A Response to Chris Mohr’s Respectful Rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 9/11 Blueprint for Truth by Adam Taylor Since the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, there has been enormous controversial debate as to what truly happened that day. Many alternative theories have been proposed, most of which are in strong opposition of what is generally regarded as the “official narrative;” that 19 Islamic fundamentalists, under the orders of Osama bin Laden, hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing two of them into the WTC Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into an open field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Twin Towers, as a result of being struck by the airplanes, completely collapsed to the ground. Although just about every aspect of the attacks has been debated to an enormous extent, the one issue that may be the most disputed today is what truly caused the destruction of not only the two WTC Twin Towers, but also World Trade Center Building 7. Those offering alternative theories to the collapses of the buildings generally believe that the plane impacts and the fires were not the sole cause of the collapses, but that it is far more likely that some form of controlled demolition was used to destroy them. These theories have, unsurprisingly, been contested by numerous defenders of the official narrative. One of these individuals is a journalist and minister by the name of Chris Mohr, and his arguments are the main subject of this paper. On March 6th, 2011, Mr. Mohr debated with architect Richard Gage on the WTC collapses. (See: http://tinyurl.com/78kzsj6) Although the audio of the debate has been released, the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has decided not to release the video of the debate. As a result, Mr. Mohr has recently uploaded a series of videos to YouTube which aim to rebut the claims made by Richard Gage in his video presentation 9/11 Blueprint for Truth. (See: http://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911) Mr. Mohr refers to these videos as “respectful rebuttals” and not “debunking.” Indeed, after reviewing Mr. Mohr’s videos myself, I find that he is very sincere about his concerns regarding the WTC demolition theory, and truly wants there to be a civil and respectful debate of the topic. However, I do not believe that Mr. Mohr’s rebuttals offer solid refutations of the points made in 911BT. In this paper, I will demonstrate why Mr. Mohr’s videos, while presenting some legitimate concerns of the controlled demolition theory, do not ultimately disprove the theory and do not support the theory of “natural collapse.” [Note: A hyperlink is included to conveniently take the reader to a specific time in Mohr’s videos. Sections appearing in red are direct quotes from Mohr.] 1

Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3 Part 1: What Initiated WTC Tower Collapses?.............................................................................. 5 Part 2: Gage’s 10 Reasons............................................................................................................ 22 Part 3: Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses......................................................................... 30 Part 4: Symmetrical, Free Fall Collapse....................................................................................... 40 Part 5: Lateral Ejection of Steel and Squibs................................................................................. 52 Part 6: Pulverized Concrete.......................................................................................................... 64 Part 7: Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions................................................................................. 72 Part 8: Molten Steel/Iron?............................................................................................................ 76 Part 9: Iron Microspheres in WTC Dust...................................................................................... 89 Part 10: Sulfidized Steel............................................................................................................... 95 Part 11: Thermites in WTC Dust?.............................................................................................. 106 Part 12: Twin Towers Conclusion.............................................................................................. 121 Part 13: Building 7 Introduction................................................................................................. 127 Part 14: Size of Building 7 Fires................................................................................................. 133 Part 15: Symmetrical Collapse?.................................................................................................. 146 Part 16: Eyewitness Accounts, Foreknowledge.......................................................................... 159 Part 17: Secret 9/11 Conspiracy Size.......................................................................................... 168 Part 18: Freefall Collapse of Building 7..................................................................................... 174 Part 19: New 9/11 Investigation?............................................................................................... 183 Part 20: Final Conclusion........................................................................................................... 188 Appendix A: Mohr’s 235+ Reasons........................................................................................... 190 Appendix B: Mohr’s eSkeptic Article........................................................................................ 212 Appendix C: Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr................................................ 224 Acknowledgements/About the Author....................................................................................... 235 2

Introduction In the introduction to Mr. Mohr’s video series, he gives a brief overview of his position regarding the WTC controlled demolition theory. He makes it clear that, while feeling that the evidence being offered by the Truth Movement is compelling, he is not convinced the buildings were destroyed with explosives. At 4:22, Mr. Mohr states that he hopes that those watching his videos suspend their beliefs for the time being, and requests that the viewer “listen to the person you most disagree with.” As someone who examines the claims of debunkers quite extensively, I have absolutely no problem doing this. It is something I do quite frequently. Indeed, when examining the claims of debunkers, I often times find myself agreeing with what they have to say. However, I maintain that although some of my beliefs are occasionally falsified by debunker arguments, this does not refute my belief in its entirety. As such, there are parts of Richard Gage’s presentation that I do not completely agree with, but I still find the overall premise of his presentation to be correct. At 6:12, Mohr discusses the fact that NIST never looked for evidence of explosives. He claims that the reason that NIST did not test for explosives is because there were no tell-tale signs of explosives in the debris, such as “detonator materials or other physical evidence.” He quotes NIST spokesperson Mike Newman as saying that if they had found these materials, then they would have looked for explosive residue. This excuse from NIST is illogical for several reasons. Firstly, this excuse goes against what is recommended by the NFPA 921 Guide when considering fuel sources. As stated in NFPA 18.15: Chemical analysis of debris, soot, soil, or air samples can be helpful in identifying the fuel. With explosives or liquid fuels, gas chromatography, mass spectrography, or other chemical tests of properly collected samples may be able to identify their presence.1 There is nothing in this section of NFPA 921 that discusses first looking for the possible devices used with the explosives. It is clear that chemical analysis is extremely important in determining if explosives were used. As a comparison, if the police investigate a crime and wish to know if guns were used in any way, they would obviously test for gunshot residue, and not simply wait to find a spent shell. Moreover, the very characteristics of the collapses should have been reason enough to test for explosives. According to NFPA 18.3.2, explosives should be looked for whenever there is “high- order damage,” which is defined as: High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet.2 1See: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=288 2See: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=221 3

