9/11 Event (Part 2)

Part 2: Anomalies About the Collapses

According to the official story, on 11^th of September of 2001, unexpectedly to the US government, coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic al-Qaeda killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. The evil organizing genius behind the attacks was promptly identified as Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian citizen until 1994, who directed the attacks from caves in Afghanistan with the help of his laptop. However, is this what really happened? There is strong evidence that the real story is much more convoluted and sinister.

Marcus Schultze

Published December 19, 2021

(Continued from 9/11 event, Part 1: Anomalies About the Crashes)

Second question – Did the WTC North Tower, WTC South Tower and WTC Building 7 collapse due to fires?

WTC North and South Towers

The constructors of the WTC North and South Towers have claimed that this structure was solid and was not to be affected by such impact from outside as a plane crash etc. The WTC Towers were huge steel-framed buildings, which were engineered to survive impacts, fires, exceptionally strong weather conditions etc. Each tower had 240 peripheral and 47 central sturdy steel columns. John Skilling, one of the engineers of the WTC Towers stated 10 years priorly that the Towers were engineered to withstand jet collision.¹ On Jan 21, 2001 in a TV interview the same was claimed by Frank A. De Martini, a manager of WTC Construction & Project Management.² He believed that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like a mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It does nothing to the screen netting. Lee Robertson, a structural engineer of the WTC, has said that the towers were designed for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.³ Boeing 707 is very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity to Boeing 767.

On September 11, 2001, the WTC South Tower collapsed in a symmetrical fashion in ca 10 seconds (at 9:59) and the WTC North Tower in ca 11 seconds (at 10:28).⁴ According to the official theory of the fall of the towers, the heat produced by the fire from the jet fuel (which burnt not more than 10 minutes) in both towers was so great that it melted the steel trusses and columns, causing all floors to collapse simultaneously, by falling on top of one another. This has been dubbed as a “pancake” theory. But in the words of a number of qualified experts, it is impossible for the fire caused by the ignition of the planes’ fuel to melt the steel structures that were supporting the mass of concrete of the buildings. Independent researchers and experts have shown that there are considerable flaws in the official theory on the collapse of the North and South WTC towers due to fires.

In 2005, Dr Judy Wood refuted the official story of the WTC Towers collapse⁵. She concluded in her scientific analysis that the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. The free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC North Tower in a vacuum (with no air resistance) would be 9,22 seconds. It will take longer if air resistance is considered. If “pancaking” would have happened as a floor-by-floor progressive collapse, then the minimum time required for collapse is 88-97 seconds. If “pancaking” would have happened within each 10-floor interval, wihtout resistance, a minimum of 30.6 seconds is required for the roof to hit the ground. But in the case of those two towers the free-fall collapse took just 10-11 seconds.⁶

Architects and engineers of AE911 Truth have also made a concerted scientific effort to show that it is impossible that planes or other impacts (e.g. missiles) and the fire induced by them would have been responsible for the collapse of those massive steel towers. They have highlighted some of the main flaws of the official 9/11 report on the cause of WTC collapse. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the Twin Towers came down “essentially in free fall.” NIST has not been able to provide a rational explanation for it, but instead has asserted that they have carried the analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability and they are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

Engineers and architects of the AE911 Truth have pointed out in their research that in the four seconds before the upper section of the WTC North Tower disappeared from view, the rate of acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall and there was never an observable deceleration. Based on laws of physics (Newton’s Third Law of Motion) there should have been a deceleration of WTC North Tower’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. Also, this indicates clearly that the official theory of “pancaking” is incorrect in explaining the collapse of WTC Towers and that the absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it.⁷

One of the possibilities of “another force” have been discussed in Dr Niels Harrit’s et al. paper published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009.⁸ Dr Harrit’s team discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in all four samples studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminium is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Based on these observations, they conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Kevin Ryan, a scientist and former Site Manager of Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), which certified the steel used in the WTC, has emphasized why the NIST reports on the WTC are false, especially regarding NIST claims that low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle”. He asserts that if steel from those buildings did soften or melt, this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.⁹

