Onderzoek 911

Het rapport staat onder, in zijn geheel, weergegeven. Het is te downloaden vanaf de site Implosionworld.com. Een klein aantal opmerkingen:

In het rapport wordt onderzocht of er mogelijk explosieven zijn gebruikt die voor het instorten van de WTC torens gezorgd hebben, danwel het instorten hebben ondersteund. De opstellers zijn volgens het rapport (in hun eigen woorden) een van 's werelds meest ervaren 'vernietigingsbedrijven'.

Volgens hun website is "Protec [is] an internationally recognized leader in the field of Vibration Monitoring and Structure Inspections." Het komt er op neer dat bijvoorbeeld tijdens een 'demolitie' metingen doen. Dat kan met diverse apparatuur gebeuren, waaronder seismografen en videoapparatuur. Ze waren op 9/11 actief in Manhattan.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

By Brent Blanchard, August 8, 2006, c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

PURPOSE

The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar supplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York on September 11, 2001 through examination of known facts as they relate to scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis conducted by experts in the field of explosive demolition, as well as the first with observations and commentary from personnel directly responsible for the removal of debris from Ground Zero.

Some topics that do not relate to such analysis – and thus receive no practical consideration here – include:

·         Who owned the buildings

·         Who insured the buildings

·         What types of documents were stored in the buildings

·         Motives for destroying the buildings

The significance of the above points (among countless others) can be debated forever, but none relate to the specific actions required to execute a successful explosive demolition.

Nor will we be rendering opinions on the NIST, FEMA or 9/11 Commission Reports, as they did not make specific comments regarding explosives.

It is further acknowledged that many family members of WTC victims have embraced – and in some cases aligned with – those who question the “official” version of events that occurred on 9/11. This report will not, nor is it intended to, address the much wider scope of unanswered questions regarding those events. Rather this is a reasoned, factual analysis of a single group of questions and allegations that fall within our specific area of expertise. To that end, we hope this report will be of benefit to all interested parties.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protecservices.com), Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden.

Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.

Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:

1.       Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several construction sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the events at Ground Zero, including the collapse of all three structures. These measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data recorded by other independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

2.       In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.

3.       Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida, 4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec’s two-hour video was to archive the unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.

4.       Because building implosions are often promoted as live news events, Protec’s offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our company’s archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers.

Noot 1: wie bovenstaande verklaringen leest kan niet anders concluderen dan dat dit bedrijf uit de eerste hand toegang heeft (gehad) tot het bewijsmateriaal en dus bij uitstek in staat moet zijn tot een evenwichtige conclusie te komen.

Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

A final note: Before releasing this report, we reviewed every paragraph and tried to simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible. Our thinking is the more people who understand this analysis, the more benefit it might provide. It is given that each of the points below could (and likely will) be extrapolated upon in far greater detail by others, however the intent here is to offer our comments as succinctly and cohesively as possible.

ASSERTION #1

“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”

PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).

Noot 2: in het NIST rapport staat "Initiation of global collapse was first observed by the tilting of building sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers." De gebouwen beginnen dus niet precies op het punt waar ze geraakt zijn met instorten.

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.

Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

Noot 3: Het is jammer dat hier zo makkelijk de conclusie wordt getrokken “dat er geen derde optie is.” Die is er namelijk wel.

De derde optie is dat in de bovenste 50% van de torens explosieven van te voren waren aangebracht. Daarmee gaat het argument verloren dat precies die verdiepingen van de vliegtuigimpact van explosieven hadden moeten worden voorzien. Door de kopppeling van het eerste argument, namelijk dat het gebouw begon met instorten op de verdiepingen waar de vliegtuigen waren ingeslagen, aan het tweede, namelijk dat explosieven nooit de hitte van 1100+ graden Fahrenheit hadden kunnen weerstaan, lijkt de conclusie waterdicht. Maar volgens NIST begon het instorten op de verdiepingen boven de inslag. (zie onder meer deze video en let op hoe van de Noord-toren als eerste de antenne wegzakt) Op die verdiepingen was geen vuur en was de temperatuur geen 1100+ graden Fahrenheit. Explosieven op die verdiepingen hadden de inslag gewoon kunnen overleven. Door de verkeerde aanname van Protec houdt hun conclusie geen stand.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow “cutter charges” to initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as “pre-burning”, to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes’ impact with these same areas. This is impossible.

