The Government Reports on 9-11:
Did They Get It Right?
A presentation critical of the “Official Story” of
What Happened on September 11th,
An open source project of Visibility 9-11
Critique of the Official Government
Reports on 9-11-01
This is an open source project of Visibility 9-11 and is an attempt to build a solid PowerPoint
presentation for activists for use as an educational resource and specifically pointing out
the large number of problems with the “official story” of September 11th. All are
invited to download this document and add to it. Where possible, please provide links to
supporting documentation for the information presented. Please keep to the present
format when making additions which will include:
1- Try to find a nice graphic for most of your slides. Use what I have completed as a guide.
2- Try to imitate the format of the work I have already completed, ie. Fonts, text color,
formatting, background, etc.
3- Source everything with embedded links in the text.
4- Use the best possible source for your documentation.
5- Please do not submit slides containing disinformation or controversial, unproven theories.
If you have a question about what you might like to contribute, please send me an
email.
6- As the title and opening slides indicate, all fair and documented criticism of the FEMA
Report, the NIST Report, and the 9-11 Commission Report is welcome and encouraged.
When you get an update worth sending, please email it to me for review. If I like your work,
I will update the file at the website.
-Michael Wolsey
The National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States
Also known as The 9/11 Commission Report.
Final Report on the Collapse of the
World Trade Center Towers
Also Known as the NIST Report.
World Trade Center Building
Performance Study
Also Known as the FEMA Report.
Introduction
“…regardless of one’s opinion about its
historical accuracy, The 9/11 Commission
Report is one of the most important
documents ever produced in the United
States.”
-David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl
Harbor; Disturbing Questions About The
Bush Administration And 9/11
Why the 9/11 Commission Report is
Important
►
►
►
►
9/11 was one of the most important events in modern
world history.
9/11 was used as the excuse for the “war on terror” and
the subsequent wars.
Suggestions made by the report are being implemented,
despite the obvious failings of the report.
Did the 9/11 Commission Report dispel suspicions that the
Bush administration, at some level, had a hand in the
success of the attacks? Or was there evidence of a coverup?
The 9/11 Commissioners
“We have sought to be independent, impartial,
thorough, and non-partisan.” The 9/11
Commission Report, Preface, xv.
Was the 9/11 Commission
“Nonpartisan”?
Republicans
► Thomas H. Kean
Democrats
► Lee H. Hamilton
► Fred
► Richard
Chair
F. Fielding
► Slade Gorton
► John F. Lehman
► James R. Thompson
Vice Chair
Ben-Veniste
► Jamie S. Gorelick
► Bob Kerrey
► Timothy J. Roemer
5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. That’s
nonpartisan right?
Major Problems With The
Commission
► The
Chairman, Thomas H. Kean, is a
Republican.
► More importantly, the commission’s
Executive Director, Philip D. Zelikow, is a
Republican insider.
► Republicans were in charge of both the
investigation and the writing of the final
report.
► Is this nonpartisan?
Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of
the 9/11 Commission
►
►
The most influential individual on the 9/11 Commission.
Duties of the executive director included:






Setting the agenda
Picking the areas to be investigated
Choosing the briefing materials
Choosing the topics for hearings
Choosing the witnesses
Directing the lines of questioning of the witnesses
Was The 9/11 Commission
“Independent”?
Philip Zelikow
►
►
►
►
►
►
Has extensive ties to Condoleezza Rice, former National Security Advisor and current
Secretary of State in the Bush Administration.
Member of the National Security Council under Bush I where he served with Condoleezza
Rice.
Co-Authored a book with Condoleezza Rice, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A
Study in State Craft, 1997.
Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, which involved Rice, Cheney, and Wolfowitz.
Served on the National Security Council’s transition team between the Clinton and Bush
II administrations.
Served under President Bush on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Other Conflicts of Interest
► Gorelick
and Zelikow testifying at the
commission.
Was the 9/11 Commission
“Impartial”?
► Any
impartial investigation would consider and
investigate all possible suspects or theories.
► Two basic theories on 9/11:
 The “Official Conspiracy Theory”, that the attacks were
completely the work of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda
network and 19 Arab extremists.
 The “Alternative Conspiracy Theory”, that the attacks
were only successful because the Bush Administration
was complicit in allowing, facilitating, or engineering
their success.
