Unseen hands behind Sep 11WTC collapse!?By Anna Farahmand and Michael Webber 11 Sep 2011

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human Stupidity and I'm not sure about the former.Albert Einstein

The copy write belongs to the authors. ---No legal action will be entered into regarding the copying printing or sharing of this document in its unaltered form. So .....please copy upload and share the wisdom of this document..... This document contains some movie attached

This document is dedicated to the memory of the victims of the September 11

Keep in touch with us here: Michael Webber: dead-phoenix-press@xemaps.com Anna Farahmand: annafarahmand@yahoo.com

PrefaceThe twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001. Many independent scientists and demolition experts believe that it was a result of predetermined CIA scenario, AIPAC and signature of president bush. Many political leaders throughout history have always sought to mislead the thinking of the masses. In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports such as NIST. Their claim was that al Qaeda alone attacked America on 9/11. The idea is utterly laughable and yet, due to the blithering barrage of bullshit dished out by the governmentmedia complex, millions of patriotic Americans have accepted this fantastic fairy tale, this moronic mendacity, this silly superstition, this dangerous delusion, with a religious conviction bordering on insanity. In this document, presented evidences show that this claim was false and that the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and war against terrorism were based on a big lie!

Henceforth, you dont need any expert to demolish your building, just ignite some barrel of gas inside your building and wait .best lesson from Sep 11!

Of Course They Lie!The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., less than an hour after being hit by airplane, and at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower collapsed. Impacted airplanes in each tower ignited some portion (not all) of 38,000 L of jet fuel along with office contents because much fuel burned outside the buildings. See large firewall outside the towers. Both buildings collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse. After the planes hit the buildings, but before they collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating because most fuel and impact force damped in impact area. It is said that the section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough (because of much fuel enrichment) to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed (a silly theory), sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. The top section tried to move downward gradually (not suddenly!). In the other hand as airplanes impacted the towers from a special points and injected fuel from those points, so it is expected that the buildings first deform and inclined then collapse. You will see no hint of a lean, no sign of the slow start you would expect if the columns were gradually softening as they were heated. You simply see the type of motion you would expect if there had been a sudden and virtually complete loss of support: the buildings just fall straight down. No plausible explanation for this other than the use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented, and none comes to mind.

Evidences that proves government terrorism against U.S people- Molten metal pools beneath both Towers and WTC 7

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel, especially those structural steel were used and coated with a thick layer of concrete which is a good insulation of heat. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 C hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 C to 650 C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 C and loses about half of its strength at 650 C. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 C fire. Even at 600 oC the steel would be glowing red, as charts show and when we consider that fire does not heat an area uniformly. Practically it is impossible to heat a floor in WTC; even you cant heat up your room uniformly so how an impacted plane can do that! NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, then reacted with rusted iron from structure to reach higher temperature! I dont know who can believe such nonsense. Of course I am pretty sure that NIST experts know well what did they say, but they had to publish such reports to satisfy victims families. Here is a test of molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: silvery flow and no violent reactions observed at all.

as a expert of fuel and energetic material I simply can rejects all claims about fire by thumb of rules . Jp-4 is a usual fuel used in airplanes and not very different from kerosene to burn. You can pour and then fire it on reinforced concrete to check how is heat flux conducted to the steel insides, or you can use a welding torch (without using extra oxygen from capsule to simulate burning fuel in towers) to heat up directly a coated steel with a layer as thick as it used in WTC .Although acetylene or MAPP are more energetic than jp-4. Most of reports want to ignore insulation effects of concrete. If their claim is right, dont ask controlled demolition expert to demolish tall buildings. Just follow CIA method and ignite some barrel of fuel on higher floors and wait about less than an hour. Thats all; you have done it better than any demolition expert without money! To find how molten pool is made, we should investigate solidified residue.

-metals residue shows high temperaturesPreviously-molten metal samples from WTC monument at Clarkson University (left). Thermite residue (right BYU experiment) In both WTC and known-thermite-residue samples, the blackish nodules are solid & highly magnetic, while the other slags is porous. Thermite is an incendiary that burns slow; but ultra-fine powder form is an explosive and burns very fast! Called Superthermites.

Some recourses claim that the red chips of Thermite are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities. But in fact those were only paint in my opinion. The reason behind this is that the red chips were not thick enough to make enough heat to melt steel beams. In the other hand to paint structural steel with the energetic composite is too hard. Also this red paint is well know composition to prevent corrosion and consists red lead (chemically known as Pb3O4) +plant oil This material in pure form can prompt burning specially when with mixed with molten aluminum from windows or from other structural material. This hypothesis is only valid for burning floors. But it is necessary to point out this mixing is so hard practically. Because aluminum parts are far away from such materials and melting of aluminum is only possible near the windows where they open to outside and oxygen diffusion is maximize. Now take a short look at following picture was taken from WTC debris. It shows molten material even after long time and such pictures confirm high temperature before collapse. But where such heat came from? Collapse began from impacted area. We now know fuel burning wasnt sufficient to start collapse, so the idea of preposition thermite is concerned. Best place to weakening WTC structure was steel core boxes and it can be done easily from inside. This operation is highly depended on accuracy of airplanes that should impact to the planned area. All good pilots know it is not easy to guide an airplane directly to special point of big towers in urban area. This confirms not only thermite prepositioned but also airplanes guided directly to those point. Such operation mislead viewers to judge incorrectly and thought, yes airplanes first heat up and then collapse the WTC! A wrong judgment! That satisfied its designers. So what happen next after impact? Yes, fuel from airplanes heat up the inside, but this heating was not enough to start collapse, but enough to activate thermite composition. Thats why WTC took some times before collapse. This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG Metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide and can cause rapid melting of iron This is the chemical equation of the most common type: 2 Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2 Fe

When this mixture is heated to about 430C they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures over 2000C more than the melting point of iron. Common problem to initialize thermite is ignition. To solve this problem, sulfur also added to common formula in some cases. It can cause a sever high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting which is readily visible in this picture. To see more follow videos.

