One of several burning questions surrounding the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 was: “Where did the sulfur come from that melted some of the structural steel members from the building so much that they looked more like “Swiss cheese”? Sulfur reduces the melting point of iron by producing a eutectic mixture. The New York Times called these pieces of melted steel “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” FEMA documented the “intergranular melting, rapid oxidation, and sulfidation” of the steel members in Appendix C of their May 2002 Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Report, yet offered no explanation for this phenomena which required temperatures far in excess of that which office fires or jet fuel could have provided.

Some government officials have attempted to explain the issue away by alleging that the sulfur came from normal building materials like gypsum wallboard. But gypsum wallboard has been used for a hundred years to protect steel structural members and has never “attacked” it before.  Independent scientists have found evidence that the sulfur most likely came from thermate.  Sulfur is added to thermite (an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter) to make thermate. Scientists and engineers have urged the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to perform experiments to determine the source of the sulfur. But despite spending over $20,000,000 NIST failed to do any experiments or provide a working theory.

AE911Truth Founder and CEO, Richard Gage, AIA, will be traveling to the East Coast  and visiting two more continents as well as continuing to speak over the airways on mainstream radio.

Mr. Gage will be traveling to Livingston Manor, NY, located in the Catskill Mountains and speaking at the “Catskills Truth Gathering” --  a conference and retreat to be held August 14-16.

Here, Mr. Gage will be presenting the scientific forensic evidence regarding the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers.  AE911Truth’s message continues to draw attention, calling for a “New and Independent Investigation.”

Other featured speakers include: Sander Hicks, founder of the Truth Party, Luke Rudkowski, 
founder of We Are Change, Nick Bryant, author of The Franklin Scandal, and Rev. Ian Alterman, minister and member of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. This conference will host discussions, led by Sander Hicks of his new Truth Party, which may be officially announced as well at this conference.

TV Coverage of Remarkable Building Collapse Analyzed

The shocking collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 caused great alarm, not only in the architectural and engineering community (among those who have become aware of it) but with mainstream media – right from day one.  While Dan Rather’s commentary on the remarkable collapse (that it looked  like it was knocked down by well placed dynamite) is more often quoted, Peter Jennings also had similar thoughts as he reflected on the shocking 47-story collapse shortly after the event.

Jennings showed the building coming down in slow motion. As he reflected on the enormity of it he said, “Well, there’s Building 7 coming down. When you think that part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement, the fun, that people get watching an old building being demolished, and they wire it very carefully for days. It’s a very careful operation in order to make sure a building comes down safely. I think the last one we saw was when they brought down one of the old casinos in Las Vegas. It’s just stunning to see these buildings come down...and now, number seven World Trade Center which is 47 stories tall.”

Soon after Richard Gage, AIA, became interested in the subject of the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, he began debating critics who felt qualified to challenge the explosive evidence. Gage twice debated Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers), as well as Mark Roberts (tour guide), Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), and Dave Thomas (mathematician and physicist).

The first debate, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Ron Craig, took place on November 12, 2007, on “The Richard Syrett Show,” in Toronto. Gage argued that explosives had been used to bring down the buildings and cited several points of explosive evidence such as the discovery of thermite in the debris, witness testimony citing explosions, beams hurled six hundred feet, and the free-fall of WTC Building 7. Gage also cited the lack of 110 floors of 4” thick concrete -- each an acre in size -- at the bottom of the Twin Towers and the huge amount of pulverized concrete powder that blanketed lower Manhattan.

Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Posted Correction

We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a "cutter charge.”  But, the device as described in the patent is only an igniter heat source only used to ignite larger charges. It does not in and of itself have the capability of cutting structural steel.

We would like to also note that neither the authors nor the interviewee, Tom Sullivan, intended to imply that this particular device was used in the WTC destruction. We don’t know exactly what was used.  That is why we need a thorough investigation.  Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984. In our DVD 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, we do show the 1999 patent for a thermite-based cutter charge which is designed to eject molten copper or iron through the orifice in “hundreds of milliseconds,” and is capable cutting through thicker structural steel more efficiently. This thermite-based cutter charge has distinct advantages over more traditional high explosive cutter charges. From the patent description:

“A primary disadvantage of explosive shaped charges is that they generate excessive noise and debris upon detonation. This noise and debris can pose potentially serious health and safety hazards to someone using a cutting device which employs conventional shaped charge explosives.

Thermite-based cutting devices which employ a cutting flame produce virtually no extended shock wave and generate relatively little over pressure. Thermite-based cutting devices do not present the same health and safety hazards which are attendant upon explosive shape charge cutting devices.

So, this may provide explanation as to why the perpetrators used such devices – if in fact they were used - in these deceptive controlled demolitions. (We do not have much evidence to conclude that they were used in the Twin Towers – whose debris pile was fairly extensively photographed). 

However, in the case of WTC 7, from which we have not been provided close-up photos during the clean-up process, we do have very interesting documentation from FEMA BPAT Report in Appendix C, along with photos and witnesses of pools of molten metal, which may provide such evidence.  The authors describe severe high temperature corrosion, intergranular melting, rapid oxidation, and evaporation of the ends of steel structural members.  Remember, WTC 7 was not the extreme explosive event that the Twin Towers were.  It was an implosion, during which there are far fewer witnesses describing hearing and feeling the explosions.  So it may be more likely a traditional demolition but using thermite incendiary cutter charges, where as the Twin Towers may have been destroyed with more explosive materials like C4 and the nano-thermitic composite explosives (which have been documented in other articles).

Also, it is quite conceivable, given the 16 year span of time between 1984 and 2001, that these two technologies could have been combined to produce a thermite based cutter charge whose casing is also made of consolidated thermite. This must still be researched.

Posted Clarification:

We used the Hi Ex system as an example in the article of a wireless detonation system that existed long before 9/11/01 and that was capable of stand–off distances of 5 kilometers – eliminating the requirement for “miles of detonation cord” from the actuating device. We had no intention of implying that this was the actual system used by the perpetrators at the WTC high-rises.   A real investigation might reveal such secrets.

Posted Editorial Comment:

Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten iron or steel in the debris pile. 

In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand "problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged "solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed, symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them.

We call, once again, on everyone of conscience to evaluate impartially the evidence on both sides, as best we know it today, and join our 10,000 petition signers in the call for a new, open, subpoena-powered professional investigation, free of conflicts of interest, that will follow the scientific method and the evidence wherever it leads and let the chips fall where they may.

You are talking to this big, burly guy at the water cooler about the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Of course. . . he doesn’t believe you.  He even thinks you’re a conspiracy theorist, or worse.  You need back up.  You’re out-gunned -- and not prepared to deal with the names that you are about to be called. There’s nothing in your briefcase to give him.  You go. . . “Darn!,” or worse,  to yourself.  You say to him, “Just go to EATruth911.com,” but you don’t quite remember the name of the website.  This conversation is just not going your way.

RE-TAKE . . . .

Just in time. . .  you remember the stack of  "street ready" brochures that you bought from the AE911Truth Store at 15 cents each -- a small price to pay for the feeling of victory  --  in the office and out on the street.