, as clearly none of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 shared this characteristic.
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part into its own footprint. This is certainly a characteristic of building implosions. Indeed, it’s arguably the most important requirement of a building implosion. When demolition experts collapse buildings using explosives they have to ensure debris does not damage any surrounding structures.
But what about the buildings on 9/11?
It should be evident to anyone that neither of the towers fell even remotely into their own footprint. The entire World Trade Center site was totally destroyed by the collapse of the towers.
FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study provides a comprehensive analysis of the condition of buildings affected by the collapse of the towers and WTC7:
On Page 3 of Chapter 7 they present a table of 56 buildings damaged in the attacks, spread across 25 city blocks as well as the entire World Trade Center site and World Financial Center complex.
Of the 56 buildings, five were totally destroyed, three suffered partial collapses that resulted in total structural instability, eleven suffered significant structural damage, and the remaining thirty-seven suffered moderate damage.
When WTC7 collapsed, it fell onto 30 West Broadway, a 17-story concrete and steel structure known as Fiterman Hall.
Damage inflicted on 30 West Broadway was severe:
Quote:
The southern half of the west façade and most of the south façade was severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC7 (Figure 7-13).
Barclay Street is not a narrow alley, but a four lane road. Damage to 30 West Broadway was so severe that the building is being demolished, as reported by WNBC on October 30th, 2006:
Quote:
At a public hearing Monday night, the City University of New York -- the owner of Fiterman Hall, which is part of the Borough of Manhattan Community College campus -- detailed its plan to clean and then demolish the office-style building, previously used for classrooms and offices.
Clearly it is incorrect to claim that WTC7 fell straight down into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all of the concrete was turned into very fine dust This is one of the stranger assertions Dr Griffin makes. Simple logic dictates this is not true, for either 9/11 or confirmed explosive demolitions. The purpose of a building implosion is to collapse a building quickly in a contained space, so that removal of debris can be achieved quickly.
Turning all of the concrete in a building into dust does not in any way aid the demolition process. Dust is a problem for demolition companies, and during demolition debris piles are often sprayed with fire hoses in an effort to keep the level of dust to a minimum. Concrete is much easier to contain and remove when in large pieces than in dust form. Turning the concrete to dust does not assist in collapse, and an enormous amount of explosives would be required simply to achieve this, for no added benefit.
It is simply illogical to think that any building implosion would result in “virtually all of the concrete” being turned “into very fine dust”.
The question remains, was all of the concrete in the buildings turned into dust? The simple answer is no, it wasn’t.
The only substantial use of concrete in the towers was the 4 inch layer on each floor pan, amounting to a little over 11,000m3 of concrete per tower.
Although dust covered much of lower Manhattan after the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, an analysis of the dust suggests concrete did not play a significant component.
Quote:
Microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco, BS, MS, DABC, FAAFS, FNYMS at The New York Microscopic Society lecture held at AMNH 28 May 2003
45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing) 31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite) 7.1% Charred wood and debris 2.1% Paper fibers 2.1% Mica flakes 2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component) 2.0% Synthetic fibers 1.4% Glass fragments 1.3% Human remains 1.4% Natural fibers trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)
Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.
The data of interest here is the 31.8% consisting of plaster and concrete products. Gypsum is a very brittle material that easily crumbles into an exceedingly fine white dust. Concrete is a hard rock-like substance that only breaks into dust under enormous forces.
Gypsum was used as drywall in the WTC in enormous quantities, especially in the building core. During the collapse this drywall would have quickly become a fine white powder.
Unfortunately the analysis of the dust does not distinguish between gypsum and concrete products by percentage, however it is logical and likely that the majority of the 31.8% cited is gypsum, and not concrete.
Finally, a close inspection of photos from Ground Zero reveals that concrete was present at the site in large quantities.
Further, an estimate of debris at Ground Zero by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (the company that managed the disposal of debris from the WTC and managed the crime scene support facilities) indicates large quantities of concrete were present:
Quote:
The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 250,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork.
Clearly virtually all of the concrete in the buildings was not turned into very fine dust.
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more. Both the collapses on 9/11 and building implosions involve large clouds of dust travelling great distances. This should really be of no surprise. Any sort of destruction of a building will produce dust particles. Buildings contain plaster, concrete, masonry, light fittings, fibreglass, fireproofing materials, and a multitude of other things which will break into dust under significant forces. Dust is very easily blown great distances by wind, and building collapses of any kind produce wind.
The following videos all depict building collapse that are not implosions, but that produce clouds of dust that spread over large areas.
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air. This simply isn’t true, in regard to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
Both of these videos reveal large sections of the core of each building standing after the remainder of the structure has collapsed. In the case of WTC1, this section was considerably higher than WTC7, thus over 174m (570ft) high.
These sections obviously did not remain standing – the core of the buildings were never intended to stand on their own.
As the above image shows, the exterior wall of WTC7 fell on top of the debris pile. This would have crushed and broken any columns still standing upright.
