The article describes very scientific and detailled the odd circumstances, why both towers, in opposite to the Plane Crashes did not collapse in a chaotic way and hurling debris over a wide area but rather collapsed upon itself.

If the scientific proof is true, it would bring a new light into the discussion, if the hijckers had helping hands inside the building and what the security did that day and before.

The official version until now is, that not the fire, but the heat has melted the steal of the two buildings.

I didn't read much explanations in the early days after the attack, but remember that this version was wondered already by other specialists as well. Since then i never read another explanation.

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html

"..Obviously the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. First we must examine this hypothesis as to its credibility.
Firstly, much, or perhaps most, of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, it is likely that the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers would have burnt fairly quickly (jet fuel does not burn slowly like wood). And finally there were sprinkler systems in place in the towers, and it can be surmised that these would have hindered the spread of the fire (by soaking combustible material) even if they had no effect on the burning jet fuel itself. The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed? If the columns had melted like toffee they would have bent (not snapped), causing the upper parts of the towers to buckle and tip to one side (probably the side where the planes hit). This did not happen. These considerations show that the claim that tens of thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers.

Examination of the times of the events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse. The North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m. The plane hit the tower directly, in the center, and all the jet fuel which was not immediately consumed in the fireball entered the building, causing a major fire. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle (see graphics at left and below), and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball.

The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:50 a.m., 47 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.

A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael here.

... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten — on one plane load of jet fuel? ...
Here is a picture showing the top 25 floors of one tower (probably south) toppling over sideways (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg). Why are there no reports of this cube of concrete and steel (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 200 ft. high), falling from 1000 feet into the street below? ... Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story-object struck? Forty floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the surrounding cityscape. ...

When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them. — J. McMichael, I Tried To Be Patriotic

There is a mystery here. What brought those towers down? Explosives? In his message quoted above David Rostcheck wrote: "To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places ... Someone had to have had a lot of access to all of both towers and a lot of time to do this."

The towers collapsed, but not because of the plane impacts and the fires. It is easy to leap from the fact that the towers did not collapse because of the fires to the conclusion they collapsed because explosives were placed in them prior to the plane impacts (since what else could explain the collapse?). But disproof of one possible explanation (fire) does not constitute proof of another (explosives) — unless that other is the only possible alternative..."

"..That explosives were used is certainly possible. The towers collapsed starting with the floors at the impact points of the planes. If explosive devices (bombs) had been placed in the towers (assuming that whoever placed them there were experts in controlled demolition and knew what effect they wanted to achieve) they would have been placed, not in the basement (as in the case of the 1993 WTC bombing), but rather at several of the upper levels (or perhaps at every third level over a wide range). The bombs could have been encased in heat-resistant material so that the fire itself would not detonate them, but rather they could be detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right time. Even if the fires (despite the dampening effect of the sprinkler systems) disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires. No wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode, and these signals could be sent "in a smooth, timed sequence", producing the intended result.

There are, however, four problems with the explosives theory:

(i) The WTC employeed hundreds of security guards and had hundreds of surveillance cameras (supposedly) operating. With this kind of security it might be possible to plant a few bombs but planting many would seem infeasible (unless the central steel columns were not subject to security checks and surveillance).

(ii) No-one is reported as having heard explosions just prior to the collapse, although (a) there is visual evidence of an explosion in the Seven WTC building and (b) if explosions had been heard this might not have been reported in the mainstream media (intent as it is on propagating the official story about the cause of the collapse). Major explosions within the towers might have been obscured by the heavy black smoke, but one would expect them to have been heard, since there were people within a block of the towers when they collapsed. Could explosions powerful enough to destroy the steel supports have been muffled somehow? Or were there explosions sufficiently small (yet still effective) that they were not heard outside? Were there small explosions whose effects were somehow magnified by another kind of technology (perhaps "a phased frequency harmonic pulse")?

(iii) Even if the central steel columns had been blasted at approximately the level of the impacts, causing the floors above to collapse and the whole structure to pancake, the central columns below the blast level would still be left standing, or if not, would have fallen over. But those central columns were not left standing. Apparently all 1000 ft (250 m.) or so of them were reduced to fragments. (The fire theory explains this even less than the explosives theory.) If explosives were the cause then one has to suppose that the steel columns were destroyed by explosives at all (or at least most) of the levels, which would be difficult to arrange because of the WTC security (as noted above).

(iv) If explosives had been planted sufficient to weaken the structural supports, why not have planted explosives sufficient to destroy those supports even without any plane impacts and fires? Why bother to hijack the planes (remotely) and crash them into the towers when the damage caused by the explosives would produce a similar effect?