The first two sentences of this description would apply to Building 7, and the entire description would apply to the Twin Towers. The fact that NIST claims they never looked for explosive residues, while at the same time claiming that they found no evidence of explosives is completely self-contradictory. As pointed out in an appeal letter to NIST submitted by members of the Truth Movement: NIST must reconcile its statement that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used” with its statement that it did not test for explosive residue which, if found, would suggest explosives were used. This point was clearly made in the original Request, but was ignored in NIST’s Response. The fact therefore remains that it is extremely easy to “find no evidence” when one is not looking for evidence.3 At 6:34, Mohr points out that NIST also did not test for “mini-nukes, post-star wars energy rays, aliens, missiles, holograms or other alleged sources of the WTC collapses.” Firstly, these and other alleged sources have actually been critiqued by members of the Truth Movement.4 Secondly, the NFPA 921 Guide states that specific residues should be looked for in an investigation, including “thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”5 Therefore, the standard guidelines dictate that NIST would be required to test for thermite residue. Although Mohr claims that NIST was simply “following the evidence,” they clearly were not following the standard guidelines for fire investigations. It is therefore still absurd that NIST simply refused to test for explosive residue in their investigation. Mohr’s introduction video asks the viewers to suspend their beliefs regarding 9/11, and to listen to everything he has to say throughout the rest of his videos. Having done this extensively, I shall now move onto his main rebuttal videos and address where I find his points are strong and where his points are weak and/or false. 3Quoted from: Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to Earlier Request for Correction, pg. 14 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf 4The website 911research.wtc7.net has a section devoted to examining several alternative demolition theories, which are divided up as “Untenable theories,” “Exotic theories” and “Plausible theories.” See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/index.html 5See: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp 4

Part 1: What Initiated WTC Tower Collapses? In part 1 of Mr. Mohr’s “respectful rebuttal,” he begins to list the numerous reasons he feels that the buildings came down due to natural causes, and not controlled demolition. Essentially, he gives a rehashing of all the points that NIST and other investigators have given that indicate the collapses were caused by the combined effects of the plane impacts and the ensuing fires. However, the reasons Mohr gives have all been highly disputed, as this is the other aspect of the Truth Movement’s overall goal: to not only point out why the demolition theory is extremely likely, but also to point out why the reasons for “natural collapse” are very problematic. Mohr states at 1:00 that the buildings were built to handle three times the static weight, “but not five times as Richard Gage asserts.” This claim is somewhat misleading. While it is true that there was a safety factor of 3 to 1 for the core columns in the Towers, there was actually a safety factor of 5 to 1 for the perimeter columns.6 This is one of many examples where Mohr makes a claim that is technically correct, but is also misleading due to the fact that he omits other details. At 2:49, Mohr begins his list of reasons for “natural collapse.” I should mention at this point that many of the issues Mohr discusses are also brought up in later videos and are discussed in more detail. As such, I will address certain points raised by Mohr more than once throughout this paper, with more and less detail depending on how much detail Mohr goes into. Throughout his videos, Mohr presents numerous slides to list his reasons for “natural collapse,” like the one shown below. 6 See: The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers, by Tony Szamboti http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisFor DestructionofTwinTowers.pdf 5

We note that the first point about the speed of the planes has long been addressed by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Documents predating the attacks indicate that the buildings were built to withstand the impact of an airplane travelling at 600 mph.7 Even NIST and the Port Authority has acknowledged this fact.8 The next two points are somewhat trivial. While the planes banking certainly caused them to damage multiple floors at the same time, it could be argued that the plane strikes might have been more damaging had the planes only impacted one floor. Since debunkers argue that one floor failing was all that was needed to cause total collapse, it is perhaps better that the plane debris was spread out on multiple floors and not concentrated on a single floor. As for the weight of the planes, while they were obviously quite heavy, Jim Hoffman has noted that “the steel on a single floor of the tower weighed ten times as much as a 767.”9 The fourth point is misleading. While the planes did severe roughly 60% of the perimeter columns on the impacted sides, the overall perimeter column lose was only about 15%. Giving figures such as 60% seems to overstate the amount of damage the buildings actually sustained. As noted by Thomas Eagar: While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.10 At 3:34 in the video, Mohr mentions the fact that the plane impacts had likely disabled the sprinkler systems and widely dislodged the fire proofing. It should first be noted that NIST itself has doubted that the sprinklers would have done very much to control the fires, stating on their FAQ page that: Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been 7“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” Quoted from: City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, pg. 131 8“An additional load stated by the Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the Towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the Towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.” Quoted from: NCSTAR1, pg. 6 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication- search.cfm?pub_id=909017 9Quoted from: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html 10Quoted from: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html 6

suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.11 As for the fireproofing being dislodged, this topic is brought up constantly by defenders of the official story as a reason that the Towers collapsed. NIST itself has stated that the Towers would likely have remained standing had the fireproofing not been widely dislodged.12 However, the extent of the fireproofing loss has been greatly disputed. Although the airplane impacts would have undoubtedly dislodged some of the fireproofing, it has been suggested that it was not as widely dislodged as some believe. Kevin Ryan has noted an essential problem with NIST’s reasoning behind their assertions: [NIST’s] test for fireproofing loss, never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples, and no floor deck samples were tested at all. In the end, they slid the results into a 12 page appendix to the final report. Unfortunately, it’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically.13 Kevin Ryan’s assertion that “it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones” is supported by the fact that people who escaped from the South Tower have testified that they saw intact portions of the airplane inside the building. “The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.” -Stanley Praimnath, who was on the 81st floor of the South Tower.14 But even if we assume NIST’s estimates are correct, their own modeling appears to contradict their conclusions. The inward bowing of the perimeter columns, which Mohr will discuss later in 11Quoted from: NIST Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006), question 8. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm 12“The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” Quoted from: NIST Final Report, page xxxviii 13Quoted from: What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, by Kevin Ryan, pg. 2-3 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf 14 Quoted from: Accounts From the South Tower, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26STOWER.html?pagewanted=13 (Emphasis added) There is also a recorded phone interview with Stanley Praimnath available online where he discusses seeing intact portions of the plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwNJmQw1MY 7

the video, was said to be the cause of the collapses. However, in the case of WTC1, the maximum inward bowing occurred in the area of the building where, according to NIST’s estimates, the fireproofing was completely untouched. Images from: Observations for Structural Response—Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact, by Therese McAllister http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/6McAllister.pdf (Note: blue areas indicate dislodged fireproofing.) As we can see, the maximum inward bowing appeared to occur on the southeast face of the building at floor 97, where NIST’s diagrams indicate that virtually no fireproofing was dislodged. This clearly contradicts NIST’s premise that the building would likely have remained standing had the fireproofing not been knocked off by the impact. This fact also damages Mohr’s case for “natural collapse.” Mohr goes on to claim at 4:00 that the safety factors of the buildings were reduced significantly when the planes impacted. He cites Dr. Frank Greening’s assertion that the safety factor was reduced from 3 to 2 in the Towers. However, calculations done by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti demonstrate that the safety factor for the core columns was only reduced from 3 to 8

about 2.63 on average.15 Mohr also claims at 4:45 that the fires in the buildings had spread to all four faces in 15 minutes. However, this is apparently not true. According to NIST, it took 10-20 minutes for the fires to reach the failure zone in the South Tower, and 50-60 minutes for the fires to reach the failure zone in the North Tower.16 Also, the fires in the South Tower never reached the west face of the building, as confirmed by numerous videos, photographs and even NIST. Images from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html 15See: The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers, by Tony Szamboti, pg. 7-9 16“The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.” Quoted from NCSTAR 1-6, pg. 322 and 338 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101279 9

Image from: Observations for Structural Response—Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact, by Therese McAllister Mohr then cites Leslie Robertson at 5:23 as saying that the Towers were never designed for the fires that would be caused by the jet fuel from an impacting plane. However, this is contradicted by statements made by the original lead structural engineer for the WTC, John Skilling. We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there. –John Skilling, head WTC engineer17 It would of course make absolute sense for the original designers to take the fuel into account. As Gregg Roberts appropriately asks: “Who would design a building to be impacted by fuel-less aircraft? How would the aircraft get there?”18 17 Quoted from: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug;=1687698#loop 18 Quoted from: Jones v. Robertson, A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center, by Gregg Roberts, pg. 3 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf 10

