Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Tag: demolition

by Gregory Szuladzin, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns
International Journal of Protective Structures Volume 4 · Number 2 · 2013 117
Received on 22 Dec 2012, Accepted on 8 March 2013

This article elaborates on variables associated with the collapse of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The previously published quantifications of inertia, column capacity, and the assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion, are examined and corrected. The reasons for false conclusions reached in several previous analyses are presented.

This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could not fail. The objective is to eliminate erroneous concepts supported by false assumptions and by the use of incorrect values for velocity, mass, and column resistance. The only complete hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column
Failure mode or PCF in brief. (In the past this mode was often referred to as pancaking, but this term is not used here to avoid ambiguities). It is explained here why PCF could not be the mode of the ultimate destruction. The previously published material is quoted and the new points are brought up. Appendix Ccan be of interest to those who want a broader description of facts associated with the collapse. The available information relating to the kinetics of the collapse is summarized first.

A good comparison between various collapse models and reality makes it necessary to have some observations of the towers during collapse. To our knowledge, the most accurate and reliable data available are provided by video footage taken by Etienne Sauret [7], and used in the documentary film WTC: The first 24 hours. This footage clearly shows the top of WTC 1, including the roofline, for about the first 3.2 seconds of the collapse. Each pixel represents 0.27 m of the tower, and the frame rate is 30 per second, allowing for fairly accurate measurements of the motion. It is
unfortunate that the roof line is visible for only 3.2 seconds before disappearing into a dense cloud of debris, but these few seconds are, in fact, quite informative.

Now, let us have a look at the numerical values. The velocity of the falling roof of the North Tower was measured in [7] and the initial phase over the first 1.4 seconds is shown in Figure 1.The averaged acceleration during the early phase of the fall (shown as the slope of the velocity curve in Figure 1) was approximately 5.11 m/s2. The resulting velocity after 1.2 seconds of the fall, which is the approximate time for a fall of one story (3.7 m), is 6.13 m/s (13.71 mi/h).

For comparison, we note that a free drop (acceleration of 9.81 m/s2) of an object from a height of 3.7 m takes 0.869 s and the peak velocity reached then is 8.52 m/s. The total height of the tower was 417 m and the time needed for a free drop from that height was 9.22 s, while the end velocity of the dropping object would reach 90.45 m/s. If the drop is counted to only the top of mezzanine, at 21.33 m above ground (a notional top of the rubble heap), then the time is only 8.98 s.

Read more

by Tyler Koteskey
September 15, 2015

This month, Bank of America released a map in its Transforming World Atlas that shows just how much the US dwarfs the rest of the world in defense spending. The chart illustrates how America’s military budget surpasses our next 15 closest rivals—combined.

It’s little surprise then, that with only 5% of Earth’s population, the US military budget makes up nearly half of the planet’s defense spending.

Let’s face it—assuming the role of world police has real costs. It’s estimated that the Pentagon spends more money each year than all 50 states combined on health, education, welfare, and public safety put together. With our national debt expected to reach 21 trillion by the end of the fiscal year and our geopolitical rivals so clearly far behind, diagrams like these should give us pause. We’ve got hundreds of bases in at least 74 countries, and troops present in almost every country on earth.

“If a conference such as SEFI 2015 cannot address the ethical lapses of the engineering peer review process, what venues are available to demand that engineers adhere to the ideals embodied in their various codes of ethics?” — Wayne Coste and Michael Smith


By AE911Truth Staff
July 30, 2015

Last month, the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) rescinded its approval for engineers Wayne Coste and Michael Smith to present their paper at the organization’s 43rd annual conference in Orléans, France, just prior to participants’ arrival at the conference.

The paper, titled “The World Trade Center Analyses: Case Study of Ethics, Public Policy and the Engineering Profession” and co-authored by R. M. Korol of McMaster University, questions the ethics and credibility of those who speak for the engineering profession. Specifically, it critiques the unscientific conclusions and ethics failures of an article written by Northwestern University engineering professor Zdeněk P. Bažant, “What Did and Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York,” that was published in respected professional journals after the destruction of these New York City skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

Though their paper was peer-reviewed by the SEFI conference’s scientific committee and was subsequently accepted and scheduled for presentation, the scientific committee then did an about-face after two committee chairmen overruled the scientific committee’s recommendation and withdrew approval at the last minute. The reason SEFI gave for pulling the paper had nothing to do with the technical veracity of its content or its conclusions, the paper’s authors maintain. Rather, they say, SEFI cited an unspecified concern about possible libelous statements.