Noot 4: Wederom wordt een conclusie getrokken die geen rekening houdt met een plausibele derde optie. De Protec conclusie op Assertion (“bewering”) #1 is dus lariekoek.

 

ASSERTION #2

“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”

PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning.

A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter.

As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure.

Noot 5: De conclusie dat grote volumes puin het WTC 7 raakte en vervolgens daar voor intens vuur zorgden is niet correct. Op diverse afbeeldingen en videomateriaal is duidelijk te zien dat 1) WTC 7 slechts beperkt geraakt was door puin en 2) slechts kleine vuurhaarden in WTC 7 aanwezig waren.

These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

Noot 6: Er is geen oorzakelijk verband aanwezig tussen de afsluitende opmerking dat “this event dissimilar [is] to a planned demolition event” en het instorten van de torens. Zoals in de tweede paragraaf wordt aangegeven (“Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle”) maakt een ‘demolitie’ team gebruik van het feit dat woontorens (“typical human-inhabited buildings”) normaliter rechtstreeks omlaag vallen. Dat is dan ook precies wat er in dit geval is gebeurt, de torens kwamen recht omlaag. Dat betekent echter niet dat ook al het puin van de torens recht omlaag moest komen. De conclusie dat het niet rechtstreeks omlaag vallen van al het puin van de torens een aanwijzing is voor het niet gebruiken van explosieven is dan ook niet correct. De Protec conclusie op Assertion (“bewering”) #2 is dus ook lariekoek.

 

ASSERTION #3

“But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”

PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.

Human-inhabited buildings are typically comprised of about 70% air and 30% structural elements and contents. During any rapid collapse that air must be displaced in some manner. Therefore when gravity makes a structure fall downward, the air within the structure is propelled horizontally through windows, doorframes, or any other path of least resistance.

Noot 7: Evenzo geldt dat bij het afgaan van een explosief lucht wordt verplaatst. Dus als in een woning, of op een verdieping, een explosief afgaat, dan zal de lucht door de ramen naar buiten vliegen. De koppeling van “explosive charges” aan “plumes, squibs” zoals dat in de titel van deze bewering gebeurt is dus niet correct. De titel dient dus te worden gelezen als “But plumes can clearly be seen shooting from several floors juist prior to collapse”. De vraag is dan hoeveel verdiepingen er tussen het gebied van instorten en de “plumes” zit.

In the case of WTC 1 and 2, it has been scientifically documented that the failures of interior floor trusses were occurring slightly ahead of exterior columns, which is why the columns fell outward and contributed to a “mushroom” effect.

Noot 8: De opmerking “scientifically documented” betekent alleen maar dat het op een wetenschappelijk verantwoorde wijze is opgeschreven, niet dat het aangetoond is. Verder is de opmerking “slightly ahead” (wat “een beetje” betekent) van belang.

Another side effect of this unequal progression was that air – and various lightweight office contents – was forced out of windows well below the visible collapse mechanism.

Noot 9: De opmerking “well below” is niet in lijn met de opmerking dat het wegvallen van binnenste ondersteuning van de vloeren “slightly ahead” van de zichtbare ineenstorting gebeurde. Op sommige videobeelden is te zien dat de pluimen stof meer dan 15 verdiepingen lager dan de instortzone naar buiten schieten.