At 5:50 in the video, Mohr shows the Purdue University simulation and claims that “it shows the plane’s destructive power and confirms the major findings of the NIST report.” However, contrary to Mohr’s claim, nothing could be further from the truth. Kevin Ryan has noted numerous ways that the Purdue simulation actually contradicts the findings of the NIST report, including: NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged by aircraft impact, and this was in their “more severe” case. Purdue now says that 52 core columns were “destroyed or heavily damaged” over a height six floors (see Irfanoglu and Hoffman, table 1). First note that there was a total of 47 core columns in the building. Even if several of these were “destroyed” at multiple levels, Purdue is now asking us to accept a level of damage that is far greater than years of government research could support. NIST reported that the damage done to the south face of WTC 1 was limited to one dislodged panel, encompassing three exterior columns (329,330 and 331), caused by whatever small amount of debris passed through and exited the far side of the building. Purdue’s team now wants us to believe that 12 exterior columns were severed on the south face of WTC 1. NIST told us that the center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it struck WTC 1. But this new animation shows the center tank to be completely full. Additional comments from the animation’s creators indicate they have no idea how much jet fuel was available inside the building, or how this fuel played a part in the destruction.19 Also noted by Kevin Ryan is the way in which the Purdue simulation contradicts NIST’s assertions about the fireproofing dislodgement in the buildings. We previously noted that NIST’s scenario for the fireproofing being dislodged required the planes to be shredded into small, bullet-sized pieces. But as Kevin Ryan points out: [F]rom Purdue’s new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST’s primary explanation.20 The Purdue simulation is a very poor source for discussing the alleged structural damage to the WTC. As noted by Jim Hoffman: [T]he Purdue simulation was designed only to create a realistic visualization of the 767 colliding with the Tower, not to assess structural damage or model how it supposedly led to the total destruction of the building 102 minutes later.21 19Quoted from: Letter to Purdue President France Córdova, by Kevin Ryan http://stj911.org/ryan/PurdueLetter.html 20Ibid. 21Quoted from: National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie, by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html 11

Then, at 6:08, Mohr makes a surprising claim. He states that “90,850 liters of… burning jet fuel created massive conflagrations.” Why is this claim surprising? Simply because this figure of 90,850 liters is more than twice as much fuel that entered each of the buildings, according to official reports. According to NIST, approximately 8,684 gallons (approx. 32,868 liters) of fuel entered WTC1 and 7,415 gallons (approx. 28,067 liters) of fuel entered WTC2. Fuel estimates from: NCSTAR 1-5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers, pg. 56 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101420 A fuel load of 90,850 liters would be approximately 24,000 gallons of fuel. Now this is in fact approximately the maximum amount of fuel a 767 can hold,22 so this may have been where Mohr obtained this figure. However, it is generally common knowledge that the planes that struck the Towers were carrying far less than their maximum fuel load. Strangely, in a later video Mohr actually claims at 1:16 that 98,500 liters of fuel entered the buildings. This would of course be almost 8,000 liters more fuel than what a 767 can hold! Image from: 5:05 Image from: 1:16 22 Maximum Fuel Capacity for Boeing 767-200: 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L). See: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html 12

Being that his first figure was 90,850 and his second figure was 98,500, it is entirely possible that Mohr simply messed up the order of the digits. Regardless, Mohr’s claim that over 90,000 liters of fuel entered the buildings is clearly incorrect. It is important to assess how much fuel actually remained in each building after impact, and more importantly to assess how much fuel actually remained in the fires zones of the buildings. According to an anonymous author, the amount of fuel that actually remained in each building would have fit into a mid-sized U-Haul truck or an above ground swimming pool.23 Already we can see how minimal the amount of fuel was in relation to each building. But as the author further points out: If 900 cubic feet of fuel was spread evenly over just one 40,000 square feet floor of a Tower, it would result in a film 0.27 inches thick, about the thickness of a pencil.24 Furthermore, NIST itself, in agreement with FEMA, believes that likely half of the fuel that remained in the buildings flowed away from the fires zones down the elevator shafts and stairs.25 From this, the anonymous author states that: NIST assumes that half of that jet fuel “flowed away” from the impact floors and did not contribute to the fires that initiated the building collapses. We are asked to believe that 2,966 gallons of jet fuel, essentially kerosene, caused the collapse of the South Tower. NIST apparently even has difficulty accepting its own conclusion and states in the passage quoted above, “the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.”26 It is quite clear that Mohr’s assertions about the amount of fuel that entered each building are, to say the least, enormous exaggerations. The amount of fuel that stayed in each building was significantly less than half of what the planes could have held. 23See: Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, by Anon http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf After assessing that 929 cubic feet volume of fuel remained in WTC1 and 793 cubic feet volume of fuel remained in WTC2, the author points out that: “The 17’ Easy Loading Mover rental truck has a box volume of 855 cubic feet. Total cab plus box volume is over 900 cubic feet… Volume of an 18’ diameter, 4’ tall pool is 1,017 cubic feet.” pg. 4 24Ibid. pg. 5 25“The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts… The jet fuel consumption estimate put forth by the FEMA team was used in the model because (1) no evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate, and (2) the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.” Quoted from: NCSTAR 1- 5F: Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers, pg. 56 26Quoted from: Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, by Anon, pg. 3 13