► The
9/11 Commission did not even consider any
theory outside of the “Official Conspiracy Theory”,
therefore negating any appearance of impartiality.
Was the 9/11 Commission
Thorough?
“There are a lot of theories about 9/11, and as long as there
is any document out there that bears on any of these
theories, we’re going to leave questions unanswered.
And we cannot leave questions unanswered.”
-Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
in the New York Times, October 26, 2003
Was the 9/11 Commission
Thorough?
► The
commission was very thorough on
anything which was consistent with the
“official conspiracy theory”.
► Everything which was inconsistent with the
“official conspiracy theory” was either
distorted or omitted entirely.
► This lack of due diligence calls the entire
report into question and broke the law!
The 9/11 Commission’s Mandate
►
►
The 9/11 Commission was created by Public Law 107-306, 107th
Congress, November 22, 2002.*
Under Title VI, section 602 the commission was required to:
 “(1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001…;”
 “(2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all
relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attacks;”
 “(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and avoid unnecessary
duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of–”
►
“(B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent commission
investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist
attacks, and terrorism generally;”
*Note that this was 438 days, well over one year after the attacks of
September 11th, 2001.
Other Formal Disaster Investigations
► The
sinking of the Titanic -
6 Days
Other Formal Disaster Investigations
► The
Assassination of JKF -
7 Days
Other Formal Disaster Investigations
► The
Challenger Disaster -
7 Days
Other Formal Disaster Investigations
► Pearl
Harbor -
9 Days
What About September
► September
11th, 2001 -
th
11 ?
438 Days
What About Funding for the
Investigation?
Was the 9-11 Commission given enough money to
conduct a proper investigation?
The Clinton/Lewinski Scandal
► $40,000,000.00
spent on investigating Bill Clinton’s
extra-marital affair.
Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster
► $50,000,000.00
spent on investigating the Space
Shuttle Challenger.
The 2005 Presidential Inauguration
Party
► $40,000,000.00
party.
spent on Bush’s 2005 inauguration
How Much Did They Spend On
Investigating September 11th?
►
►
Originally funded with just $3,000,000.00.
Eventually increased to only $15,000,000.00.
Did The Bush Administration Really
Want An Investigation?
►
December 21, 2001: Senators Introduce Bills to Create
Independent 9/11 Commission
Two bipartisan pairs of senators introduce legislation to create
independent 9/11 commissions. Senators Joe Lieberman (D) and John
McCain (R) propose to create a 14-member, bipartisan commission with
subpoena power. At the same time, Robert Torricelli (D) and Charles
Grassley (R) propose to create a 12-member board of inquiry with
subpoena power. White House spokeswoman Anne Womack is
noncommittal about the proposals, saying, “We look forward to
reviewing them. Right now, the president is focused on fighting the war
on terrorism.” [New York Times, 12/21/2001]
Did The Bush Administration Really
Want An Investigation?
►
►
►
January 24, 2002: Cheney and Bush Pressure Senator to Avoid
9/11 Inquiry
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) later claims that on this day,
Vice President Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be
made. President Bush repeats the request on January 28, and Daschle
is repeatedly pressured thereafter.
Newsweek summarizes one of these conversations: “Bush
administration officials might say they’re too busy running the war on
terrorism to show up. Press the issue ... and you risk being accused of
interfering with the mission.” [Newsweek, 2/4/2002]
Senator Daschle later got an Anthrax letter which effectively shut the
Senator up.
Did The Bush Administration Really
Want An Investigation?
►
►
May 23, 2002: Bush Opposes Special Inquiry into Terrorism
Warnings
President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special,
independent commission to probe how the government dealt with
terrorism warnings before 9/11. [CBS News, 5/23/2002]
“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday
to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe
how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.”
Did The Bush Administration Really
Want An Investigation?
►
He [President Bush] later changes his stance in the face of
overwhelming support for the idea. [CBS News, 9/20/02] Victims
families are not convinced.
►
"It's carefully crafted to make it look like a general endorsement but it
actually says that the commission would look at everything except the
intelligence failures.“
Stephen Push
Lost his wife on AA 77
Did The Bush Administration Really
Want An Investigation?
►
For more information on how the Bush administration did not want an
investigation, visit Jon Gold’s blog page titled “What Qualifies as
Suspicious Behavior?” at 911blogger.com.