Architect Ronald F. Avery in his presentation Undeniable conspiracy of 911: the forensic case of the WTC has pointed out that those organisations that have done studies on the collapse of the WTC (the NIST, the FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers) have never looked at the damage from the angle of what caused the damage. They have taken the official version as a basis and moved from there to review what happened to the building and how the building performed under the given official scenario – the fires after the collision caused the collapse of the buildings. But he concludes that taking account the real happenings, it was not a natural collapse that happened with WTC and there was no possibility of “pancaking” of the buildings.¹⁰

Ground-level witnesses and people, who were able to escape from the towers describe the existence of such “other force” on several accounts. Eyewitness evidence consists of a collection of oral reports from 503 first-responders (firefighters, paramedics and emergency medical technicians), many of whom witnessed some aspect of the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Those witness reports were suppressed for four years by the authorities until the New York Times won a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the City of New York in 2005 and published the records on August 8, 2005.¹¹ Researcher Jim Hoffman has interpreted them as the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.¹²

It is notable that with the exception of the small church below the WTC South Tower across Liberty Street (St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church), only those buildings carrying the WTC prefix – all seven – were destroyed. By the way, WTC Building 7 was situated two city blocks away from the nearest of the Twin Towers – the wall of WTC 7 closest to the WTC main complex was more than 90 metres from the nearest wall of the WTC North Tower. WTC 7 was situated between Verizon Building and Old Post Office Building, which both suffered just superficial damage.

The collapse of WTC Building 7

In the 9/11 Commission’s 500-page official report, the collapse of a third building, WTC Building 7 is not even mentioned. But together with the collapses of WTC North and South Towers, it is the third most astonishing structural failure in the history of high-rise construction on the same day. The difference between those buildings is that WTC 7 was not hit by any plane. Nevertheless, at 17:20 on September 11, 2001, the 47-story steel-framed WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint in a symmetric near-free-fall mode, which lasted less than 7 seconds.¹³ In order for this to happen, not one of the 80 columns in WTC 7 can basically offer any resistance to the fall.

Notably, the BBC reported 23 minutes before the collapse of the WTC 7 that the “Salomon Brothers’ building (WTC 7)” collapsed in New York. BBC reporter Jane Standley was reporting from Manhattan and telling the world about the collapse, but at the same time WTC 7 was still standing in the live background of her reportage.¹⁴

Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of WTC Building 7’s destruction. Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.¹⁵ WTC 7 produced a remarkably small rubble pile of mostly so-called pulverized remains, when no steel building falling for any reason has ever pulverized itself.

NIST initially, in its draft report on WTC 7 investigation in 2008, did not accept the free-fall collapse of WTC 7, but finally admitted it.¹⁶ Researcher David Chandler has pointed out that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other (Newton’s Third Law). Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free-fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down. Therefore, free-fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Natural collapse resulting in free-fall is simply not plausible.¹⁷ So there should be another force, which eliminates the obstacles from the path for the symmetrical free-fall to happen.

On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of WTC 7. The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team found that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires, but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.¹⁸ This can be witnessed by anyone who has watched the collapse of the WTC 7 and the case has been illustrated by researcher Anthony Lawson’s metaphor – do you believe that an orange you witness is an orange or you believe what you are told, e.g. that an orange is actually an apple?¹⁹

Third question – Where did the towers go?

Notably many viewers, experts and ground witnesses have highlighted that there was remarkably little rubble of the WTC Towers after the collapse of those 110-storied huge buildings.²⁰ Already at 12:44 PM on Sept 11, 2001, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings asked from on-scene reporter George Stephanopoulos: When you look at where the towers used to stand, there is surprisingly so little rubble. Where did all the rubble go?²¹ Reporter Ste­phano­poulus answered: … Very good question and I have asked the same from the people who helped in the rescue work… One volunteer explained that all of it simply fell down into the ground and was pulverized, evaporated. New York Governor G.Pataki together with CNN crew is similarly amazed of the scene.²² A thorough overview of the pulverized towers, the incredibly little rubble and the description of the first-responders and ground witnesses has been compiled in a documentary 9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 1.²³