Read more

“The truth is, before 9/11, the term global collapse didn’t even exist. Buildings survived fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions and even nuclear explosions. Never, before or after 9/11, have we seen such catastrophic failures.”

Then ask yourself: “Did the laws of physics not apply on 9/11?”

By Carolyn Clark
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Aug. 4, 2015

“The truth is, before 9/11, the term global collapse didn’t even exist. Buildings survived fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions and even nuclear explosions. Never, before or after 9/11, have we seen such catastrophic failures.” This three-and-a-half-minute video — “9/11 In Perspective” — presents footage of eight buildings, ranging from nine to 62 floors, that have been either partially or fully engulfed in flames and yet remained standing despite massive internal destruction. Their major fires shown in these clips range from 1988 to 2008, and took place in U.S. cities (Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles) and abroad (Caracas, Madrid, Beijing, Delft).

Seeing the stubborn resilience of these high-rise steel structures makes one question the U.S. government’s contention that the Twin Towers were leveled by jet crashes and kerosene-fueled fires, and that a third building, World Trade Center 7, was destroyed by fires alone on September 11, 2001. In fact, after watching this video, it’s reasonable to ask oneself: “Which am I going to believe, the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 or my own eyes?”

Read more

August 25, 2014
by Dalia Mae


This is what a building collapse looks like. Even though the pillars of the building have been skillfully severed by explosives – everything of weight is going DOWNWARDS.

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687.

327 years later society, governments and the mainstream media seem to have a problem with Newton. Ex Prime Minister Julia Gillard even called it in question in Parliament – calling it “stupid and wrong” to question the collapse of the WTC towers (and WTC 7) – when Kevin Bracken (Victorian Trades Hall President) was derided by Jon Faine on ABC 774 radio. (video)

September 11 is nearly upon us – again. More posts today here on RETHINK911 and from a survivor here. And go to – WITNESSES, WHISTLEBLOWERS and PARENTS

So observe: This is one of the pictures that show how Newton’s law was broken on the 11th of September 2001. It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.


Read more

Written by AE911Truth Staff
Sunday, 13 April 2014


WTC Tower construction showing core column

To believe the official conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rise buildings requires an Olympian leap of faith. It asks us to accept impossible coincidences, to assume the laws of physics don’t always apply, and to ignore common sense. Being one of 9/11’s least likely hypotheses, it requires that we emotionally moor ourselves to its tenets, because an intellectual examination or inquiry would quickly reveal dots that don’t connect. Fortunately, a much more cogent theory exists. It suggests that controlled demolition, not fire, was the cause of the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, and 7.

But this theory, although supported by overwhelming scientific forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and visual documentation, is nevertheless rejected by official conspiracy theorists. On the grounds that it presumes impossibly high logistical hurdles for the perpetrators, the official conspiracy theorists argue that a plan of such magnitude would have been impossible to carry out. How was security breached? How were necessary cables and other equipment moved into the buildings unseen, and how did a demolition team gain access to structural members? To investigators and degreed professionals who have studied the evidence, these questions are elementary. What follows is a simple, yet compelling, visual and scientific narrative, which explains how the controlled destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1,2, and 7 was accomplished.

Read more

August 14, 2013
Corbett Report

Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( joins James Corbett to discuss the new global initiative to raise awareness of 9/11 Truth, ReThink911 ( They talk about the explosive evidence for the destruction of the towers, as well as how ReThink911 will help to spread awareness of this information through a coordinated campaign of advertisements, PR, grassroots activism, and congressional outreach during the 12th anniversary of 9/11. They also discuss how interested and concerned citizens across America and around the globe can take part in the campaign.

Aug. 5, 2013

AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, shared the vital 9/11 information with other AIA members at our convention “evidence booth”

A dozen AE911Truth volunteers spent three very productive days with several thousand architects in Denver last month.

The occasion? The American Institute of Architects’ annual convention, which drew 14,000 architects to the Colorado Convention Center on June 20–21. We were certainly strong contenders for the attention of these technical professionals, and we raised a lot of eyebrows as we shared the explosive 9/11 evidence.