So here is a mystery. The fires did not cause the collapse of the towers, and it seems unlikely that explosives caused the collapse. But they did collapse, and in a very strange manner, as if demolished in a controlled way, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is very strange. Look at all that dust (click image to enlarge). It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust. But no country possesses such a disintegration beam — or if so, we have not been told of it.

But this mystery does clear up one point: Why jetliners were (remotely) hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers. The reason is that the buildings were demolished using "black" technology which is certainly beyond the capabilities of any Arab terrorists. Had this technology simply been used to bring the Twin Towers down then many questions would have been asked as to how this happened. A story that Arab terrorists detonated explosives which completely destroyed the buildings would not withstand criticism because of the four reasons given above for why explosives were not the cause of the collapse. Therefore some other "plausible" explanation for the collapse of the towers had to be provided and this was done in the form of the plane impacts and subsequent fires. This explanation has an initial plausibility, and it was immediately broadcast by the mainstream media, and immediately accepted by a public in a state of shock. Only a careful examination of this story, such as has been done in J. McMichael's article, reveals its inadequacy, leading to the conclusion that "black" technology was used.

Who possesses such technology? For sure not Arab terrorists, whose expertise with destructive technology extends only to truck bombs (and Stinger missiles, thanks to the CIA)..."

"..It is interesting to note that the contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene — to cart away the rubble that remains — is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! — The Blockbuster
But what demolition technology known to man could account for the demolition of the Twin Towers with the results obverved: the total destruction of the massive steel columns and the conversion of four hundred thousands cubic yards of concrete into ash and dust? Such a technology, it would seem, is presently beyond anything we humans possess..."

The article sums up more questions:

"..Why did the South Tower collapse first, 47 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?

Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 47 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, rather than collapsing upon themselves in the manner of a controlled implosion?

Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?

Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of the airliner impacts and the fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?

Why has no official commission been set up (including structural engineers) to investigate what actually happened?"

reminder : i am in Brussels, Belgium... we get CNN and all French TV channels here..... we are GMT+1, so 6 hours ahead of NYC time...

so, first attack was just before 3pm here. I was getting ready to leave on a business trip when i heard mIRC chat "dings" at such a frequency that i went to the puter and found out what was happening....

anyway.... as i live near the NATO headquarters, a lot of offices were evacuated, which generated major traffic jams in Brussels, so, with the team who was coming with me on this trip, we decided to leave later.... we stayed in front of the puter and TV and watched for hours.... i switched to French TV because everyone in the team doesn't understand English.... we finally left around 9pm...

all these details to say that i do not remember exactly how many hours after the attacks the following happened, but it was between 2 and 6 hours after the initial attack on WTC North Tower.

French TV had called a demolition expert to comment the events... he's one of the - rare - experts in Europe who can handle demolitions of sky-scrapers and big buildings....

he said, and was absolutely positive about it : the way the towers collapsed could only have happened if explosives had been installed in the tower....

i remember mentioning this later in chat and in conversations... i was answered "Nah, c'mooon...." and i was served the "official" version....

But i'm not sure, if this kind of collapse, i think we have to speak technically of an implosion instead of an explosion, is to organise within 40 minutes.

But many reports always said, among them BBC reporter Steven Evans, that United Airlines Flight 175 which crashed into the south tower of the Trade Center was "..causing a devastating explosion.."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1537000/1537785.stm

But i think, this was written more under the first impression,
than a technical explanation.

There was no ear-witness, who definetely heard one ot two explosions after the plane crashed into the building, so that this is still only a speculation.

Some conspiranoia theorists however like the eerie fact that the chef of the FEMA arrived already in New York "by coincidence" one day before the attack, which he mentioned in an interview with Dan Rather (CBS)
Look at "911-all early warnings".

In case, that there was no further hearable loud explosion or that it was maybe even synchronised with the same time of the planes, when they hit the towers, there is also another, more spooky explanation around, based on some alternative technology by Nicola Tesla:

Tesla Coil Ray Machine

"..Tesla's work on particle beam weapons can be traced all the way back to 1893 with his invention of a button lamp, and again to 1896 when he replicated the work of William Roentgen, discoverer of X-rays. At that time, Tesla was "shooting" X-rays over considerable distances... Tesla was also involved in experiments with shooting cathode rays at targets. This and similar work from one of Tesla's British colleagues, J.J. Thompson, led to the discovery, by Thompson, of the electron. During that period in the mid-1890's, Tesla conversed often with Thompson, particularly in the electrical journals.

At about the year 1918, Tesla apparently had a laser-like apparatus that he shot at the moon. From studying his great 1893 work THE INVENTIONS, RESEARCHES AND WRITINGS OF NIKOLA TESLA, it is apparent that the button lamp discussed above had all of the components necessary to create a laser beam..."
http://www.netsense.net/tesla/questions.html

More speculative, Spiritist David Icke likes his idea of Nicola Teslas "..mechanical oscillator which he claimed could bring down tall structures, such as skyscrapers, with ease. He dabbled with so called 'death-rays' and an effect known as 'scalar vectoring,' which could destroy structures at a great distance-in the early to mid-1920's such devices were topical subjects for discussion..."

Icke thinks, that "..Tesla had proven that a 'diabolical ray' could stop the electrical systems of cars, and gunpowder had been ignited at a distance of about 36 feet. Tesla continued to develop his idea of transmitting electrical energy worldwide using very low frequencies and maintained that his transmitter would produce one hundred million volts and up to a thousand amps-which equates to around a hundred billion watts!

He considered it would resonate at around 2MHz (the Earth's natural frequency is around 6MHz) producing an amount of energy equivalent to approximately ten megatons of TNT. He intended that all that energy could be focused on anything, with predictably devastating results..."

It "..addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."
but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures..."

http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/index.html

Why the Towers Fell

Robert McNamara, president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia:
"...With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," McNamara said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. After the deletion of key structural members from about the 90th to 96th floors on the north face of the north tower, One WTC, and from about the 75th to the 84th floors of the south, east and north faces of the south tower, Two WTC, the buildings' skeletons found alternative paths to take the loads. Each impact and following explosion imparted first a large local lateral force and then an omnidirectional force to the structures, together causing massive initial damage to the columns and floor systems at the elevation of the crash...

..Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member.

The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing.

Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns.

Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.

Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older model—about 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure. W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of the Construction Technology Laboratory in Skokie, Ill., is said to be heading the ASSE ...[Message truncated]

"..How the Towers Fell

Given the lack of firm conclusions regarding how the collapses occurred, the M.I.T. panel participants asked their audience to consider various theories they put forth. In general, it was agreed that as the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the structure below. The details of how the frame members failed remain under contention.

Professor Connor's theory focused on weaknesses in how the vertical and horizontal structural members were tied together. During construction, he explained, each prefabricated floor system was lifted into place by a crane and "supported at the ends like a hinge, where they were bolted and welded to the inner and outer framing tubes" so that part of the gravity load went through the core and the other part through the exterior structure. "The floor trusses sat on beams and were tied down so the core was locked to the exterior," he said. "It was an unusual system and very lightweight. If you lose the connection between them, however, you lose the ability to carry the floor loads and allow the floors to slide back and forth under stress. If a damaged floor system were to fall, it would break the end connections in the lower floors and down and down the floors would go."

"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.

Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse," he said. "The floor trusses are likely to have been the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. The dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion becomes unstoppable."

Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended," he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top.

"It's difficult to judge which of these failure mechanisms occurred first; probably all occurred and interacted," said panel member Oral Buyukozturk, professor of civil and environmental engineering at M.I.T.. "The prolonged effect of high heat is likely to have led to the buckling of the columns, collapse of the floors, as well as to the shearing of the floors upon the failure the joints." He noted that videotapes of the catastrophe showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before it collapsed. "This indicates the buckling of one building face while the adjacent face was bending [placed into tension]." After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with "a dynamic effect and amplification process" following that led to a progressive collapse—"a kind of pancaking or deck of cards effect"—down to ground zero, Buyukozturk stated.

Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures..."

NY Daily News 1/4/2002 Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe

By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations

"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse.

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment.

Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."

NY TIMES -City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center-December 20, 2001

"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure.

Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

NY TIMES

December 25, 2001 THE TOWERS

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...

Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified.

Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said. "

[Note from cryptome.org Archive:
If you want to see on its original web page through the
URL above, I suggest you get it today. Otherwise, it may be
available only through the archives.]
http://cryptome.org/wtc-crimes.htm

From: News and Views | City Beat |
Friday, January 04, 2002
Firefighter Mag
Raps 9/11 Probe
By JOE CALDERONE
Daily News Chief of Investigations

"..A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city
Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced"
investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering
magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce."

The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly
that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also
says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators
can examine what caused the collapse.

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle
Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the
Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the
World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and
removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the
department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers.
Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack.

John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett,
serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil
Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But
Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects
of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other
evidence.

A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that
"the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition
of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the
towers," the editorial stated.

A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not
yet seen the editorial and declined to comment.

Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil
Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not
a definitive work."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of
firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon
panel to study the collapse.

"We have to learn from incidents through investigation to
determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the
best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the
Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight,
core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of
construction."

WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION

Never again! In the wake of the World Trade Center, we are left
with many thoughts-thoughts of friends lost, thoughts of
devastated families, thoughts of the tremendous impact on so many
lives for so many years to come. Yet, we-America's fire
service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a
disaster like this from ever happening again?

Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into
the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought
the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise
collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat
release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in
future high-rise fires.

There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World
Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise
firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political,
many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in
no particular order) to think about.

* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be
expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was
the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list
of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including
personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner
asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter
elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When
was the last time a building code committee called up a
"downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the
unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model
building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in
your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle
high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the
"big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for
years?

* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for
years about this topic. It has been reported that the World
Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel
trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?

* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at
the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about
these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would
rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a
modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance
provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire
resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the
1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire
resistance do not replicate today's fires.

* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the
World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions
to "stay where you are" are alive today because they
self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies
for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when
should you not?

* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't
communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What
gives?

There are many more questions, more than we have answers for.
What is clear is that things must change. Where do we begin? By
putting things in perspective. The World Trade Center disaster
was

* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in
United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.

Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the
largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong.
Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated
superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue
Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety
Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more
detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we
will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally
treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like
crucial fire scene evidence.

The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive
detailed investigation possible. No event in our entire fire
service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this
incident.

We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World
Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete
review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.

The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report
that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly
how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building
evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the
buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire
protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting
procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged
with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the
critical changes necessary to our building codes. Please e-mail
this (italicized) call to action to:

President George W. Bush (president@whitehouse.gov)

Senator Charles Schumer (senator@schumer.senate.gov)

Senator Hillary Clinton (senator@clinton.senate.gov)

FEMA Director Joe M. Allbaugh (director@fema.gov)

To obtain e-mail addresses for your representatives, go to;
U.S. SENATE:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

U.S. HOUSE:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Francis L. Brannigan, SFPE
Glenn P. Corbett, PE
Deputy Chief (Ret.) Vincent Dunn, FDNY

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/eagle_and_firemen.jpg

When we saw the WTC Twin TOWERS crushing down, this thought came to us, and I'm not alone in this. I have posted this before, and it was dissuaded, (and deleted in another forum) to keep a very long story short.

Those Towers had more than an Airplane chock... (I know I was a pilot for ten years, I retired about a year ago) The Rapid-Blow looked more like a prepare dynamite blow from the basement in addition to the plane chock. (like those constructors use to eliminate old buildings?)

Does anyone see this too? I'm trying to find some answer to the vertically domino effect that happen to the WTC building.

Any information on this? Let me know I'll be back!

So after various weeks and other odd new details, then it made more and more sense to me.
But even if it will be proved one day, it is no evidence for a prior knowledge of 911.
It's like the Pennsylvannia "crash".
Both events could have been produced immediately without planning.
The crash by F-16s, the towers collapse by the FEMA or other specialists (e.G. Controlled Demolition Inc.),
both as a sudden "political" or military decision to avoid another "catastrophe".

But right now the FEMA also decided to remove all the debris, which made many fireworkers upset, who wants to have a new investigation.

Finally we will never find out, if there are no witnesses.

Is this one of them?:
"FEMA WTC Cameraman killed his wife"
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ground_zero2001&msg=640.1

The few ear-witnesses, who heard an explosion (including BBC-reporters don't count)

The fact, that the FEMA arrived already one day earlier?
Who cares? Like the few military bases who have been on high alert on September 10th (!!), they always could say, it was a routine and coincidence.

So we need more than that. The analysis by Science Mags, constructors or sceptics all don't convince me.
I can only listen to my instincts and these say me, something stinked.

But this doesn't help, too.
All evidence will be destroyed soon and the four planes are already destroyed, too.

So one would say, concentrating on these two theories, Global Hawk and Bombs inside WTC is just a waste of time.

I don't know. Maybe they right.

Maybe it's better to concentrate on the money trail, the oil business, how the war was planned, that the anthrax came from america or some many other oddities, which we are able to prove.

That's what i decided. But i'm glad about every new detail in this topic here, even if i'm sarcastic here.
The last one, which was very impressive was the fuel tank inside the towers

(reply no.8=
"City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center")

Please read also
"FDNY wants investigation"
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ground_zero2001&msg=641.1

I hope you also read the full topic here.

