In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.


And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.


Back To Contents



We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7.


A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:

The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to photographer’s aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal—this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. Here is the building prior to and on September 11, 2001:

WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..

WTC 7 on 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-scraper in the background, right.
Seen from WTC plaza / Church Street area.

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint


Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.

Then consider a video close-up of the same building, southwest corner, as this corner begins its steady drop to the ground:

New, side-by-side comparison of WTC7 collapse and a controlled demolition using explosives:

What did you observe?

  • Symmetry: Did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?


  • Speed: How fast did the southwest corner of the roof fall? (Students and I measure [6.5 +- 0.2] seconds for the SW corner of WTC 7, after it begins its steady fall.)


  • Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.”

Note that references to web pages are used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html .

On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis.


The goal is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my argument can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)

Back To Contents




Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored
Reports and Investigate the Controlled-demolition

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’.

(Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.


“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

(Walsh, 2002)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody’s going to be alive.’ Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)


Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.

An above video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero.


The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time—once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.


Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating.

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ΛH = - 853.5 kJ/mole

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also here)


On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?


Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.

(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states:

“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”

None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

“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.


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

[Cote, 1992].


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

[Cote, 1992].


This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. 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.”

(Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.

Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of hot metal being extracted at ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate metal temperatures by color.


Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.


(A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce (glow) like other metals, but faintly, so that with the conditions described in the previous sentence (which prevailed at the WTC on 9/11), falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Rapid oxidation of the hot flowing aluminum will contribute to the observed appearance. [Experiments: Jones, 2006])

We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures.


However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.

The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:

The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS.


Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.

An intriguing photograph found as Figure 9-44 in the NIST report provides evidence for a highly exothermic reaction at the corner of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse.

Furthermore, failure occurs at this very corner of the Tower as seen in this video footage.


Click below image to see video.

Regarding this photo, NIST states:

“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.” Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.”

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (August 2006)

Thus it is established that the “glowing liquid” flow is associated spatially and temporally with the “bright spot” observed on the corner of the 80th floor of WTC 2. The photograph below shows, for comparison, a thermite reaction with a white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending from very bright reaction region.


(Experiment by the author and colleagues in which thermite-plus-sulfur cut through a steel cup in a fraction of a second. Any thermite reaction is a dangerous reaction and should only be performed by a trained professional capable of assessing the hazards and risks.)


The similarities between the known thermite reaction and the hitherto unknown reaction at the WTC Tower are plain to see. These discoveries strongly motivate an immediate in-depth investigation of the use of thermite-type reactions in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower at this SAME CORNER just minutes before its collapse. (Watch above related video):

I assert that this glowing liquid metal is consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone, the “bright spot” in the NIST photo. Other photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing yellow-white hot liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below.

Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal.


Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures.


(As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal “splashes”.)


Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite).

Here are two independent videos of the yellow-white liquid metal pouring out of the South Tower:

The absence of dark smoke trailing behind the falling liquid material indicated it was not fuel-soaked debris. Indeed, white ash is seen in these videos trailing away from the falling liquid material. Falling molten steel would not produce such a white ash, whereas thermites produce a white aluminum-oxide ash which indeed trails away from the falling molten metal generated in the reaction, corresponding to the observations.

We are studying residues found in solidified slag as well as in dust from the WTC collapses, in order to determine the nature of the reactions which produced this molten material. We have performed electron-microprobe, X-ray Fluorescence and other analyses on samples of the solidified slag and on the WTC dust. The provenience of the WTC dust sample is an apartment at 113 Cedar Street in New York City, NY.


A memorial constructed from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples. Porous, solidified splatter found with the compacted dirt from this memorial is being analyzed. Results from these studies were presented at the 2006 meeting of the Utah Academy of Science followed by the American Scholars Symposium (Los Angeles), and are made available here.


Further strong evidences for the use of aluminothermics continue to be discovered in our analyses and will be reported in a separate paper.

Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on “rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions.” [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces.


There were in fact no “violent thermite” reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.)


Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006; available here]. These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid aluminum.

F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC2. [Greening, 2006]


Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e., this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F – while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel as well as the probability that oxygen tanks in the planes could survive the destructive crashes of the planes.


Finally, no plane hit WTC 7, so this latest hypothesis fails from the outset in this case. But we do consider alternative hypotheses such as these. Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc. These results will be the subject of a separate paper.


A brief discussion of recent results, presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences and subsequent colloquia is available here. 

We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, when poured out the falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum.


(Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100oC—too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.)


This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions after falling through air 1-2 meters, molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100oC) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse (see: http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php). We also recall that this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (photograph above). This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum.

Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: silvery flow, and no violent reactions observed at all.

In a fact sheet posted in August, 2006, NIST provides a possible explanation regarding this flowing liquid material:

“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

“Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.”

NIST states the hypothesis that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, “can display an orange glow.” But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out. Our group melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. Then we added plastic shavings—which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum.


Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.

We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.

This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not “glow orange” due to partially-burned organics “mixed” in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an “orange glow” when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!


Videos of our experiments involving organics added to liquid aluminum are available here.

In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude from all these studies that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum “mixed” with organics as NIST hypothesizes.

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials—which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF).


We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite “match” could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

Thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch.

Superthermites” use tiny particles of aluminum known as “nanoaluminum” (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.

“Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.


“The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says.


Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.”

(Gartner, January 2005)

Based on these and other discoveries, the possible use of incendiary thermites and explosive superthermites on 9/11 should be investigated immediately and vigorously.

Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble. (See related BBC News). For recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7, see here

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001.


It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce large pools of molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal.

Furthermore, we have seen published reports that “molten steel [or other metal] flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet”—how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances. However, thermite-derivative reactions as conjectured would produce molten flowing iron, as observed.

The very high temperatures (corresponding to salmon-yellow colors) of the molten metal observed in videos and photographs are difficult to explain in the context of the official theory that fires finally caused the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data.


In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should also be considered. “Superthermites” are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data. The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and the Towers. The fact that the official reports do not adequately address the issue of molten metal found at the sites provides compelling motivation for continued research on the WTC collapses.


Back To Contents