AE911Truth has an interesting history with the American Institute of Architects. We have previously attended AIA conventions in Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., where we were able to reach and educate thousands of architects.

In the past, the AIA has been lukewarm to us – encouraging us to host booths and unofficial presentations and yet refusing to meet with us to discuss the findings of almost 2,000 architects (including six AIA fellows and over 100 AIA members) who have signed our petition calling for a new 9/11 investigation. We preceded this particular convention by sending a series of letters to the president and board of the AIA, which culminated in a comprehensive summary document of WTC evidence.

As we wrote to President Mickey Jacob, FAIA, and the entire Board of Directors, “We are also requesting again a private meeting with the AIA Board to explain our findings. Unless the AIA is prepared to re-visit the evidence, as subsequently uncovered, and adopt a proactive stance, you may find yourself on the wrong side of history as the ‘Official Report’ further unravels and the true cause of the collapse of the three towers becomes known to a growing and unsettled populace.”

With the help of many dedicated volunteers such as Larry Landon on our Graphics Team, Joe Heller on our Printing Team, and donors such as Nick Guccione, Oleg Kis, and others, we fashioned and distributed booth banners that provided a systematic outline and illustration of the evidence. These banners can be downloaded for only $1 by petition signers.

Architects seem to vary little from the rest of the public in their confusion about evidence that contradicts their worldview. About half of those who stopped by were genuinely interested in viewing the evidence. Most of them took our latest DVD, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, and were receptive to the idea of follow-up calls to see what they thought about it. Many of them immediately signed our petition calling for a new WTC investigation!

However, like the general public, about half of the attendees either ignored us completely and walked by, acted with some degree of disdain, or were honest enough to let us know that they disagreed with us. The latter turned into the most interesting conversations, because these individuals were obviously emotionally attached to their positions and usually unable to focus on any given element of evidence for any significant length of time – jumping to some rationalization that they had seen on TV or heard from a friend in an effort to justify not having to take in this new information.

In fact, even very intelligent architects can still believe the most blatant falsehoods, in total opposition to the laws of physics, as needed to keep their “ship of mind” upright. For instance, one architect had no problem with the “free-fall” of World Trade Center Building 7. “Of course … how else is it going to fall? It’s so heavy,” he said. I answered, “All 82 columns had to be removed virtually at once – and then synchronistically timed, floor by floor, for at least 8 floors (the distance the building dropped in free-fall).” The response? “It’s just so heavy – all that weight … the columns just gave in.” We dealt with a lot of “magical thinking” from well-meaning architects.

In another astonishing example of denial, an architect from Iowa completely dismissed the devastating information I was conveying, simply because I had forgotten the name of the architecture firm that designed the original Building 7. (Anyone know? It was Emery Roth & Sons.)

Another stated, “It was the Muslims that did it.” I responded, “But NIST said ‘normal office fires’ brought down WTC 7.” I don’t care, if it wasn’t for the Muslims, then none of this would have happened.”

On the other hand, most who stopped by were open to the evidence and came with a willingness to hear new information and promised to review our latest documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. Many of them had heard of us, and a few indicated that they had already told colleagues about this vital information.

Read more

By Adam Taylor
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown with page numbers.)

Part 10:
Minimal Wreckage to Study

More than 100,000 tons of WTC building debris was removed from Ground Zero in the three weeks following 9/11, making a proper on-site investigation impossible

In the last section of their book covering WTC7, PM’s writers and editors discuss the fact that the steel from Ground Zero was quickly removed from the site and recycled. 9/11 researchers have cited this as evidence of a cover-up. However, PM’s writers attempt to explain why there was nothing unusual about this speedy cleanup of Ground Zero, and we see that, once again, their excuses are groundless.

PM starts off by quoting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) structural engineer Gene Corley:

“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling,” Gene Corley told the U.S. House Representatives’ Committee on Science in March 2002. “This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.” (p. 86)

Although the FEMA team had some access to the steel and the site, the initial investigation was plagued with problems cited by the Science Committee of the House of Representatives, including:

The BPAT (Building Performance Assessment Team) did not control the disposition or acquisition of the steel. “The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence.”

FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that “frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse.”

The BPAT was not granted access to “pertinent building documents.”

Funding and analysis was severely curtailed. “The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings.”

Moreover, Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers’ blueprints until he signed a wavier that the blueprints would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency. Corley also admitted that “the delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team’s ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings.”

Contrary to what many believe, the removal of the debris was very rapid, with more than 100,000 tons of it being removed by September 29, 2001. Much of the steel was removed from the site before FEMA had even started its investigation. Although PM apparently sees nothing wrong with how the debris was handled, numerous individuals demanded that the steel be preserved and were upset that the steel was recycled, including professor of fire science Glenn Corbett, fire protection engineer Craig Beyler, and Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, who deemed the investigation a “half-baked farce…. the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Because the steel was recycled so quickly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hardly had any steel to examine from the three towers. Much of the steel that NIST did have was left un-catalogued and stored in Hangar 17 at JFK airport. NIST used fallacious reasoning to exclude most of this steel from its primary investigation. Rather than acknowledge the absurdity of this, PM instead notes that NIST relied extensively on computer models to investigate Building 7’s collapse. The writers also quote New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (whom they also mention has an engineering degree) as saying “Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” (p. 87)

Read more

By Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37,
April 2013


The importance of understanding the mechanisms of collapse for the three World Trade
Center buildings on September 11, 2001 cannot be over-estimated, for these unusual
collapses and their disputed causes raise questions regarding all future steel-frame building
design. A literature review was conducted to identify the evolving trend in research results
in this area, which have become increasingly diverse over time. Recommendations for
further research are presented.


Over the past decade there have emerged two primary hypotheses regarding the mechanism of destruction for World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, namely, the official fire-induced Progressive Collapse (PC) versus the alternate Controlled Demolition (CD). The question of which of these two hypotheses is correct is singularly important because its current lack of resolution leaves unmet the following critical needs (assuming PC):

(1) Thousands of other structures may also be subject to such catastrophic destruction by
office fires, and inspections and upgrades based on determination of what caused the
WTC buildings to collapse may be needed to ensure public safety;

(2) Significant structural design analysis tools and computer models need upgrades
to account for the potential of such catastrophic destruction;

(3) major revisions to building codes for high-rise steel-frame buildings are critically needed
(Bement, 2002).

Our goals here are to fully document the available peer-reviewed literature on this important
question, and to promote more open and in-depth research by a broader community of scholars.

Although much relevant evidence from portions of the events of 9/11 remains unavailable to
researchers as well as the general public, substantial evidence is available concerning the
destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 that is relevant to resolving the key question of PC versus CD.
Nevertheless, the diversity and complexity of the 9/11 events make it very difficult for most
citizens, and even many researchers, to obtain the quality information needed to address and
resolve the above questions. In particular, information provided officially is notoriously
incomplete; e.g., the official 9/11 Commission Report (2004) makes no mention of destruction of the third high-rise steel-frame building, WTC 7. Further, relevant official reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the Twin Towers are incomplete in that Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37, April 2013 they stopped their efforts at “collapse initiation” and could not explain total destruction. Finally, the same NIST reports have been surrounded by controversy that remains mostly unreported in mainstream media sources (see peer-reviewed papers referenced herein).

This controversy has been fueled in part because official investigations and reports on this topic have been very tightly controlled and not peer-reviewed.i Basic documentation of such work has not been made available to independent researchers in spite of repeated Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA) requests; e.g., most of the detailed documentation, coding, methodology and assumptions employed by NIST in their finite element analysis model of WTC 7. Related to these technical impediments to independent research, in addition to essentially no funding for such research, the “conspiracy theorist” or “truther” label has often been used to discourage or truncate debate on many critical questions, leaving the official theory as the default. For the most part, and somewhat understandably, the science and engineering professional communities have stayed on the sidelines, perhaps in part to protect their reputations and in part to avoid putting their federal research grants at risk. This condition of obstructed research continues in spite of the fact that a “conspiracy” by definition is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.”

Thus, by definition, both the official PC hypothesis and the alternative CD hypothesis addressed here are necessarily associated with a conspiracy theory of one form or another. Setting such labels aside, the fundamental question remains, “which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence?” Unfortunately, this basic question and its resolution have been systematically subverted for the past decade.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud