as you know some of us think that the three buildings at the world trade center buildings one two and three were brought down through a process of controlled demolition so the question naturally arises if that's the case seemingly outlandish thing if that's the case surely somebody on the scene would have noticed something especially if this is in any sense standard controlled demolition which uses explosives surely somebody would have heard them or seen them or felt them and the answer of course is they did and my job today is to give a brief overview of some of eyewitness statements i say some because my collection is far from comprehensive but it should give you a pretty good taste of what this literature as well as some of the video footage looks like three points i want to make today first the conviction that the towers came down because of explosions as opposed to structural failure was common in nine eleven secondly there is substantial eyewitness evidence supporting this conviction and third this eyewitness evidence has been ignored or suppressed by the nine eleven commission and the national institute of standards and technology we begin then with the conviction that the towers came down because of explosions was common and why is this even important it took me a few years to realize how important this simple point really is and i'll try and explain to you it seemed to me that seems to me there's a very common presupposition occasionally voiced but often un voiced and it is this that on nine eleven everybody especially those on the scene knew that the towers came down because they were hit by airplanes and the airplanes obviously damaged and the fire's subsequently damaged and through some kind of structural failure which usually people don't want to get into in detail they came down and it was obvious and that was the story and that was the perception and that was the belief and that people who suggest controlled demolition brought them down are late comers they're revisionists they're  people who came along later with their cockeyed theory and they perhaps have some special conspiracy that conspiratorial way of thinking which leads them to unnecessarily complicate a simple situation the idea that these buildings came down because of explosions and even more specifically because of explosively planted in the building was an idea found all over the place on nine eleven on the scene by  eyewitnesses even on television on the radio in the paper very calm and it's important that we know that it changes our perspective on this so here's my first video the reporter here is n j burke so this man had to pick up he and his companion had to pick up the camera run for their lives and i don't see any evidence that mr burkett had a particular conspiratorial frame of mind and he s certainly didn't come around after the event this is his spontaneous judgment standing in a place of great danger he says before the material even hits the ground i huge explosion now raining debris on all of us we better get out of the way and he runs and just so you know he also had to run for his life when the north tower came down a little bit later and he described that as a blast so here we have some people who are off screen you know i assume their apartment or condo in new york city watching and filming in this case the north tower in the distance and we can hear them talking in the background and it's again this gentleman didn't come along after the scene he made his judgment as the north tower came down and he made it just as the debris was beginning to hit the ground that was a bomb that did that he said now by the way i just want to remind you what i'm trying to prove here i'm not using shape hoff's evidence to argue that controlled demolition took place i'm not even at that stage of the talk yet i'm simply making historic point point about history that there were people on that day who made the spontaneous judgment that these buildings exploded my next example is from fire department sorry firefighter christopher fenya and this is taken from the f d n y oral histories and he's talking about a period after the south tower came down that was the first tower to come down and before the north tower came down so sometime roughly between ten and hit ten thirty in the morning it turns out there was a debate happening among firefighters on at the scene quote at that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges in other words not merely that it came down because of explosions and some general sense but that the building had been rigged for demolition they were debating that before ten thirty in the morning on nine eleven and that's the debate that is still raging ten years later the debate between some kind of structural collapse hypothesis and the explosion hypothesis tend to bomb as barbara honegger pointed out is the f b i acronym for their investigation of nine eleven and it stands for pentagon twin towers bombing investigation when i first heard that years ago i thought what a strange title because official narrative has no room for bombs at any of the locations is it possible that some members of the f b i actually thought that it was a bombing originally and that's when we go to jack kelly's very interesting statement which you heard yesterday but i'll give it again this is on nine eleven itself when he reports live that the f b i is working theory at that point is that quote at the same time two planes hit the building there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which exploded at the same time and brought both of them down so that according to him the f b i had an explosion theory and when we look at the television footage from that day we find it's not just the f b i there were police officers talking about explosives in the building there were firefighters talking about the theory of explosives in the it was all over the place we begin with the famous clip from the not day brothers film the two french filmmakers who were there on nine eleven and who interviewed people and so on so this is from the day the gentleman the firefighter on the right is dennis tardio and on the left is let's listen to their description of what the north tower is we have to be specific here what the north tower looked like as it came down so many people dismiss this kind of evidence that i'm dealing with usually with a wave of the hand an impatient gesture i would this evidence is notoriously unreliable was the first one we dealt with it the second one is i don't care the few people heard booms in the building that could have been anything it could have been anything that is an extremely unscientific approach it obviously couldn't have been anything it had to be something quite specific in our job is to figure out what that is so did these gentlemen talk about booms yes dennis tardio uses the term boom boom boom boom boom boom boom but there's nothing vague about them nor did they just hear they see they both saw the building coming down they say it quite explicitly it looked like they affirm each other's lives and what did it look like they convey this in part with these distinctive hand gestures like little karate chops this is what this is what they both do dennis tardio starts it off the hand gestures petzold agrees does the same thing tardio then does it again and this is what he said i mean this is what apparently this means it means that there were a series of energetic and distinct events which began high and went down low rapidly and at regular intervals is nothing about that that is extremely distinctive and this is what they say soda floor by floor it started popping out tardio it was as if they had detonated detonated you know as if they were planted to take down a building boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom so that yeah nothing there this is rich testimony it deserves to be pondered cannot be easily dismissed now i want to take that hand gesture as a symbol of what it means to look for corroborating testimony and that's why when we go on to our second rich case we're now talking about quality testimony i want to take paula most this man  was helping to do a commercial near the world trade center on nine eleven he was building a set and his testimony is very specific and detailed and he also gets very moved if you watch the this is very good eyewitness testimony this as far as i can tell this footage is entirely independent from the not a brother's film that means this gentleman paula most did not see the the firefighters and they did not see him and here they are independently on the day itself and we know it's the dates of we can see building seven in the background during paula mosis testament the same gesture boom boom boom boom boom here's what he says and by the way this man doesn't guard himself the firefighters don't go so far as to say they were explosions they just said they looked like them he doesn't guard him self here's his gestures here's his words all of a sudden i looked up in about twenty stories below the fire i saw from the corner he's talking about the north tower the same building that the two firefighters were talking about i saw from the corner boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom just like twenty straight hits just went down and then i just saw the whole building just went and as the book was were gone people just started running and i sat there and watched a few of them explode and then i just turned around and i just started running for my life because at that point the world trade center was coming right down very rich testimony and i'm going to pause for a moment to say something else about it if you watch the whole interview he says it one point makes a remarkable statement at one point that while he was there after he watched the building come down they meaning the authorities presumably pulled in an architect who came up to mr limos and told him that he had not perceived explosions he had not perceived they told me they weren't explosions he said and then he talks about his interaction with the architect the architect acts and what did you see and that's when he goes through the whole thing all over again and and the architect system how fast were they and he says like firecrackers now there's no evidence that paula most was ready to give up what he believed he thought he saw but already on nine eleven on the scene he's being told what he didn't perceive now i'm not going to suggest that the architect was there for a sinister purpose although i suspect he was but this much at least we can say there is no way at that point that anyone could have claimed to know scientifically that this man had not perceived explosions hadn't studied the rubble the physical residue hadn't done a comprehensive study of video or still footage hadn't done a comprehensive investigation of i would say how on earth could he make that judgment but there's more he's interfering with the criminal i don't care whether you look at this is a homicide investigation or a fire investigation or a bombing investigation in all three cases it's clear that i wouldn't testimony is important and that you go to the scene and you gather it you don't tell eyewitnesses what they did and didn't perceive he's interfering with the investigation and one of the reasons this is so important is because as i read through the firefighters oral histories i could see that in the months they were collected mainly from about october two thousand and one to january two thousand and two and then over those months some of them are beginning to retreat from their statements well maybe i didn't see that and during that whole period they were being bombarded largely through the mass media with the structural failure hypothesis and more specifically the so called pancake theory according to which the towers came down because of pancaking floors now that theory was ultimately given up by nist so it's sad when you see these people doubting their own senses in favor of a hypothesis which is thoroughly discredited now my witness list is not comprehensive but i will be submitting to the toronto hearings statements from one hundred fifty six by witnesses so this will be an appendix to my presentation is thirty five pages long because it includes the actual words of each of these people this eyewitness evidence has been ignored or suppressed by the nine eleven commission and the national institute of standards and technology and i can be fairly brief here because if we ask how many references there are two eyewitnesses evidence to eyewitness statements about explosions in the towers in the five hundred and eighty five pages of the nine eleven commission we find that there is one sentence fragment they're discussing firefighters who were in the north tower when the south tower came down and this is what they say those firefighters not standing their windows facing so had no way of knowing that the south tower collapsed many surmised that a bomb had exploded that's it five hundred eighty five pages this implies that i witness is who thought there were explosions were in the north tower at the time the south tower cam done in fact most of them weren't it also implies that they made a mistake and they made that mistake because they had heat and impeded view they were near a window they couldn't see what was going on this is grotesquely misleading many eyewitnesses were looking directly at the towers and you've all i've already showed you examples so whether it's deliberate or not this is  an extremely inadequate and misleading way of dealing with this important testimony if we ask about the net national institute of standards and technology now which was given the specific job of figuring out why these building buildings collapsed how many references are there to eyewitnesses to explosions in the towers in the two hundred ninety five pages of the final report zero not one now you need to know that the nine eleven commission had access to the same material that i have access to it's not as if i have some mysterious sources here and yet they both miss my hundred fifty six i witnesses to explosions not to mention many other eyewitnesses that are not in my list whether that's deliberate suppression of evidence which would be a crime or whether it's simply massive incompetence does not concern me today because either way we have an investigation that is thoroughly inadequate and that's why we need a new one and i want to begin i want to answer it with one last guy kerry gate i looked up in the building exploded the whole top came off like a volcano and you know could of course be wrong but if you ask me a five hundred fifty six are wrong i'm going to say no i don't think so thank you tiling pattern in this pattern he could see a square built on the hypot noose of a right triangle but he could also see the same area in two squares built on the legs of the same right triangle b squared equals c squared and it's there the truth of the statement is accessible to direct perception his proof was a single word behold when i see building seven come down my gut level response is simply to say behold if you watch it happen there is really no question it's a classic demolition all support has been removed and the building falls straight down we've seen it many times always and only as a result of demolition nist wants us to discount our perceptions and our common sense and believe only them however we cannot overlook the fact that the nist report was produced by a government that was notorious for censoring scientific reports for political purposes the claim that an event resembling controlled demolition was caused by our office fires is patently analysis leading to this conclusion was based on computer models while discounting contradictory physical evidence the computer model has not been made public the report has not been peer reviewed before nist even began its study the crime scene had been destroyed nist refused to search for residue of explosives as our colleague frank cleg has put it quote the evidence for explosives in controlled demolition is both compelling and obvious hence the failure of nist to consider this possibility is prima fascia evidence of corruption this is a profile of the world trade center building seven it was a tall trap as oil shaped building it situated a little more than one hundred meters north of the north tower across vesey street is forty seven stories one hundred  seventy four meters or a five hundred seventy one feet tall its footprint is basically the size of an american football field it has fifty eight for a matter columns and twenty five core columns it was a massive building the twenty third floor housed especially reinforced bunker for the new york city office of emergency management the tenants of the building in two thousand and one included salomon smith barney the i regional council the u s secret service d o d cia new york city office of emergency management security exchange commission and several banks and insurance companies needless to say it was a very of security minded place on the morning of nine eleven seven was hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower much is made of this whereas the twin towers were hit by a boeing seven sixty seven's flying at over five hundred miles an hour the few large projectiles that hit w t c seven were more like mid sized trucks and the fastest of them that i measured were traveling at about seventy eight miles per hour that's highway speed the planes that hit the twin towers had about fifteen hundred times the kinetic energy of the fastest moving debris that h ultimately nist discounted the debris damage as a factor in the collapse of the building but many people and their common perception still think that's a major factor in my teaching i use a video frame tracking program called tracker data gathering tool here's an example of how it works a student took a video of me dropping a soccer ball from a ladder and port of the video into tracker then mark the position of the ball in each frame tracker captures the position linear graph when you take velocity vs time when there is a constant acceleration so as note here the slope is nearly constant at about nine point eight meters per second squared and the number is ri nine point seven is what is giving but notice how linear it is notice how in the end it deviates from a straight line because as the speed builds up the drag increases and so you're actually getting a little bit of a noticeable effect due to air resistance even just from a ball dropping a few meters like that ok so air resistance as subtle a force as it is is detectable ok this is a graph for the roofline seven note that for well over two seconds the graph is linear so the acceleration similar to the soccer ball the acceleration is constant the slope of the linear portion of the graph is essentially equal to the acceleration of gravity within the margin of error of the measurements in other words for this building even though it is falling straight down through its own supporting structure freefall actually happened notice also that there is a sharp onset of freefall it just turns a corner there the building is holding steady then it simply lets go in the approximately two and a half seconds of freefall it falls over one hundred feet the equivalent of about eight stories free fall is motion under the influence of gravity alone all resistance must be removed some people argue that the resistance in the case of w t c seven was not significant because the falling mass was so great it's true the falling mass was great but the strength of the supporting structure was even greater the structure was built to support three to five times the actual load look again at the velocity versus time gra and noticed that when it does eventually engage the structure when it does eventually engage the structure the rate of acceleration slows then actually decelerates and that's what you'd expect when you actually have engagement between the falling mass and the structure as mystics as basically saying that the top part is crushing the structure it should have been looking like that all along the building has the supposed the strength to  decelerate this falling mass is just that it wasn't happening newton's laws are formulated in terms of forces masses and accelerations another parallel set of concepts are the conservation laws teaching a little physics today the conservation of energy conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum for primary ones there to lift an object require something we call work and the amount of work is stored as potential energy as long as the height is maintained when the object falls the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy the energy of motion during freefall during freefall all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy but if any of the energy is used for other purposes along the way such as crushing the concrete or deforming the steel or throwing things around there will be less energy available to be transformed into kinetic energy ok so i did little simulation where hope you noticed as it went through as it had to do some work on something else it slowed down the falling ball because some of that energy was getting siphoned off for other purposes and you can measure the result as the downward the kinetic energy of the falling ball is thereby reduced in the case of seven all of the energy was transformed into kinetic energy so therefore the work needed to destroy the structure was not available it had to come from some other source the fact of freefall is literally proof of demolition so the energy to do what the falling mass was supposedly doing could not have come from the mass in freefall can do no work and if something was being destroyed it's not being destroyed by the falling mouse it was destroyed to enable the mass to fall the final draft of the nist report for public comment was released in august two thousand and eight and the final report was leaked for us released in november twenty fifth two thousand and eight in both of these discusses the rate of fall of the building my measurement tracking the roof line is completely standard is a completely standard way to understand its motion nist however did not initially do this what nist did was measure the overall time between two data points like starting and stopping a stopwatch the ending point was when the roof line reached the level of the twenty ninth floor there starting point was fifty five point four seconds earlier presumably when the downward motion of the roof land replying began this they compared with freefall time which they calculate d to be three point nine seconds therefore proclaimed at the time of fall therefore proclaimed that the time of fall was forty percent longer than freefall time this is a stunning invalid and meaningless measurement anyone at nist who had anything to do with his measurement had to know immediately that they were part of a cover up the only way to validly compare the motion of the building to the acceleration of gravity is to measure the acceleration of the building the acceleration is found from the slope of the velocity versus time graph so in order to find the acceleration you have to actually know the velocity as a function of time in other words you need a lot of data points you can't get a valid measurement of acceleration from two data points unless you know ahead of time that the acceleration over that interval is uniform nobody does it this way because you can't assume op priori that the acceleration in a given situation is going to be uniform nist would not do it this way in a legitimate project nist desperately wanted to claim the freefall did not occur because they knew th actual freefall would be a smoking gun for demolition so instead of a head on comparison of the acceleration of the building to the acceleration of gravity they focused on the completely meaningless notion of free fall time that's not i mean that's a bizarre construct even though you might not know or realize that it is they said that the fall of the building took longer than freefall time and to make even this work they had to falsify their time measurement here's the five point four second interval they measured at a clock on the screen there is the fall of building that's five point four seconds now here it is backward in slow motion and see if you can tell when the clock should have started to be a fair timing of the fall  that's when they started the clock would you want these guys time in the race of your kid on the track team to describe their timing as the time of fall is clearly dishonest the building retained its full height for a significant period of time after they started their their clock the supposed that event they chose to start their clock is a point in the middle of an ongoing period of disruption of the building structure but it was well before the actual downward motion on august twenty sixth two thousand and eight nist held a technical briefing conference and i was able to ask a question i cited the fact that a number of people had measured the motion of the building and had to terminate it was within a few percent of freefall yet the report claims it fell forty percent slower than then i asked how can such a publicly visible easily measurable quantity be set aside sooners answer was that freefall happens when there is no structural resistance freefall would have taken three point nine seconds but their model showed it should have come down in five point four seconds the five point four seconds of their model was reasonable because there was structural resistance there was a series of failures that had to take place and they were not all simultaneous the question here was how the video evidence that freefall actually occurred can be set aside cinders answer is that their model showed that freefall could not have occurred his answer cinder is elevating their model above the direct evidence and that is not science sooners response typifies the entire investigation what they did was they substituted a computer model or several computer models for the actual physical evidence taking the evidence out of the picture insulated them from having to go where the evidence leads because they didn't like what they saw down that road and this model is based on the assumption that the seven came down as a natural collapse due to fire gravity and buckling columns since their model could not produce a  freefall collapse and since the video evidence shows that freefall actually occurred their model is wrong and the assumptions behind their model are wrong and this does not acknowledge this or try to account for the discrepancy in any way if explosives were used you will never discover them in a computer model even if the computer model can be made to collapse it does not mean that's the way the building actually collapsed conclusions drawn from computer models can only reproduce what is implied by the assumptions they were programmed in and this could have made their model work if at a mouse click eight floors of support in the model were suddenly removed but that would require the fall of building seven be interpreted as demolition nist had no intention of going there that would have involved culpability in finding culpability was not part of their mandate in august raft of the public comment the strategy was to find the strategy was to cover up the fact of freefall that strategy didn't work because we let them know that there were some of us out here who could actually measure these things for ourselves nov the final report change strategies this gets a bit complicated first they continued to assert that their earlier analysis was correct you can find the same timing analysis in the final report as in the previous one they added this more detailed analysis and that's where they describe it and so they did this from frame tracking measurements the same as i did then they put their graph in a box which they divided into three stages the real fall of the building starts in stage two and continues in stage three however they tack on the erroneous early measurements as stage one they put a smooth curve through the data which has absolutely no physical significance except to spin their results to look like a single smooth continuous process the overall time for their three stages is as you guessed it five point four seconds but they did one more thing amazingly someone it nest added a nice straight read regression line through their stage two data they even gave the equation of the line it shows that the slope is exactly equal to the acceleration of gravity so that redline is a flat out absolute admission of their even closer to the acceleration of gravity than my measurement they were right smack on the money there on that number for eight stories was suddenly removed by something other than the following maps it literally means that nist final report confirms w t c seven how to have been a demolition the only thing that's relevant here is the slope of the graph and the fact that the slope doesn't matter how it started how gradually it started or anything else if the slope of that graph is acceleration of gravity it's in freefall and it doesn't matter what it did to get in stick nist has no escape from freefall the building as a whole entered freefall for a significant period of time over a significant distance this requires the sudden remove all of support and that requires explosives the nist w t several reports has never been peer reviewed there's been no forum for critiquing or correcting the final report it just does not constitute science it is instead an authorit declaration by a government agency that demonstrated repeatedly its unwillingness to consider the one hypothesis that could actually account for their observations the fact that nist could not come up with an alternative model that actually works is a pretty clear indication that no alternative explanation exists today in my presentation we will resume in on the dust which we have all seen several times in the presentations preceding this one  and in such huge quantities in what was called pyro plastic clouds me and the pirate plastic cloud is a dust cloud which is hot there was plenty of dust her name was janet mccann live and she was allowed to come back to her apartment about a week later and this is what it looked like there was a thick layer of dust all over and she had a cleaning job to do she kept some of it for the purpose eventually of making it into a piece of art because she also had an artistic mind we put this this dust into a plastic bag and apply magnet on to it i have taken actually a small sample out of this back put it into a smaller back here and i also brought a little magnet here you should take the horizontal or you can also put it vertically and then apply the magnet to the dust and you will see something coming along play a little with it with a challenge for you is to isolate a black  line of particles following the curvature of the magnet that made the magnetic field is strongest at the edges so try to pull out some magnetic material from the bark and eventually isolate what probably will be a black a black line of small particles and this is some of the stuff you can isolate from the dust by the means of the magnet it was first presented to the world in two with two thousand and seven not december fifteenth in boston but stephenie jones following this publication of stephenie jones i was asked to join this team of scientists investigating these great ships and the work eventually ended up in a publication on april third of two thousand and nine the paper is based on four samples in germany because in the thermite reaction as you have already heard not many times you form elemental on at a very high temperature so it's very useful for welding this picture also was plastic matrix and in it you have very finely dispersed aluminum and on oxide and that's it an explosive must act by means of force is a chemical reaction where gas is a vault and you knocked things over like that with the pressure with the force and it is has in order to do that it has to be very fast the characteristic of explosives are not contrast to x explosives which acts by means of pressure and relative even though we saw jonathan cold demonstrating these wonderful experiments in his neighbor's neighbour's garden he  they are still slow on the timescale of explosives explosives are very very fast some of the explosives act in the combustion sones move more than twenty times the speed of sound this is t nitrogen group there's a distance less than one tenth of one billions of a meter while in insane gunpowder which is a mixture of powders the electrons have to move from one particle to the other fireworks rocket shoes and all time thermites in nanotechnology you'd you start with compass it materials but you make the particles smaller and smaller and smaller and this is this is what happens to a thermite reaction as you make the particle smaller it is the time of reaction get shorter and shorter and then of course you deliver the energy per volume is much much higher than the unconventional matures meaning that you can pack much more energy into a smaller volume than you can do with dynamite or t and t or idea x incendiaries which acts by means thermite must have been there one way or the other now i will show you a video which david chandler did not show and i must admit that up this is the destruction of the south tower of the world trade center viewed from a helicopter to the south this particular video clip is rich in details that call the official story into question notice the numerous explosions on the west side of the building above the impact point as the top thirty floors section falls tips to the east it starts off intact but then it disintegrates in mid air gravity alone could not cause the top section to disintegrate when an object is in freefall there are no internal stresses it should have hit the ground in one piece but it didn't some of the debris is clearly being accelerated by forces other than gravity these effects can be caused by late firing explosives which can produce a white smoke trail white smoke consisting of aluminum oxide is a byproduct of a firm my reaction producing this video i ran across one rocket projectile i had not seen commented on before this one stopped midair and change directions even taking perspective effects into account this projectile loss one component of momentum and gained another that requires an impulse note that the rocket trail does not point back to the building but the point where the impulse occurred let's take it from the top there's a lot going on watch for the smoking and and this i presently for my reaction producing this video i ran across one rocket projectile i had not seen commented on before this one stopped this is crazy it goes out like this and then  i've seen in a medical journal and the estimate is written sixty to seventy thousand of people were exposed to the dust for an extended period of time and last year there were published a paper in experimental health here's perspectives by a group of of doctors from the mt sinai medical school in manhattan and they looked into the long tissue structures in four out of seven patients which were ill in numbers ranging from eleven thousand to two hundred thirty thousand per gram where tissue this is the same material which they found also in the world trade center dust which is moving around here somewhere carbon but they're very very very small they're very very strong they are hundreds of times stronger than spider web formation or carbon nanotubes requires three condition must be he put it into a letter and sent it to me it is here and what i did then is to take a little sample out of this poor ng a few milliliters of alcohol microscope and this is what you see this is the perfect time instance of covenants and this is common as i wouldn't i wouldn't come obviously i wouldn't come up with this if i didn't believe what i was saying this is this is a picture from the patients the mount sinai started this is what we find as a product of the nano thermite reaction and please remember that none of the control group shows this feature so if you ask couldn't the nanotubes come from somewhere else it's true it is found combustion of diesel and and in much much smaller amounts and in oxygen starved fires but goddess of justice in my language we call her you states and she is use lee depicted she's blindfolded she cares a sword and a balance and the point the implication of this obviously is that her judgement should not be biased by her own subpoenas issued only be based on what ever the hard evidence presented in the case