To Summarize…
►
►
►
►
►
►
The Bush Administration did not want a formal
investigation into the events of September 11th.
438 days after September 11th, a formal investigation was
finally authorized.
The Bush Administration fought the creation of the 9-11
Commission, and later refused to cooperate with the
Commission.
The 9-11 Commission was vastly under-funded.
The Commission itself was compromised, with many
conflicts of interest within its’ membership.
The 9-11 Commission failed in their mandate to provide
the fullest possible account of the events of September
11th.
Part One: The Commission’s
Omissions and Distortions
The “Hijackers”
At least six of the nineteen men identified by the
FBI as the suicide hijackers have turned up alive
and well after 9/11.
Waleed al-Shehri
►
►
►
►
Alleged to have been on Flight 11 which struck the North Tower at the
WTC.
The BBC reports al-Shehri is one of 4 alleged hijackers who have
“…turned up alive and well.” September 23, 2001.
The Daily Trust reports “A Saudi Arabian aircraft pilot who was named
as one of five suspects on board one of the planes that crashed into
the World Trade Centre, has turned up alive and well in Morocco.”
September 24, 2001.
On Sept. 22, 2001 Associated Press reported that al-Shehri had spoken
to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.
Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed alNami
►
►
►
Both alleged to have been on Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
“The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an
engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own.”
Ahmed al-Nami said, "I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my
name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard
of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.” Telegraph
September 23, 2001.
Mohand al-Shehri, Salem al-Hazmi,
Abdulaziz al-Omari
►
►
►
It is reported that the Saudi embassy said that Mohand al-Shehri is
"not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in
New York and Washington."
Shortly after the attacks, several sources reported that Salem al-Hazmi,
26, was alive and working at a petrochemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi
Arabia.
Abdullaziz al-Omari said "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on
their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a
suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a
plane. I had nothing to do with this." Telegraph September 23, 2001,
BBC September 23, 2001.
What Did The 9/11 Commission
Report Say About This?
The report regurgitates the FBI’s original list of 19 names
(pp. 1-5) and their pictures (pp. 238-39).
► The report fails to mention any of these errors, even
though they were widely available on the Associated Press,
Telegraph, and the BBC.
► The report contains many details of these 6 men, even
theorizing that Waleed al-Shehri was the hijacker who
stabbed one of the flight attendants on Flight 11.
► Is this “exacting investigative work” described by Kean and
Hamilton as “superb”?*
►
*The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface, xvii.
What Does The 9/11 Commission
Report Say About Mohamed Atta?
► The
report identifies Mohamed Atta as the
ringleader of the hijackers.
► Atta is portrayed as a devout Muslim.
► The report describes Atta as “fanatically” religious.
The 9/11 Commission Omitted All
Evidence Contradicting Their Version
Evidence, reported by Newsweek and the San Francisco
Chronicle, indicate that Atta enjoyed gambling, alcohol,
and lap dances.
► Daniel Hopsicker has discovered that while living in Florida,
Atta lived with a hooker, used alcohol and cocaine regularly
and ate pork chops.
►
Are These The Behavior’s of
“Fanatical” Muslims?
Are These The Behavior’s of
“Fanatical” Muslims?
A Wall Street Journal editorial from October 10, 2001
titled “Terrorist Stag Parties” alleges that several of the
hijackers including: “…Atta—spent $200-$300 each on lap
dances…” in Las Vegas strip clubs.
The 9/11 Commission Report Admits
Atta Met With Other Operatives in
Las Vegas Shortly Before 9/11
►
►
The 9/11 Commission Report concludes that they saw
“…no credible evidence explaining why, on this occasion
and others, the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas.”
(pp. 248).
The report failed to mention any of the other mainstream
reports indicating Atta was not a “fanatical” Muslim.
More About Atta:
Planted Evidence?
►
►
►
►
►
Two of Atta’s bags failed to make it onto the doomed flight.
These bags contained items such as Atta’s international
driver’s license, passport, flight manuals, a copy of the
Koran, and his last will and testament.
On October 1, 2001, Seymour Hersh wrote in the New
Yorker that it appeared to investigators that these items
were “meant to be found”.
How would Atta be able to board a flight without his
identification and why would he bring his will on a flight
doomed for total destruction?
None of this was even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission
Report.
Was Hani Hanjour The Best Pilot?
►
►
►
The report identifies Hani Hanjour as being the pilot on Flight 77 which
allegedly was flown into the Pentagon (p. 225).
The report asserts that Hanjour was specifically picked for this role
because he “was the operation’s most experienced pilot ” (p. 530,
n147).
The implication that Hanjour was a good pilot, in fact, the “most
experienced pilot” of the 9-11 hijackers, is directly contradicted by the
report itself in 3 different places (pp. 25-26, p. 242, p. 520, n56).
The Amazing Maneuver To Hit The
Pentagon
“… just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White
House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded
observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to
the right to approach the Pentagon from the west…Aviation sources
said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely
that a trained pilot was at the helm... ” Washington Post September
12, 2001.
The Amazing Maneuver To Hit The
Pentagon
The 9/11 Commission itself admitted, “American 77 was then 5 miles
south-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the
end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward
the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then
advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the
Pentagon.” (p. 9)
What did Hani Hanjour’s Flight
School Teachers Have to Say?
The BBC reported on May 17, 2002 that: “Instructors at a
flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the
poor English and limited flying skills of one of their
students, Hani Hanjour.”
What did Hani Hanjour’s Flight
School Teachers Have to Say?
In a New York Times story from May 4, 2002, Jim Yardley writes,
“Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very
quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a
very bad pilot.
‘I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the
Pentagon,’ the former employee said, ’He could not fly at all’ .”
What did Hani Hanjour’s Flight
School Teachers Have to Say?
On May 10, 2002, CBS News reported, “Months before Hani Hanjour is
believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon,
managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to
the FAA...
They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but
because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the
Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.
‘I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the
skills that he had,’ said Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the nowdefunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix.”
Did The 9/11 Commission Prove That
The Alleged Hijackers Were On The
Four Flights?
The Shocking Answer Is:
No.
►
The flight manifests which have been released show no
Arab names and no names of the hijackers.




►
American Airlines Flight 11
United Airlines Flight 175
American Airlines Flight 77
United Airlines Flight 93
Researchers attempting to get flight manifests directly from
the airlines have been spurned.
Letter From American Airlines to
Elias Davidsson
Re: Flight Manifests
Dear Mr. Davidsson:
Thank you for your email dated August 5 [2004]. Please accept my apologies
for the delay in responding to you.
At the time of the incidents we released the actual passenger manifests to the
appropriate government agencies who in turn released certain information to
the media. These lists were published in many major periodicals and are now
considered part of the public record. At this time we are not in a position to
release further information or to republish what the government agencies
provided to the media. Instead, should you require a copy of these lists may
we suggest that you research major periodicals for copies of their publications
containing the information you seek.
Mr. Davidsson, I trust this information will be of use to you.
Sincerely,
Karen Temmerman
Customer Relations, American Airlines
Did the 9/11 Commission Get The
Flight Manifests?
► The
report does not include any copies of the
flight manifests.
► Further, the report does not suggest this issue was
ever discussed or investigated.
► The 9/11 Commission simply parroted the line
from the FBI about the 19 hijackers without
question.
► Is this a report that is providing the “fullest
possible account” of the events of September 11th
2001?
Three Buildings “Collapse” At The
World Trade Center on
September 11th 2001
The Official Story of How the
Twin Towers “Collapsed”
The impact of large jet-liners, together with the jet
fuel heating the steel is blamed for the “collapse”
of Towers 1 and 2. Many of these theories have
been compiled by Jim Hoffman.
Six Problems With
The Official Story of The “Collapses”
►
►
►
►
►
►
Fire has never before, or since, caused the collapse of a
modern steel framed high-rise.
The fires at the WTC were relatively small, especially at the
South Tower.
If fires were responsible for the collapse, the wrong tower
“collapsed” first.
Ordinary carbon based fires do not get hot enough to
significantly weaken or melt structural steel.
The problem of explaining the mysterious collapse of
building 7, a 47 story tower which had small fires, but was
not hit by an aircraft.
The “collapses” of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exhibited
10 features which are characteristic of controlled
demolitions.
Can Fire Cause The Collapse Of a
Modern Steel Framed High-Rise?