At 6:53, Mohr discusses the properties of steel and how it reacts to different temperatures in a fire. Mohr argues that the fires in the Towers “may have gotten as high as 1900 degrees.” However, it’s important to note that NIST, based on their own examination of the steel from the WTC, has no evidence that steel in the Towers was to heated to temperatures above 600 ºC (1100 ºF). Dr. Frank Legge and an anonymous author have demonstrated why NIST’s examination of the steel from the Towers strongly contradicts their conclusions: One might think the recovered steel would give the most substantial evidence to support the claim of heat-induced collapse. We are led to believe that NIST has recognized this and has collected the necessary samples for forensic analysis: “The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses…” (NCSTAR 1.3, xxxvii) However, on pages 180 and 181 of the Final Report NIST reveals that: “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 ºC for as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure.” As for the exterior columns, NIST reports that “Only three [out of 171] of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC during the fires or after the collapse. This was 14

based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” (NCSTAR 1, 181)27 Despite the fact that NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either of the Towers, Mohr continues his rebuttal at 8:43 by presenting a diagram from the NIST report suggesting that temperatures of 700 ºC caused the sagging of the floor trusses, which ultimately caused the “inward bowing” of the Towers’ perimeter walls. Noting the major discrepancy in NIST’s report regarding the alleged temperatures, Jim Hoffman points out that: The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That’s consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).28 The inward bowing has been the subject of much debate regarding the demolition of the Twin Towers. While many debunkers believe that it supports the theory of “natural collapse,” many in the Movement have suggested that it was part of the demolition scenario. Regardless, at 9:13 Mohr flashes a slide on the screen with the caption “Major Bowing One Minute before Collapse: How Could Nanothermites Cause This???” 27Quoted from: Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy, by Anonymous and F. Legge, pg. 6-7 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf 28Quoted from: Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html 15

In fact, while nanothermite has generally been posited as what was used to explosively destroy the Towers, it has been suggested that thermate was used to cause the inward bowing of the Towers’ perimeter columns. As Jim Hoffman outlines in his own hypothetical scenario: Stage 1: Thermate Melts and Corrodes Core Steelwork During Stage 1, extending from up to 10 minutes before T-0, thermate coatings on key parts of the core structure steelwork are ignited via the wireless ignition control system. The two areas attacked are: the core columns on a few floors below the crash zone, just above where most of the columns transition from box columns to wide- flange beams; and the inner portions of the hat truss that connect it to the core. The thermal/corrosive attack on these two portions of the structure leaves the entire block of the core structure above the upper mechanical equipment floor "floating", with no major steel members to transfer its gravity loads to the lower portion of the core or to the perimeter walls: it is now supported by the web-trussed floor diaphragms. The upper core block now exerts massive inward forces on the perimeter walls due to the high degree of leverage involved in the translation of the core block's gravity loads into pulling on the perimeter walls. It is these forces that produce the inward bowing of portions of perimeter walls that NIST claims are due merely to the sagging of floor diaphragms still supported by the core.29 Hoffman therefore presents a plausible scenario for how a thermite-based demolition could account for the inward bowing we see in the videos. Given that, as we have already seen, the fireproofing was evidently not widely dislodged where the major inward bowing occurred in the North Tower and that NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either building, the idea that fire caused this extreme warping of the steel is highly implausible. 29 Quoted from: A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario: A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means, by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html 16

Mohr then claims at 9:20 that the fires in the Towers were not diminishing and that “they had grown from 3 floors to at least 14 floors in less than an hour.” It is difficult to understand where Mohr gets this figure of 14 from. As we have already seen, NIST documented that six floors were on fire in WTC2 and eight floors were on fire in WTC1. If Mohr is trying to claim that 14 floors in total from both Towers were on fire, then he would be correct. But Mohr implies that 14 floors were on fire in just one building. And contrary to Mohr’s assertions, the fires in at least the South Tower were diminishing shortly before collapse. Videos and photos of the South Tower show very few flames visible in the moments before the building collapsed. As pointed out at 911research.wtc7.net: [T]here is no evidence that the fires on the floors at the impact zone even spread to the opposite side of the building. By the time the building collapsed, the fires appeared to be suffocating, as no flames were visible, and only black smoke was emerging. At that time the vast majority of smoke was coming from the North Tower.30 Mohr then discusses at 9:35 the fall of the North Tower’s antenna. Interestingly, Mohr accepts that the antenna did fail first before the perimeter began to fall, instead of offering the often heard excuse by NIST and debunkers that the antenna drop as seen from the north was actually an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the antenna and hat truss to the south.31 His own explanation involves the idea that the hat truss “buckled in the center first, causing the antenna drop seen by FEMA and others.” However, any scenario involving the failure of the hat truss 30Quoted from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc2.html 31This explanation is contradicted by the fact that a wire connected from the antenna to the roof of the North Tower loses tension as the antenna begins to fall. This means that the antenna must be sinking into the roof of the building, and not simply rotating as a single unit with the upper section. This event can be seen in this GIF image: http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa476/adamtaylor132342/losttension.gif 17

would have to involve the failure of the core first. Tony Szamboti notes a significant problem with this event in the Tower’s collapse: The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roofline, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that its failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail. The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding. Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.32 While the motion of the antenna is not consistent with NIST’s scenario of collapse, where the perimeter failed first, it is very consistent with a demolition scenario involving removal of the core columns. At 10:40, Mohr claims that the South Tower collapsed first because it was hit lower down than the North Tower and therefore had more weight above the crash site. However, this is argument is debatable. While the South Tower did have more weight acting on the damaged location, the columns at the South Tower’s 80th floor impact zone were far stronger than the columns at the North Tower’s 95th floor impact zone. Also, as we have already established, the fires were obviously less severe in the South Tower than in the North Tower. Mohr spends the next two minutes of this video discussing the issues of collapse initiation, the rate of fall, eyewitness accounts of explosions and the pulverization of the buildings, all subjects that will discussed in greater detail later on. At 12:40, Mohr claims that “there has not been a single published peer-reviewed paper disputing the fundamentals of this collapse theory.” As a matter of fact, this is not strictly true. There have actually been several papers published in peer- reviewed journals disputing the idea that the Towers could have completely collapsed in a natural collapse scenario. For instance, a paper published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal by Dr. Steven Jones et al. shows fourteen points of agreement with the official reports, including the NIST report, that contradict the conclusion that the buildings could have been brought down by fire and gravity alone.33 Also, a paper published by Dr. Crockett Grabbe in the Journal of Engineering 32Quoted from: The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers, by Tony Szamboti, pg. 6 33See: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley http://web.archive.org/web/20080610080428/http://www.bentham- open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM 18

Mechanics34 addresses a paper written by mathematician Dr. Keith Seffen that endorses the natural collapse scenario. In his paper, Dr. Grabbe writes that: [I]t has been “well-established” that the factors that caused the onset of collapse in the South Tower appear definitely to not have been the fires. The fires created from the plane impacts were not that intense just before the collapse initiation for either Tower, and for the South Tower the fires seemed close to being contained and put out by the firemen when suddenly rapidly horizontally-moving masses of material violently broke through walls of the floors below where the fires had been burning from the plane hit.35 In 2013, a paper published in the International Journal of Protective Structures by Gregory Szuladzinski, Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns demonstrated that the Towers could not have collapsed in the manner asserted by NIST and civil engineering professor Zdenek Bažant. They conclude in their paper that: A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented… and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low as 15.3 s. This removes the PCF [Progressive Column Failure] mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.36 This paper was published after Mohr’s video series was completed, so there is no fault of his found here. However, the fact remains that this is yet another peer-reviewed paper disputing the idea that the Towers could have collapsed the way they did in a natural way. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that none of the NIST reports themselves were peer- reviewed. Dr. James Quintiere, the former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, saying that: I wish that there would be a peer review of this… I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.37 I think there should be a full airing of the NIST analyses and results with questions raised by the public before an impartial panel judging the completeness and accuracy of their 34See: Discussion of “Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen, by Crockett Grabbe http://www.sealane.org/writings/Seffenrevpub.pdf (It should be noted too that Dr. Seffen never wrote a Closure article to Dr. Grabbe’s Discussion paper. Dr. Grabbe’s paper has therefore gone unchallenged in peer-reviewed literature.) 35Ibid. pg. 2 36Quoted from: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis, by Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns, pg. 123 (PDF pg. 8) http://rethink911.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf 37Quoted from: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation, by Allen Miller http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007082201012280 19

results. In other words, peer-review with accountability to a national body. That should determine whether further investigation is needed.38 Noting that this call for peer-review came directly from a former scientist at NIST, David Ray Griffin writes: But NIST did not take the advice of the former head of its Fire Science Division. There was no peer-review process, and NIST certainly did not submit its results to an impartial panel empowered to judge their “completeness and accuracy” and to decide, on the basis of that judgment, whether “further investigation [was] needed.” NIST did, to be sure, meet from time to time with an advisory committee. But it evidently did not take any advice from its members or even answer their questions. Speaking directly to a NIST representative, Quintiere said: I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things…, I never received one formal reply.39 Regardless of Mohr’s assertion that no peer-reviewed papers have challenged the idea that fire and gravity alone could have brought down the Towers, NIST has evidently not had their conclusions peer-reviewed. However, Mohr goes on to claim that there have been other papers published in peer-reviewed journals that support a “natural collapse” scenario and that “this is part of the reason that NIST did not consider the entire duration of the collapse.” First of all, several of the papers published in favor of a natural collapse scenario have been responded to by members of the Truth Movement. We have already seen such a paper published by Dr. Crockett Grabbe, and there are others as well, such as papers by chemical engineer James Gourley40 and structural engineer Anders Björkman,41 both published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. A second point that should be noted here is that, although there have been other papers published in support of a natural collapse scenario, the main reason NIST appears to have not explained the entire collapse of the WTC is simply because they were unable to. NIST was forced to admit this 38Quoted from: Facts against Facts/Theory against Theory – five years later (translated from Norwegian interviews with Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. James Quintiere) http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t12263.htm 39Quoted from: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False, by David Ray Griffin, pg. 252 (the quote from Dr. Quintiere is from “Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division”… by Allen Miller) 40See: Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, by James Gourley http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf Although Bazant did write a response to Gourley’s Discussion paper, Gourley has explained that the JEM seems to have shown a bias in favor of Bazant. Gourley explains this thoroughly here: http://911blogger.com/node/18196 41See: Discussion of “What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, by Anders Björkman http://heiwaco.tripod.com/JEMdiscussion.pdf Bazant replied to Björkman’s Discussion paper, but Björkman has written a critique of Bazant’s response, which can be read here: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm 20

in a response to a Request for Correction submitted by members of the Movement, saying that they are “unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse.”42 In response, members of the Movement wrote: As noted in the original Request, NIST was under a mandate by the NCST Act to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” See 15 U.S.C. § 7301(b) (2) (A). Accordingly, one of the specific goals stated in the WTC Report was to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.” (NCSTAR 1, p. xxxv) Confusingly, in the Response, NIST states that “it did not analyze the collapse of the towers,” and that it is “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” There could not be any clearer evidence that NIST has failed to live up to its duties under the NCST Act, and failed to satisfy its stated goal of determining “why and how” the buildings collapsed. NIST admits that it didn’t even try to analyze the collapse of the towers, and that it is “unable” to explain the total collapses to the American people.43 In part 1 of Mohr’s video series, he set out to explain the findings of the official reports and why they support a “natural collapse” scenario, rather than a “controlled demolition” scenario. However, as we have seen the conclusions drawn by the official investigators are strongly contradicted by known facts about the Towers and what supposedly happened to them. Numerous individuals have pointed out serious flaws in NIST’s investigation, but in most cases NIST simply ignored these criticisms. NIST’s reports are far from conclusive, and do not adequately explain away the evidence for controlled demolition. We shall now move onto Mohr’s analysis of Richard Gage’s list of controlled demolition features. 42 Quoted from: Sept. 2007 Response to April 2007 RFC, from NIST, pg. 4 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf 43 Quoted from: Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to Earlier Request for Correction, pg. 13 21

Part 2: Gage’s 10 Reasons The second part of Mohr’s 20-part video series addresses the 10 features of controlled demolition which are listed in 911BT. Mohr believes that each of the features Richard Gage cites has a natural explanation. From the beginning Mohr states that these issues will be addressed in more detail in later videos. Likewise, I shall offer brief rebuttals to each of Mohr’s points for this video, and then expand on them further in later sections. Mohr shows a slide from Richard Gage’s presentation at 1:10 that shows the 10 features of controlled demolition. However, from the beginning we can see a glaring error in Mohr’s rebuttal: he is showing the slide describing the characteristics of traditional demolitions while discussing the collapse of the Twin Towers, which Gage notes in his presentation were nonconventional. By doing this, Mohr makes the viewer believe that the characteristics of the Towers’ collapses that Richard Gage cites are less of a match to a demolition than they really are. For instance, at 1:26 Mohr claims that since the collapse of the Towers started at the point of plane impact, they were inconsistent with demolitions, which generally start at the base of a building. But again, he is using the traditional demolition features list instead of the features list for the Towers. The Twin Towers features list notes the few nonconventional characteristics that the buildings exhibited. 22

Image from: http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php For the sake of clarity, here are the features of demolition that are listed at ae911truth.org for the Twin Towers: 1.Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 2.Improbable symmetry of debris distribution 3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction 4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found 9.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front 10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples44 While several of these features do not generally occur in traditional demolitions, this by no means rules out the possibility that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition. As noted by 911review.com: 44 This list is featured on the front page of http://www.ae911truth.org/ 23

Defenders of the collapse story have suggested that differences between the Twin Towers’ destruction and conventional building demolitions weigh against controlled demolition being the cause of the former. Some critics of the official story have, perhaps inadvertently, helped to reinforce this straw man by giving undue credence to scenarios of the destruction of Twin Towers involving “miles of det chord”, drilled columns, cutter charges in the Tower's bases, and other features of commercial demolitions that seem unlikely to have been involved in felling the Twin Towers. The fact that the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers differed in certain ways from commercial demolitions has little to do with whether they were demolitions. A controlled demolition is the engineered destruction of a structure, and there are many ways to accomplish such, whatever the technical demands. For example, although aluminothermic energetic materials are not commonly used in commercial building demolitions, they are now well-represented in the US military’s arsenal of tools for destroying equipment and structures.45 Starting the demolitions near where the planes impacted would have been an essential element of their covert destruction. As pointed out by Jim Hoffman: [A]s part of a psychological operation, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would be designed to support a false narrative of events (that the plane crashes caused the collapses) so of course the events were engineered to have the destruction start around the crash zones.46 The next feature of demolition Mohr addresses at 1:35 is the straight-down symmetrical collapse of the buildings. He claims that “all three buildings fell into their weakest points and scattered debris non-symmetrically over sixteen acres.” This description, first of all, only applies to the Twin Towers and not Building 7. Had Mohr presented the correct slide from Richard Gage’s presentation, viewers would be able to note this distinction. As we have noted, the fact that the Towers’ debris landed hundreds of feet outside their footprints, along with their other features, is consistent with an explosive event according to the NFPA 921 Guide. As for Building 7, the majority of the building’s debris clearly ended up in its footprint. 45Quoted from: http://911review.com/means/demolition/covert.html 46Quoted from: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, by Jim Hoffman 24