Click on attached videos to see yellow-white liquid metal pouring out of the South Tower Just before collapse and compare it with real thermite. There are two type of thermite reaction in movies: first is a usual thermite that is a mixture of Fe2O3+aluminum powder with temperature over 2000 C and second is a mixture of aluminum turnings + sulphur powder (reaction temperature is about 1100 C) :

-Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud ExplosionsThe most important things is that no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before - all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called implosion or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, same manner, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. Although WTC collapse started from impact area, but the section above the airplane impacts also collapsed before reaching to the earth surface. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies In the world will attempt it.

Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7 and the Towers When toppling-over falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? 600 kg of explosives per Tower would suffice. For very tall towers such as WTC, topdown demolition seems be the best approach, to avoid toppling over of the tower onto surrounding buildings. None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing illtrained Al-Qaeda group of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up. And that fact should be of great concern to Americans.

-North tower began to tilting to the south but!Conservation of angular momentum requires that an object continue to rotate around its center of mass once set in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. Even if the tower beneath it had completely given way, leaving it nothing more to push against laterally, the rotation once started would not abruptly stop. Why the top would collapse on itself in this manner is very difficult to explain on the basis of a simple plane damage and heat-induced collapse. It would require the entire top section to lose all internal mechanical strength just at the moment it started to topple, at the same time that its thirty one-acre slabs of 4" thick concrete were turned to dust. To accomplish this without explosives would be very difficult indeed. If the collapse is gravity fed only (official story), then the energy losses will STOP the collapse, however, explosives add energy, to produce pulverization and expulsion of concrete and steel members downwardly and even upwardlyas observed. Without explosives, only a Partial building loss would have happened (based on Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum). Here is the attached video of the building begins to fall by toppling to the south. Compare it with usual controlled demolition:

-Untold secret about WTC7The twin towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) and building 7 (WTC 7), came down too fast to be explainable by fire and impact damage alone. Many people are unaware that a third building came down that day as videos have rarely been shown, even though the collapse was, on the face of it, virtually inexplicable, and should therefore have generated substantial media attention. This building came down about seven hours after the Twin Towers. The fact that it collapsed without having been hit by a plane briefly raised doubt about what had caused the collapse of the towers but this doubt was quickly forgotten in the media barrage supporting the official fire theory. The report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concludes that fire, and some damage from falling debris from the north tower, brought down WTC 7 and such reports raise doubts. As far as I am aware there has been no report of a total rapid collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building due to fire, though one can be sure that proponents of the fire-collapse theory have searched diligently. Certainly there have been fires which caused damage and some partial collapse. Such partial collapse, however, is spread over hours, not minutes, and certainly not seconds, as occurred three times on 9/11. Highest temperatures had occurred near the windows, where air had been plentiful, after the windows failed. It is reasonable to believe that in any burning building temperatures will be cooler near the core, and also that in any building where the windows do not break temperatures cannot be high. Photographs enable estimation of the temperature of the WTC buildings at the time of collapse similar to the Way is used by astrologers. This temperature is less than your oven at home. In the other hand Steel is a reasonably good conductor and drains heat away from a local source, so there would have to be intense fires on several contiguous floors before the columns could reach high temperatures.

A huge dust cloud is already welling up from below, further indicating that collapse was initiated at the bottom, exactly as is done in a conventional controlled demolition.

ConclusionIn writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and The Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries. As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organizations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. The existence of a cover-up is prima facie evidence for the complicity of some part of the administration of the USA in the criminal events of 9/11. It is reasonable to believe that 9/11 was orchestrated to manipulate the public into supporting their pre-existing goal: invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and so on to dominate American hegemony on the world! Given the recent belligerent tone of the US administration toward Iran it is urgent that the Knowledge of complicity be spread widely and rapidly in the hope that politicians will be forced to find the means to bring the present aggression to a close and also to prevent further attacks. Now, thats a time for international tribunal and US people to say to irresponsible US governors, all options are on the table.

ReferencesWhy-Indeed-Did-the-World-Trade-Center-Buildings-Completely-Collapse-By Dr. Steven E. Jones (Physicist and Archaeometrist) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8564772103237441151&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 What Caused Not Two but Three World Trade Center Skyscrapers to COMPLETELY Collapse on 9/11/2001? by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=676 6744&HL=ON). Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001). Gartner, John (2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech," Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites-Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08 9/11 Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition-Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting-Perth, Western Australia-flegge@iinet.net.au Glanz, James (2001). Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001. 5WTC7-WTC demolition study by Ramon Gilsanz,Edward M.Depaola,Christopher Marrion,Harold Bud Nelson

Limited metallurgical examination by Janathan Barnett , Ronald R. Sisson , Jr 9/11 Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations-by Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia.flegge@iinet.net.au Harris, Tom (2000). How Building Implosions Work, available at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000. Where were you when the twin towers fell? Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers STRANGER THAN FICTION- AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9-11 AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM by: Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd.

Levin, Jay; Tom McKenzie (2009-09-17). "Twin Towers, Twin Myths?" (http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/) Santa Barbara Independent. http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twi,n-towers-twin-myths/. Retrieved 2009-10-18. Eagar, Thomas W.; Christopher Musso (2001). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html). JOM, 53 (12) (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society).