►
►
Never in the history of modern steel high rise construction
has fire caused a building to collapse. Chicago Tribune
November 29, 2001.
In the 1990’s, tests on steel framed buildings revealed that
“Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-
900 degrees C (1500-1700 degrees F) in three of the
tests…no collapse was observed in any of the six
experiments.” FEMA Report #403, World Trade Center
Building Performance Study, Appendix A, May 2002.
►
There are many examples of large high rise fires which,
unlike the Twin Towers and WTC 7, did not collapse.
One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, February 23, 1991
One Meridian Plaza is a 38 story steel framed high rise in Philadelphia.
The fire burned for 18 hours and gutted eight floors causing an estimated $100 million in
property loss.
► A FEMA report produced in 1991 for the Philadelphia fire said, “Beams and girders
►
►
sagged and twisted…under severe fire exposures…Despite this extraordinary exposure,
the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”
►
►
►
Three fire fighters lost their lives fighting the blaze.
Described by officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The building did not collapse.
The Windsor Building
Madrid, February 13, 2005
►
►
►
The Windsor Building was a 32 story high rise in Madrid, Spain constructed of
steel reinforced concrete.
The fire raged for nearly 24 hours and gutted the entire top section of the
building.
“The office tower was heavily damaged but did not collapse...” Madrid
skyscraper fire under control, February 14, 2005.
Now That’s a Towering Inferno!
Windsor Building, Madrid
February 13, 2005
Parque Central East Tower
Caracas, October 15, 2004
Parque Central East Tower is South America’s and Venezuela’s tallest building
at 56 stories tall, framed with steel beam construction.
► The fire raged for over 27 hours and gutted 17 floors before it finally burnt
itself out.
► “During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was
►
no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was
severe.” NFPA Journal, March/April 2005
►
Despite this real life “towering inferno”, the building did not collapse.
The fires at the WTC were relatively
small, especially at the South Tower
►
►
►
The fires were relatively small compared to other high rise fires we
have observed in this presentation.
The fires omitted copious amounts of black smoke which indicates a
cooler, oxygen starved fire.
Note that in the photo above, it is very clear that the fire at the South
Tower (left) had died down considerably prior to the building’s
“collapse”.
The Hit On The North Tower
The North Tower was the first one hit by UA Flight 11 at 8:46 am.
The aircraft hit the tower straight on at about the 96th floor.
Most of the jet fuel was consumed directly in the building as opposed to
exploding outside as in the case of the South Tower.
► The building stood for 102 minutes after being hit before it too “collapsed”, 46
minutes after the South Tower came down.
► Fires in the North Tower were much more severe than in the South Tower.
►
►
►
The Path of Flight 11 Into The
North Tower
A diagram from NIST shows the trajectory of Flight 11.
This aircraft struck a more direct blow, straight on and into the center of the buildings
core structure.
► The building sustained more damage to its’ core, AND had stronger, hotter fires, and yet
“collapsed” 46 minutes AFTER the South Tower.
► Note: NIST’s own estimates of temperatures within the towers doesn’t show any
temperatures above about 400 degrees C.
►
►
The Hit On The South Tower
The South Tower was the 2nd tower hit at 9:03 AM
The aircraft came in at an angle and hit the tower near the corner at about the
80th floor.
► A significant portion of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building in the huge
fire ball everyone is familiar with. This left less fuel inside the building.
► The tower stood for 56 minutes before it was the first of the Twin Towers to
“collapse” at 9:59.
►
►
The Path of Flight 175 Into The
South Tower
►
The above image put out by NIST (National Institute on Science and
Technologies) attempts to show the estimated temperatures of the steel
columns.* It also shows the trajectory of the aircraft with estimated damage
to the impact area, the core structure, and the hotter temperatures depicted
on the exterior columns located in the aircraft’s path.
*These diagrams grossly misrepresents the actual construction of the towers, showing only 21 exterior columns on
each side when in fact there were 59. It can therefore be assumed that the damage depicted here could be slanted
toward the official story as well. Nevertheless, it does show a good representation of the aircraft’s trajectory.
The Wrong Tower “Collapsed” First
The South Tower was struck by United Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, 17 minutes after
the North Tower was hit at 8:46.
► The South Tower stood for only 56 minutes before its sudden, unexpected
“collapse” at 9:59. The North Tower did not “collapse” until 10:28, only 102
minutes after it was hit. CNN, September 11th, 2001.
