First, two must-see short videos

> "Twin Towers: Demolished for Effect", a ten-minute video regarding the twin towers' collapses

> "Seven is Exploding", a six-minute video regarding WTC 7's collapse

________________________________________________________________________________________________

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF 9/11/01  

Download pdf for viewing or printing

Version 1.5  12/8/07

CONTENTS

  I.  Statements of a structural engineer, a demolitions expert, a metallurgist, an architect, the lead investigator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center towers (WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed)

  II.  Eyewitness testimony regarding unexplained explosions in World Trade Center Building 7

  III. “The Twin Towers and Common Sense”, by Frank Legge, Ph.D

  IV. Eyewitness testimony regarding molten metal under the wreckage of the towers, a phenomenon explained by controlled demolition but not explained by the official story

  V. Pre-9/11 statements of designers of the Twin Towers indicating that the Twin Towers should not have been brought down by aircraft collisions

  VI. The call by the former Chief of the Fire Sciences Division of NIST for an independent review of the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center collapses

  VII.  A comparison of the actual construction of the Twin Towers with the deceptive depictions provided by the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media

  VIII.  A photograph of the collapse of the South Tower, with questions

  IX.  Statements of seven CIA veterans calling the official account of 9/11 a “joke” and a “cover-up”

  X.  War games on 9/11 and the testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta suggesting a stand-down of air defenses on 9/11

   XI.  The Bush administration’s opposition to the investigation of 9/11

  XII.  Statements of foreign government officials against the official account of 9/11

This is a brief introduction to the evidence against the official 9/11 story for those who still believe that story. Its purpose is to educate and to inspire people to review the facts and join in the demand for an immediate, independent investigation into what really happened on and surrounding 9/11.  This is only a small sampling of the evidence against the official 9/11 story, and it doesn’t even address, among other matters, the research of Dr. Steven Jones indicating the use of the explosive compound known as thermate, the many problems with the account of events at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, PA, the reports of numerous intelligence experts that their pre-9/11 investigations into terrorist planning activities were actively suppressed, and the reports, ignored by the 9/11 Commission, of money transfers from Pakistani officials (linked with the CIA) to Mohammed Atta. 

The official 9/11 story is the basis for the “War on Terror” and an unprecedented assault on the U.S. Constitution and erosion of the civil liberties of U.S. Citizens.  It isthe basis for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture (a.k.a. “enhanced interrogation techniques”), illegal wire-tapping, kidnapping (a.k.a. “extraordinary rendition”), secret prisons, grossly expanded presidential powers, and the unconstitutional suppression of habeas corpus (the right of a prisoner to be brought before a court), among many other alarming developments.

This document can be found at www.vt911.org.  Please feel free to copy and distribute it.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I.  Statements about the collapses                                                                               www.vt911.org – page 2

See www.patriotsquestion911.com for a list of nearly one thousand critics of the official 9/11 account.

 (1) "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished. 

-- Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department  of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),Earth quake-proofing Buildings (2002) 

(2) “I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.   Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Absolutely.”

-- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands . Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.  [It should be noted that Mr. Jowenko has stated, apparently based only upon a review of videos of the twin tower collapses and without more information, that he does not believe that the twin towers were brought down in controlled demolitions.]

(3) "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth. ...  When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11.  But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers.  Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.”

 -- Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin , Madison 1965 - 1978.  Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 – 1990

 (4) “The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.” 

 --  David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney .  Formerly taught at University of Auckland (1993 - 2001), University of Queensland (1986 - 1993), Mackintosh School of Architecture (1984 - 1986).  Registered Architect.  Incorporated Engineer.

 (5)  "Truthfully, I don't really know.  We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."  --- Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), when asked in 2006 why WTC 7 collapsed.  NIST has yet to produce its final report on the matter.  FEMA was equally stumped, saying that its “best hypothesis”, a fire-induced collapse, had “a low probability of occurrence”.  Neither agency has admitted that there is any evidence of controlled demolition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

II.  Eyewitness Testimony Regarding Unexplained Explosions in WTC Building 7               vt911.org  page 3

WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-framed office building that was not struck by any aircraft.  After reportedly being evacuated around 9:44 a.m. on 9/11, it was damaged by falling debris from the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28 a.m., and fires burned on a few floors after that time.  It collapsed suddenly, symmetrically, at or near free-fall speed into its own footprint at 5:20 p.m.  In live interviews on 9/11, Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, who were in WTC 7 just after the evacuation was started, reported a major explosion in WTC 7 that collapsed the stairs and trapped them in the building.  In a 2007 interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas (not included in Loose Change Final Cut), Jennings reportedly stated that he is certain that this explosion preceded the collapses of the twin towers. See http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm.  In a live interview with UPN 9 News starting at 11:34 a.m. on 9/11, Michael Hess twice stated that he and Jennings were trapped in WTC 7 (as the result of the explosion) for an hour and a half, meaning that the explosion must have occurred around 10:00 a.m., half an hour before the collapse of the North Tower.  See http://www.911blogger.com/node/10425.  Even if both Jennings and Hess are mistaken about the timing of events, which seems extremely unlikely given all of the consistent details in their statements (it would mean, for example, that it took them half an hour to rush down 15 flights of stairs), the collapse of the North Tower would not explain a major explosion impacting the stairwell, which was located on the North side of WT7’s core, the side furthest away from the North Tower.  As of this writing it appears that neither witness is willing to discuss the matter.  The following is an excerpt from:  "Hanging Around WTC 7",  by Amy De Miceli, 6/24/07 at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_amy_de_m_070621_barry_jennings_3a_wtc_.htm.

On the morning of 911 Barry Jennings [Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority – now reportedly an employee of Giuliani Partners] was with Mr. [Michael] Hess, one of Rudy Giuliani's highest ranking appointed officials, New York city's corporation counsel, (Hess is a Yale and Harvard graduate, a lawyer who has represented the United States in numerous major cases). 

It was just after the first attack on the North tower [8:46], but before the second plane hit the South Tower [9:03], when Barry Jennings escorted Michael Hess to the World Trade Center Tower 7. Mr. Jennings recalls a large number of police officers in the lobby of WTC 7 when they arrived. The two men went up to the 23rd floor, but could not get in, so they went back to the lobby and the police took them up in the freight elevator for a second try. When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management they found it had been recently deserted, "coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches".   [The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., causing the first acknowledged damage to WTC 7]

At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to "leave, and leave right away". Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.

The interview has been cut off where they say how they made it to the lobby, but when they did make it down, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, "King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, so destroyed, I didn't know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out." Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story. 

Mr. Jennings is still confused as to why Building 7 had to come down at all, and does not accept the official reason that the noises he heard were from a fuel oil tank, "I know what I heard, I heard explosions". Michael Hess has not made any public statements about that morning with Barry Jennings, perhaps we can call on wearechange.org to document Michael Hess's account of the events on 911. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

III.  The Twin Towers and Common Sense                                                                www.vt911.org – page 4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

IV.  Molten Metal Under the Wreckage of the Towers Denied and Not Explained by Official Story vt911.org p5 

Immediately after 9/11, various commentators were claiming that the fires in the towers melted the structural steel, causing the collapse of the towers.  This error was soon corrected by scientists connected with official investigations.  Frank Gayle, one of the lead scientists for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), pointed out: “Your gut reaction would be [that] the jet fuel is what made the [WTC] fire so very intense. A lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed, it did not, the steel did not melt.”  Andy Field, “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004.  

Gayle’s statement was supported by Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials engineering at MIT:  "The Fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true....The temperatures of the fire at the WTC were not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."  T.W. Eagar and C. Musso, “Why Did the WTC Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation,” Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12 (2001): 8-11.

Defenders of the official 9/11 story, including NIST, deny the presence of molten steel (and molten metal) at the World Trade Center , apparently because the official story, which denies that there were planted explosives, cannot account for the molten metal.  To see a February, 2007 video of NIST lead engineer John Gross denying the molten metal while agreeing that the fires just didn’t get hot enough to melt steel, go to http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207NIST.htm .  Molten metal can be explained by the use of high temperature demolition materials, including thermite, in a controlled demolition. 

So was there, or was there not, molten metal at the World Trade Center ?  The following compilation of quotes is from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html .  It is not a complete list of sources, but it indicates what is out there.  There are also photographs, including video footage of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse.  See “Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method”, by Steven Jones, Ph.D, at p. 70.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." ²  

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:  “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” ³

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." ⁴  

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
 “When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
            It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
            I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                                                    www.vt911.org p.6

been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.” ⁵  

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:  “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” ⁶  

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:  “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.” ⁷  
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:  “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” ⁸  

A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.  “Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” ⁹    

The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:   “... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” ¹⁰  

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." ¹¹  

1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04

See Also:  Dead On Arrival -- The NIST 9/11 Report on the WTC Collapse  By Mark H. Gaffney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

V.  Pre-9/11 Statements of Designers of the Twin Towers regarding impacts from aircraft   www.vt911.org p.7

The following material is excerpted from an online article by Arabesque at:   
 http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/210207_wtc_designers.html

An analysis by WTC Building designers carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing[1]  [The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.  The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767.  The speeds of the crashes at the time of the impacts are reported to be 466 miles per hour (flight 11) and 545 miles per hour (flight 175), both far less than the 600 miles per hour anticipated by the designers.]

Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center , asked whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane, replied that there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[2]

John Skilling [the other original structural engineer and the boss of Leslie Robertson], recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.”  But, he says, “The building structure would still be there”.[3]

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 or DC8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”  [4]

Leslie Robertson is asked at a conference in Frankfurt , Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.[5]  [Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” [6]

[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”  Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center , spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[7]

[1] Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)
[2] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson
See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
[3] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]
[4] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]
[5] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]
[6] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
[7] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

[Note:  The fires in the towers burned only for 56 minutes ( South Tower ) and 1 hour and 42 minutes ( North Tower ).  Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed high rise building ever collapsed due to fires, even much longer ones.]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VI.  Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation  By Alan Miller August 21, 2007 [Excerpted]                                                   www.vt911.org p.8

[This is from http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm
Dr. Quintiere does not believe that the WTC Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but he does believe that the final NIST conclusion about the collapses is highly questionable and points to serious failures in the investigative process.  Hundreds of architects and engineers agree with Dr. Quintiere’s conclusion that the NIST conclusion is unreliable and believe, further, that controlled demolition is the most likely explanation of the collapses.  See, e.g,  www.ae911truth.org, www.patriotsquestion911.com]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”  “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers . “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”  [Where is the evidence that the insulation was stripped off?]

Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:  “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ... "All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? 2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ... 3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error? 4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. 5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ... 6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland , where he still serves.  He is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS), a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering, and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________


VII.  A comparison of the actual construction of the Twin Towers with the deceptive descriptions provided by the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media                                                              www.vt911.org p. 10

  The 9/11 Commission Report refers to the core of each of the twin towers in the World Trade Center as “a hollow steel shaft” (Commission Report, p. 541, n.1).  Various documentaries, news articles and websites presented us with depictions of the World Trade Center towers suggesting a tiny central core, disconnected core columns, or no core at all and “floating” floors.  Left image is from BBC, right are from PBS.  Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm,   http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtc-core.html, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html.

  If these depictions were truthful, one might believe that the towers could have collapsed in 10 seconds (Commission Report, p. 305), only 8/10ths of a second slower than free-fall speed, even without explosives.  However, the 9/11 Commission’s “hollow steel shaft” was in fact an incredibly strong, interlinked network of 47 steel box columns, as shown in this photograph taken during construction.  The floors spanning between the exterior and interior columns were far narrower than the core itself.  (The towers were 208 feet on each side.  The core area of columns was 87 feet by 133 feet.  The floor spans from interior to exterior were 35 feet and 60 feet.)  Hundreds of professionals (architects, engineers and physicists) agree that a purely gravitational collapse of the twin towers could not have occurred in anything close to 10 seconds, and that the collapses cannot be explained by the official 9/11 story.  See www.ae911truth.org, www.patriotsquestion911.com  

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

VIII.  Photograph of the Collapse of the South Tower , with questions                    www.vt911.org p. 12

This is a photograph of the South Tower as it collapsed at 9:59 a.m. on 9/11/01.  According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the collapse took only 10 seconds.  (9/11 Commission Report, p. 305).  Analysis of videos of the collapse shows this figure to be accurate, or very nearly accurate.  The laws of physics tell us that a fall from the roof of the towers at free-fall speed in a vacuum would take 9.2 seconds, only 8/10^th of a second faster.

Is this a photograph of a purely gravity-driven collapse, as the official story tells us, or is this a photograph of explosions?  What is causing the building and all of its contents to be pulverized into the fine dust that was spread all across lower Manhattan ?  What is causing heavy steel beams to be ejected laterally for hundreds of feet, becoming embedded in buildings across streets?  If the collisions of the floors were causing this pulverization and lateral ejection, that would be evidence of substantial resistance provided by the dozens (77 or 90, depending on which tower) of cold, undamaged steel-framed floors beneath the areas impacted by the aircraft.  But the very fast (many say “impossible”) rate of collapse means that these lower floors provided essentially no resistance to the fall.  How can there be both substantial resistance (resulting in pulverization and lateral ejection) and essentially no resistance (to account for the high rate of collapse) at the same time?

Videos of the collapses reveal many other problems, including the fact that the upper stories of each tower disintegrated before the areas below the plane impacts actually started falling.  The “plunger”, the upper floors allegedly crushing the rest of the building, disintegrated before the rest of the building began collapsing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

IX.  Statements of 7 CIA Veterans calling the official account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up” vt911.org 13

Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”    By Alan Miller  http://PatriotsQuestion911.com  

September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.

During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”

Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote, “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa .

Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.  Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report, Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University .

Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East , Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.

Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”

In a 2002 essay for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran .

In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann, Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor . Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."

In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”

"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley.  Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”

In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show, Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.

Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center . There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.

Their letter read:  "[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations.                                 …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations.                                      ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations.

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand.  We stand ready to do our part.

And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.  

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at www.patriotsquestion911.com

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

X. War games on 9/11 and the testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta        www.vt911.org p. 16  

[Multiple military drills (war games) were being carried out on 9/11.  These drills appear to have played a significant role in preventing the interception of the wayward airliners, an ordinarily routine procedure.  Given that there had been many warnings prior to 9/11 of an imminent terrorist attack, why would these disabling drills have been allowed to occur at that time and all at once?  And can it be just a coincidence that the foreign terrorists chose the same day as the drills to carry out their attack?   As described in the following article, Transporation Secretary Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission that Cheney said that the “orders still stand” while being updated about the approach of Flight 77, which was not intercepted or shot down.  The 9/11 Commission chose not to investigate or report this testimony, and instead reported that Cheney wasn’t even in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), where this exchange took place, until 9:58 a.m.  Mineta has confirmed his testimony that both he and Cheney were in the PEOC by 9:25. 
See http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html]

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | Updated September 20 2004  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

For almost three years since 9/11 independent researchers have stockpiled individual smoking guns which prove that the official version of events was not only a lie but operationally impossible.

However, no single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.