Jeff King, a late research scientist and MIT engineer, has pointed out the thick and dense clouds of dust, which were ejected from the WTC Towers at the time of collapse at high speed. A constant pyroclastic flow, from where many other materials than concrete were discovered as parts in the dust: stairways, computers, exotic metals, drywall, furniture, elevator shafts, carpeting etc. Such parts were identified in the dust and in very small particles, generally less than 100 microns in diametre.²⁴ Also interestingly, there were several firefighters²⁵ and ground-workers²⁶, who were “carried away” by, or experienced the action of that force of energy and incredibly thick clouds of dust. For instance photographer David Handschuh, who literally levitated on the streets and claimed to be “blown” away or carried on by this unknown force on a street near WTC Towers in the morning of Sept 11, 2001.²⁷

Thorough scientific and comprehensive forensic analysis of the crime scene has been done by material scientist Dr Judy Wood (Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science). She has published her research and analysis in a 500-pages book in 2011 Where Did The Towers Go?: Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11. There are also documentaries (e.g. Adam Dwyer’s Irrefutable, 2015) on the main conclusions on her webpage, based on Dr Wood’s research.²⁸

Dr Wood used several methods to reach conclusions of her forensic study: 1) photographic evidence of the WTC site (over 800) and photos from places like FDR drive ½ mile from WTC; 2) video evidence; 3) witness audio testimony; 4) audio features (e.g. relative silence of towers turning to dust); 5) weather data; 6) seismic data; 7) magnetometer data; 8) official reports – e.g. such as dust analysis (Cahill); 9) research conducted at the WTC site, where on each of her visits she has taken photographs, sampled air quality, made observations about the material characteristics and documented anomalies and changes, documented unusual treatment of the site, spoken with first responders, victims’ family members, and survivors who were in the towers shortly before they were turned to dust. Also she directly observed and documented structural and material changes.

Dr Judy Wood has concluded from her extensive research that there was amazingly little WTC debris. The rubble pile from WTC North and South Towers was far too small to account for the mass, less than three stories high, the pile equalled only 2% of the total mass of the buildings. Compared to e.g. the controlled demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, which left a normal debris pile of 12% of its former height.²⁹ Researcher Andrew Johnson has stated that, whilst there was some debris in the basements, that debris was not especially compacted, nor did it fill the basements.³⁰ Moreover, by the collapse of two 110 m long buildings (altogether 1 000 000 tons of building mass hitting ground) only a small seismic event was recorded.³¹ The seismic stations did not record a signal (primary waves or shear waves) that travelled through the earth, they only recorded surface waves. According to Dr Wood this was because much of the debris did not hit ground, meaning that the towers did not in fact collapse, but were turned to dust in mid-air before they hit the ground. She calls it dustification³², which describes the anomalous process as exactly as possible. A building in the process of being “dustified” would not have sufficient kinetic energy to dustify itself floor by floor, and to eject massive plumes of dust and debris and to overturn cars other vehicles on the ground. There happened not only dustification of the steel towers themselves, but also furnishings were turned to dust: ca 30 000 computers and office furniture (for about 50 000 empolyees), machinery, equipment, tens of thousands of book cases and filing cabinets (just a piece of one filing cabinet was found from the basement!) etc. Incredible amount of dust was created in the process of all three towers. Also, high tritium levels (55 times normal background levels) were measured in the WTC site.³³

Another striking unexplained anomaly was a great number of “toasted” or overturned cars in the WTC neighbourhood.³⁴

Some vehicles appeared to have burned on the inside but not on the outside. Vehicles were reported to have exploded and burst into flames by spontaneous combustion, others were described as “half there and half disintegrated”, others were strangely flipped upside down. About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted or were damaged on 9/11, some of them as far as seven blocks from the WTC. The “fires” seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. Damage of these highly varied and extremely mysterious kinds cannot be explained by falling debris, jet fuel, conventional fires, thermite etc.

Similarily, she brings out that little attention has been turned to the change of Earth’s magnetic field in connection with the 9/11 events. Magnetometers from the six different research stations monitored by the University of Alaska (Geophysical Institute Magnetometer Array) at precisely the moments of the collapse of the WTC Towers recorded significant changes of Earth’s magnetic field. Immediately before the first event, at WTC North Tower, the magnetometer readings began to fluctuate from the average. These fluctuations increased, and at each destructive event from then on, the values shifted dramatically either up or down. Dr Wood states that the timing, magnitude, and relationships of these fluctuations are unusual.³⁵

Dr Wood has also pointed out the survival of the bathtub. This concrete structure was situated under the WTC complex in order to protect lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River. Or in other words, the towers were actually built in the Hudson River on bedrock that’s 70 feet (over 20 metres) below the water table. The bathtub remained without significant damage despite a million tons of WTC material collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, according to the official theory. And the alleged collapse happened twice on that day, first collapsed the South Tower and then the North Tower. She asserts that no bathtub structure could remain unscathed after a mountain of quarter-mile high material was dropped on it twice. The bathtub was not built to withstand such colossal impact, as New York is not an active seismic zone.³⁶

Several other observations have been made by Dr Wood. For instance there were significant straight holes in the crash site – vertical round holes were just like cut into WTC buildings 5 and 6. Because of the verticality of these holes, their cause could not have been e.g. conventional explosives. WTC 6, an eight-story building, lost about half of its volume, the heart of the building was just gone and there was minimal debris left only at the ground level of the building. Whatever produced those vertically straight holes into those buildings, in so doing there was little apparent horizontal damage to the balance of the interior of WTC 6. In addition, the parking garage below WTC 6 remained essentially undamaged.³⁷ Also, it was notable that there happened to be long-term fuming (many months and even years) of the WTC debris and of the crash sites. The strange fumes continued to emerge from the water-saturated soil, yet conventional “smoke” does not in that way continue emerging from saturated dirt for many months.³⁸

Dr Judy Wood has described her work with the words of Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle): When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Research has led her to eliminate the impossible scenarios and explanations. She has argued that e.g. if the buildings had been blown up with explosives, 500 000 tons of debris would have slammed to the ground for each tower. Bombs do not turn buildings into powder; they only break them into chunks that in turn must slam to the ground. Debris that actually slammed to the ground was almost non-existent as the seismic impact it created was far less than it otherwise would have been.³⁹

What remains is quite astonishing and improbable – the use of a different kind of and unconventional weapon that is not known to general public so far, but which can be a probable explanation to many of those anomalies and manifestations.

Dr Wood has called this device a directed-energy weapon, that might have been used in destroying the WTC North and South Tower. Such technology, which is the basis for a weapon, has been highly classified information, but the technology has been under development for almost a century already. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955, commercial and military development of directed-energy technology has proceeded apace.⁴⁰

All-in-all, Dr Wood has recorded an unusual transformation and fusion of different materials in the process of the collapse of WTC towers. She has related many of those effects seen in the destruction of WTC with those experienced in the so-called “Hutchison effect”, produced by Canadian experimental scientist John Hutchison. The Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena discovered accidentally by John Hutchison already in 1979 during attempts to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. In January 2008, Dr Wood published a study⁴¹ together with co-author John Hutchison, which relates effects seen in photographic and video evidence taken before, during and after the destruction of the WTC complex, to effects seen in Hutchison’s ongoing experiments. The Hutchison Effect is primarily a “field effect”, seemingly created by a poorly understood interaction between electrostatic, magnetic and radio frequency fields. It has been studied by several military programmes during decades, e.g. one headed by Colonel John Alexander⁴². John Hutchison has asserted several times that his work and experiments have involved low power inputs (the total energy input to the set of test equipment has been between 75 watts and 4000 watts, at 110 volts, depending on the equipment and the test being done) and the effects are created through right waves and frequencies. Amongst other things it involves:

• levitation of heavy objects;
• the spontaneous fracturing of metals;
• changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals;
• fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, while lacking any displacement;
• the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material;
• disappearance of metal samples.

John Hutchison has also in his work experienced materials (aluminium blocks, the tops of steel bars) turning to dust and white powder.⁴³

Besides John Hutchison experiments, Dr Wood has in her book shown what George Piggot, Thomas Townsend Brown and Nikola Tesla have done, plus some other examples of similar kind.⁴⁴

Counterarguments to Dr Wood’s research are presented by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. in physics, in his piece The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers⁴⁵ and also by James Gourley in Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper The Star Wars Beam Weapon.⁴⁶ Dr Wood has answered to Dr Jenkins critique and actions in several pieces.⁴⁷ An analysis of Dr Jenkins counterarguments is also done by researcher Andrew Johnson in an article A Lengthy Discussion of The Steel in the Debris of the WTC (November 2007).⁴⁸

Let the seekers decide which arguments are more reasonable and tenable for finding convincing answers to the collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7.

(Continues as 9/11 Events Part 3)