► Fires in the North Tower were much more extreme than the fires in the South
Tower. Because it was hit more directly by the aircraft, more of the jet fuel
stayed inside the building.
►
Can Carbon Based Fires Get Hot
Enough To Melt or Weaken Structural
Steel?
Ordinary hydrocarbon fires under optimal circumstances reach temperatures of around
1700 Fahrenheit.
► Steel begins to melt at about 2770 Fahrenheit.
► The hottest fires fall well short of temperatures required to melt steel.
► Many news reports initially claimed the steel in the towers was melted and many people
still believe this the cause of the “collapses” of the 3 buildings, contributing to the myth
that heat and fire brought the buildings down.
►
How Bad Were the Fires in the
Towers?
►
►
Taken from the FDNY 9-11 recordings, we can clearly hear from
firefighters ON THE SCENE in the South Tower how bad the fires
actually were.
Click the sound icon to hear the actual FDNY recording which took
place at approximately 9:50, just 9 minutes before the “collapse” of
the South Tower.
 “Ladder 15: We’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th Floor…”
Does This Look Like a Raging
Inferno?
► This
is a photo of the South Tower just moments
before it came down.
Experts Promote the Myth of Raging
Fires and Melted Steel at the World
Trade Center
►
►
In the days and weeks following the 9-11 attacks, the
media promoted “experts” who severely over rated the
fires and temperatures and those effects of the steel
structure of the fires.
Effects described were not only false and unrealistic, but
described conditions only obtained in a blast furnace.
Stanford University News Service
►
In a news release dated 9-11-01, Professor Steven M. Block over
exaggerates the damage to the towers by comparing the impacts from
the jets to “nuclear bomb explosion[s].”
 "Next to an atomic weapon, this is the most [energy] that you can pack in
one punch."
►
The report also introduces the myth that the fires “melted the
buildings’ cores”.
 “Although the World Trade Center was designed to withstand "amazing
kinds of forces" and even an aircraft collision, architects may not have
taken into consideration the enormous amount of heat a plane loaded with
enough fuel to fly across the country would generate. The intense heat
could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he
suggested.”
Hyman Brown
►
A September 12, 2001 AP article, in part read:
“Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's
construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation
fuel melted steel supports.
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into
it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing
is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
New Scientist Online Publication
►
On September 12, 2001, NewScientist.com endorses the
fire melts steel myth.
 “Each Tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by
suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour.
Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the
time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.”
Was Any of the Steel Tested to See
How Hot the Fires Were?
► Paint
tests…..Kevin Ryan stuff here
Tampering with evidence
► Removal
of steel.
Remember The Caracas Fire?
► IF
fires were responsible for bringing the towers
down, the wrong tower “collapsed” first.
Remember The Caracas Fire?
► No
steel framed high-rise, IN THE HISTORY OF
THE WORLD, has ever collapsed due to fire.
But, But…..
►
►
►
…on 9-11, the towers had been significantly weakened by
the impact of the jetliners.
Together with the fires, the buildings just couldn’t have
stood for long.
Right?
This Is What Many “Experts” Told Us
►
Gene Corley, a structural “expert” with the American Society of Engineers said
in a PBS NOVA special titled Why the Towers Fell, said:
“It was the combination of the impact load doing great damage to the
building, followed by the fire, that caused collapse. We need to look for types
of fireproofing that can take the impact and can stand up to the impact and
stick to the steel after the impact.”
What’s That About the Fireproofing?
►
►
According to the NIST Report, loss of fireproofing on the steel is what
facilitated the “collapses”.
“The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of
aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had
not been widely dislodged or had only been minimally dislodged by
aircraft impact.”
NIST Report, Executive Summary
How Did NIST Prove Their Theory of
the Dislodged Fireproofing?
► They
shot a series of 15 shotgun blasts onto flat
plates covered with fireproofing.
NIST Report Debris Impact Tests, Appendix C
Did NIST Prove Their Theory of the
Dislodged Fireproofing?
NIST failed to prove that impact from an aircraft would transfer into x number
of shotgun blasts.
► Certainly, many thousands of shotgun blasts would be needed to simulate an
aircraft crash.