The amount of debris seen jettisoning from any given floor or window was likely dependent on the condition of the windows, obstructions or furniture blocking the windows, and the amount and weight of localized debris. The existence of vacant and non-occupied mechanical floors also likely affected the level or absence of expulsion in certain areas.

Again, it is important to note that neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible…nor did they fail at any point in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence. Which tells us that the “plume” phenomenon witnessed was a predictable effect that gravity dictates had to occur.

Noot 10: De conclusie van Protec is hier wat verwarrend. Eerst geven ze aan dat de “pluimen” zijn ontstaan doordat de vloeren eerder omlaag kwamen dan van buitenaf te zien was (dat gebeurt in de tweede paragraaf). In de afsluitende paragraaf verbinden ze daar de conclusie aan dat omdat niet van buitenaf te zien is dat de vloeren omlaag kwamen die “pluimen” dus door de zwaartekracht moeten zijn ontstaan. Wederom is er dus geen verband tussen hun waarneming en hun conclusie. Waardoor de Protec conclusie op Assertion (“bewering”) #3 ook als lariekoek kan worden afgedaan.

 

ASSERTION #4

“Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”

PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.

Arguing over who heard explosion-like noises, when they heard them, how loud they were or from what direction they came is a pointless exercise. This is not to imply that any witness should be ridiculed or dismissed; however, such subjective, highly interpretive statements do nothing to prove or disprove the presence of explosives. Simply put, there are countless causes of sharp, loud noises that have no relation to explosives.

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to crossreference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and paints a clear picture.

Noot 11: Logisch bezien zou al de gemeten data ook consistent met elkaar moeten zijn. Of er nu explosieven zijn gebruikt of niet.

Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes. In all cases, these recordings indicate single vibration events when the buildings collapsed. At no point during 9/11 were independent or secondary vibration events documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

Noot 12: Met de hier aangehaalde “single vibration events” wordt bedoeld dat er geen secundaire pieken in de seismografische opnames te zien zijn. Op grafieken van onderzoekers van de Columbia Universiteit zijn echter duidelijk dubbele pieken te zien op het moment dat het instorten van de torens begint.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

Noot 13: De conclusie doet wederom wat vreemd aan. Op seismische grafieken van die dag zijn duidelijk dubbele pieken te zien. In hoeverre dat dat echter abnormaal is voor het opblazen van gebouwen wordt niet behandeld. Een betere analyse van de gegevens die Protec Services in haar bezit heeft is dan ook gewenst. Wellicht dat de onderzoekers hun analyse, inclusief datasets kunnen overleggen.

 

ASSERTION #5

“An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used…a nondetonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”

PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.

This claim is actually a loose connection of unrelated individual assertions, therefore we must address them as such.

1.       The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know, and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure.

2.       Photographs that we have examined purporting to show demolition equipment extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires - while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel.

Noot 14: De aanname dat smeltend staal niet met stalen gereedschap kan worden verwerkt is correct. Evenwel gaat dit voorbij aan het feit dat de omringende staalmassa die hitte absorbeert. Op de aangehaalde foto’s is dan ook te zien hoe het omringende staal donker van kleur is terwijl in het midden het smeltend staal zichtbaar is.

3.       In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymity to prevent harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.

4.       The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by Stephen Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with Dr. Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams apparently tested positive for thermite, which led Dr. Jones to conclude that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in WTC 1, 2 and 7. Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal. And a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams. Could they have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site? Could they have been exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, or in storage, or during the transfer processes from Ground Zero to the memorial sites? We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued.

Noot 15: Duidelijk is dat de Protec Services onderzoekers hier de bewering dat er (nog nader te bepalen) explosieven zijn gebruikt niet direct afschrijven. Dat er sporen van thermiet zijn gevonden geeft voor hun in ieder geval al aanleiding vragen te stellen. Hun eerste conclusie dat “We have come across no evidence to support this claim” is dus niet volledig en dient te worden vervolgd met “neither have we found any evidence that contradicts this claim.”