It's maybe very exciting, but it's too late.
Debris. Period. -:(

WTC Attack - Some Serious Questions
News Analysis by J.J. Johnson 11.01.01

[images on that dite]

With all the conspiracy theories floating around, a recent article has been published that might make even the most sheepish sheeple begin to scratch their heads. There clearly is more going on than someone is telling us. An article from the New York Daily news is frightening -- once you begin to look at the evidence. Let's go over this in detail, giving the government the complete benefit of the doubt. If any one has more information on this, please let us know.
(Analysis in blue)

Cache of Gold Found at WTC Two truckloads
retrieved through a tunnel in rubble

By GREG GITTRICH, THOMAS ZAMBITO and LEO STANDORA
Daily News Staff Writers URL Link to Complete Story Here

Workers at Ground Zero unearthed last night a buried treasure of gold, hidden for weeks under the ruins of the World Trade Center.

As a small army of federal agents with shotguns and automatic rifles stood guard, city cops and firefighters packed two Brink's armored trucks with the lode, sources said.

This is not a shocker, as it was rumored that as much as $160 Billion in bullion was stored under the Trade Center. Let's read on.

The sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center.

Ok -- stop right here: Why would gold be in a tunnel? Maybe someone was trying to get it out on September 11. Completely explainable.

"They are taking gold out of there right now," one source said last night. "They've brought in extra cops."

It wasn't immediately clear how much gold was recovered last night - or exactly how much was buried under the complex after the Sept. 11 attacks.

We heard up to $160 Billion - so it's not a big secrect.

The Toronto-based Bank of Nova Scotia has said its vault under 4 World Trade Center alone held more than $200 million in gold and silver. Bank spokeswoman Pam Agnew didn't immediately know if any of that gold was found last night.

Other companies are believed to have lost untold gold and valuables in the disaster.

For the last couple of days, construction workers - directed by the feds - had been clearing a delivery tunnel that runs under the complex.

So the feds apparently knew exactly where it was. We can assume someone told them (?)

Officials finally got to the gold through that tunnel yesterday, after workers hauled out a 10-wheel truck, several crushed cars and mounds of debris.

No bodies were recovered during the operation.

Huh?? Let's get this straight so far: $200 Million in gold; found in a tunnel; there were NO bodies found near the gold and the Feds knew it was there. Like, there wasn't anyone guarding that gold? Or there was, but they bailed out before the second tower collapsed? On foot??

As workers inched closer to the gold yesterday, authorities began restricting access to the north side of Ground Zero and FBI and Secret Service agents joined cops and firefighters at the site.

Meaning, they knew EXACTLY where that gold was.

"If I tried to go down there, they would have shot me," said a construction worker shooed away from the tunnel.

A handful of heavy-machinery operators and other workers, under the watchful eyes of more than 100 armed officers, built and graded a ramp into the delivery tunnel.

A small bulldozer knocked down a wall inside the tunnel, and a Brink's armored truck drove in just before sunset.

It came out about 7 p.m. with the first load of gold, sources said. A second truck entered the tunnel a short time later and also was loaded with gold before leaving.

A handful of construction workers were held over from the day shift, which ends at 7 p.m., to help.

"They sent most of us on our merry way," said one worker.

Alright, take a look at Ground Zero. Notice where Building #5 is sitting. Also notice how close the federal building is to Building #5 (right across the street). According the report, the gold may have been moved from the Bank of Nova Scotia, whose vault was under Trade Center Building #4, adjacent to the first tower that collapsed. It was clearly being moved AWAY from the South Tower.

This leads to the question: did someone suspect building #4 would be so damaged (from a collapse) that it was imperative to move the gold immediately? Since the South Tower collapsed first and there were tons of debris in the tunnel, it is amazing NO bodies were found there guarding the gold. There clearly was more going on than a human rescue operation on September 11..."

"..On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there was bombs set in the building.."

September 12, 2001

New York City

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

"..We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.

There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it..."

http://wtc.globalfreepress.org/albums/us%5funder%5fattack/cnn/thirdexplosion%5fcnn%5fanim.gif

I found another video and sound document of excerpts of radio calls from the September 11 collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

It is approximateley 3, 4 minutes long.
If you listen carefully after 1 minute you will hear this:

"..involved in a secondary explosion of Tower 1, Kay i've got 5 patients, they need to be treated and transported.."

It's also inserted in the video.
Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/10/04/dispatch.tapes.affl.med.html

http://tlc.discovery.com/schedule/series.jsp?series=5145

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-

Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and ...[Message truncated]