6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.” Dr Griffin cites this claim as coming from an article written by Jeff King at the following website:
Jeff King is a Conspiracy Theorist who thinks the tower collapses produced “pyroclastic flows”. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of super-heated gases as hot as 1000degreesC travelling as fast as 700km/h, and are only produced by volcanic eruptions.
Jeff King alleges:
Quote:
Instead of the kind of slow start we would expect near the beginning of a gravitational collapse we see high speed “demolition waves” coming directly toward us, with another set shooting out to the left, from the east side of the building. These are exactly the sort of confluent rows of small explosions that are so characteristic of a controlled demolition, and can be seen emerging in flat rings extending all the way around the tower and propagating rapidly downward.
However inspection of the numerous building implosions provided reveals that they do not share this characteristic. In building implosions, instead, the façade more often remains relatively intact as it collapses downwards, until it hits the ground. This is because building implosions are initiated by internal structural failures.
The “disintegration” that occurs in the WTC collapses is a direct result of the exterior columns peeling away and the floors collapsing one atop the other in succession. This is because the towers collapsed due to an external failure.
WTC7, which NIST hypothesises collapsed due to internal failure shares the relatively intact falling façade of a building implosion, and does not feature the characteristic claimed by Dr Griffin.
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long. As mentioned above, WTC7 collapsed with the exterior façade relatively intact. As previously discussed this façade fell atop the debris pile. As a result it is impossible to determine what size segments the columns of WTC7 broke into.
In regards to WTC1 and WTC2 there are numerous collapse photographs and post-collapse photographs and videos of sufficient resolution to determine that the core and exterior columns fell primarily in small sections.
The reason for this is simple. That’s how long they are.
Building columns are not single enormous lengths of steel, but rather small lengths joined together. In the specific case of the WTC towers, NIST NCSTAR1-1 provides information on the length of these sections on pages 10 and 11. Diagrams on page 25 and 26 illustrate the prefabricated exterior panels.
The exterior panels consisted of three columns 11m in length joined by 1.3m wide spandrel plates at each floor level. The 3m by 11m panels were each three stories high, and spliced half way through a floor. The panels were staggered across the face of the building to improve strength.
The core columns were spliced in three story lengths as well, thus each section of core column was also 11m long.
Despite this, the steel did not break apart evenly or neatly, and ironworkers worked at Ground Zero during clean up cutting steel into lengths that could be more easily removed, as these images demonstrate:
8. According to many witnesses, explosions were heard in the buildings. The overwhelmingly most distinct characteristic of all of the implosion videos I have presented is deafening explosions prior to and sometimes during collapse. These are not minor explosions, but sounds loud enough to peak a camera microphone from a considerable distance away. They are unmistakable.
Certainly there are conflicting witness testimonies of explosions on 9/11. However, they are almost exclusively from inside the buildings, and are often taken out of context. For example the actual collapses themselves were almost universally described as a “huge explosion”.
This page has a good summary of the flaws in the “loud noise means explosives” argument.
What is most compelling is there is literally hours of footage from 9/11 taken in and around the towers prior to and at the moment of collapse. Not one video camera captured the deafening explosions that are the distinct mark of a building implosion. Yet in all of the building implosion videos I have provided, explosions are clearly captured from considerable distances away.
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions). Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York recorded the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on their seismographs. In addition on 9/11 Protec (an explosive demolition documentation company) had a number of portable seismographs monitoring construction sites in the area that also detected the collapses.
Brent Blanchard, Director of Field Operations at Protec, wrote a paper refuting Conspiracy Theorist claims that the buildings were demolished using explosives. In the paper he addresses seismograph data:
Quote:
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
The Columbia University data is available on their website.
In their investigation of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory claims, Popular Mechanics talked to Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the observatory:
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
Applying simply logic, both towers are clearly seen collapsing from the top, and as previously discussed, the cores of each tower remained standing for some time after the initial collapse. Had the towers been destroyed due to underground explosions as Dr Griffin asserts, these observable phenomena could not have occurred.
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months. This is perhaps the strangest of Dr Griffin’s claimed characteristics, in that, if true, it refutes the implosion theory. Explosives work by producing enormous amounts of over pressure in a very short space of time, shattering and breaking steel and concrete. Explosives do not generate significant amounts of heat, and what heat is produced is quickly dissipated.
Explosives simply cannot produce enough heat to liquefy steel, which melts at around 1,500oC depending on the precise composition of the alloy.
On the other hand, when the towers and WTC7 collapsed they had raging infernos inside them as we previously saw. They were also full of large quantities of flammable material which was buried.
Underground fires can burn for very long periods of time, at very high temperatures:
Quote:
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales.
…
The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.
…
The fire temperature [sic] reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
In their FAQ, NIST refute Dr Griffin’s interpretation of alleged molten steel:
Quote:
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.
In addition, although the fires at the WTC did continue to burn in the debris pile, there’s certainly doubt whether there really was molten steel. The website 911myths.com addresses the matter in depth.
Dr Griffin presents ten characteristics that he asserts (without justification) are evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As shown, the collapse of these buildings did not display many of these characteristics, others are not characteristics of any confirmed building implosions, and other characteristics are common in other building collapse situations.
The inherent claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition is rejected.