► Most of the energy involved in the impact was used up in the destruction of
the aircraft and the obvious damage to the tower itself.*
► There simply was not enough energy available to account for the energy
required to knock off all the fireproofing.
►
*Calculations performed by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
Do the Architects of High Rise
Buildings Design for Jetliner
Impacts?
►
►
►
The Answer is YES, they do!
In 1945, a B-25 bomber, in thick fog, struck the Empire State Building.
By the way, despite causing damage and a raging fire, the building did
not collapse and was repaired within 3 months.
The WTC Towers Were Designed to
Withstand the Impact From Large
Jetliners
► On
January 25, 2001 Frank A. Demartini, on-site
construction manager for the World Trade Center,
spoke of the resilience of the towers.
The WTC Towers Were Designed to
Withstand the Impact From Large
Jetliners
►
“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 1/25/01
The WTC Towers Were Designed to
Withstand the Impact From Large
Jetliners
►
►
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade
Center.
In 1993 he said, “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, ... The building structure would still be there.”
More problems…
Were the Towers Designed to
Withstand the Impact From Large
Jetliners?
The Upper Block of Floors Began to
Tip As The Tower Explodes
►
►
►
The upper block of floors tipped approximately 23 degrees to the South
East.
The Law of Conservation of Momentum would dictate the section of floors
would topple over independently, not act as a “pile driver”.
In mid-air, this block of approximately 30 floors was pulverized to fine
powder. Nothing was left from the upper section in the rubble pile.
The Official Story Also Ignores the
Law of Conservation of Energy
►
►
►
The Law of Conservation of Energy says that energy cannot be created
or destroyed, but only converted from one form to another.
“Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant
and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted
from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic
energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.”
Where did the energy come from to pulverize both of the Twin Towers?
Where Did the Energy To Do This
Come From?
Where Did the Energy To Do This
Come From?
►
Notice that in all three of these photo’s, the tipping top 30
floors of the South Tower are pulverized in mid air.
building 7, a 47 story tower which
had small fires, but was not hit by an
aircraft.
► http://web.archive.org/web/2002021418292
1/http:/www.chicagotribune.com/news/local
/chi-0111290236nov29.story
The collapse of the Twin Towers and
WTC 7 exhibited 10 features which
are characteristic of controlled
demolitions
Twin Towers: Omitting the Core
► http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/15400
44.stm
Eyewitness’s Report Explosions
Was Osama bin Laden Responsible
For the Crimes of 9-11?
Within hours of the attacks in New York and Washington,
we were told that Osama bin Laden was responsible.
► The media told Americans repeatedly that Osama and AlQaeda attacked America on September 11th..
► How could the FBI be so incompetent when it came to
preventing 9-11, yet be so efficient at pointing the finger?
►
Has Osama Been Indicted For the
Crimes of September 11th?
►
►
The shocking answer is NO!
As of the creation of this presentation (1-07), NO ONE has
in any way been held responsible for the crimes of 9-11.
Surely the FBI Has Evidence Linking
Osama to 9-11?
►
According to the FBI’s own website, Osama isn’t even
wanted in connection to the events of September 11th.
Are You Kidding Me?
► This
must be some sort of mistake on the website,
right?
No Hard Evidence?
►
►
►
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report’s Ed Haas
contacted the FBI Headquarters and spoke with Rex Tomb,
Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.
Ed asked Chief Tomb why Osama’s wanted poster did not
include the crimes of September 11th.
Tomb replied that, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned
on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the
FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Wait A Minute!
►
►
►
Didn’t we GO TO WAR with Afghanistan because they wouldn’t hand
over Osama?
Didn’t we NOT INVESTIGATE any of the other theories about what
happened because we were so sure Osama did it?
The 9-11 Commission told us Osama and 19 Muslims did it. They
wouldn’t lie, would they?
North Tower Antenae Drops first
► GENE
CORLEY: Looking at the films of the
North Tower, it appears that the antenna
starts down just a little bit before the
exterior of the building. That suggests the
core went first.
Dr. David Ray Griffin
Special thanks to Dr. Griffin for all his hard work
exposing the lies of the “Independent” 9/11
Commission Report.
Recommended Reading and
Resource
The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions
Special thanks to
► Dr.
David Ray Griffin
► Dr. Steven E. Jones
► Kevin Ryan
► Jim Hoffman
► Jon Gold