Image from: http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html At 1:46, Mohr discusses the feature of “demolition waves remov[ing] column support.” He claims that while removal of column support does happen in controlled demolitions, it could happen in a natural collapse as well, saying that “the failure of one column shifts the loads to other columns at the speed of sound.” Mohr makes this assertion without providing any direct analysis, but as we will see later on, there is direct analysis that has been done to demonstrate that the column support must have been removed in an unnatural way. Mohr then discusses at 1:59 the issue of the buildings falling at free-fall through the path of greatest resistance. He points out that the Towers only collapsed at 2/3 the rate of free-fall and that they therefore encountered a large amount of resistance. He also points out that “most buildings do not collapse in free-fall when they are demolished anyway.” While it is true that the Tower’ collapses where slower than free-fall, the key thing that needs to be assessed is whether or not their collapse rates were consistent with controlled demolitions. He fails to mention Building 7, and that its overall collapse was extremely close to free-fall and that for 2.25 seconds it was in complete free-fall. At 2:12 Mohr goes on to address the issue of how complete the destruction of the Towers really was. He claims that “the debris pile does not show total dismemberment at all.” While the buildings may not have suffered total dismemberment, the fact remains that the structures were clearly destroyed beyond repair. 25

Images from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html Then, at 2:22, Mohr claims that the Towers’ collapses damaged numerous surrounding buildings, something that generally does not happen in a controlled demolition. Again, this was merely due to the fact that the Towers’ demolitions would needed to have been engineered to be non- conventional. Although he addresses this later in the video, Mohr should have made it clearer that Richard Gage fully acknowledges this difference. Mohr next addresses at 2:30 the issue of sounds and flashes of light consistent with explosions. He states that this issue will be addressed in more detail later on in the video, so I shall deal with this issue later on as well. At 2:40 Mohr discusses the enormous clouds of pulverized concrete from the collapse of the Towers. He claims that this happens in demolitions, but can also happen in natural collapses as well. While this is certainly true, he therefore is acknowledging that this feature is in no way inconsistent with demolition. And because all the other variables are present in the destruction of the Towers that are consistent with demolition, it makes it far more likely that the Towers really were felled by explosives. Shortly after this at 2:48 Mohr talks about the explosive squibs from the Towers, saying that they were actually due to air pressure. He offers no proof of this and claims that the squibs are “random, unlike the pattern of squibs from controlled demolitions.” As we will see, the squibs from the Towers and Building 7 were almost certainly not due to air pressure and do in fact have a discernable pattern. Finally, Mohr discusses at 3:00 the chemical evidence for explosives in the debris. He claims this assertion has “not been proven” and that this subject will be addressed in a later video. Mohr spends the next few minutes of his video acknowledging that the collapse of the WTC buildings did resemble controlled demolitions in some ways, but in other ways they did not 26

resemble demolitions. He quotes Richard Gage from 911BT at 3:16 and claims that “even he agrees that these collapses have only some of the tell-tale signs of controlled demolition.” No, what Richard Gage is really saying is that the three WTC buildings had all the classic features of demolition, with a few non-standard features. But Mohr gives a list of reasons why he thinks the Towers could not possibly have been destroyed with explosives, saying that “by definition, these were not controlled demolitions.” Mohr presents two of the most often heard objections from debunkers and other defenders of the official story at 3:52: that the explosives could not have been placed and detonated in the areas where the planes hit, and that the placement of the explosives could not have been kept a secret from those who worked in the buildings. Mohr discusses these two objections in much more detail in later videos, so we shall examine these arguments later on. At 4:48, Mohr claims that “a classic controlled demolition is usually preceded by very loud explosions and a logical pattern of squibs.” He then plays a video of the collapse of the South Tower, followed by a video of the Landmark Tower demolition in order for the viewer to compare the sounds of the two events. Mohr asserts that the collapse of the Towers sounds nothing like a controlled demolition, and that the squibs from a demolition occur in “a logical, organized pattern.” The error in Mohr’s assertions about the sounds of the Towers’ collapses is due once again to his failure to understand how these buildings would have been set up in an unconventional manner. The explosives in the Towers would have to have been set off extremely rapidly in order to cause collapse, being that the demolitions started at the tops. As pointed out by 911review.com: The towers’ destruction cannot be accurately described without the word “explosion”… Incredibly, this stark reality has and continues to be so consistently and widely denied in government, media, industry, and academia, that few Americans have even entertained the idea that the towers were intentionally demolished. One of the key underpinnings of that denial is the fact that the explosions were continuous, extending for the entire 15- second duration of each tower's collapse. Although witnesses describe loud pops at their onsets, the extended duration and loud roar of the explosions apparently prevented most people from thinking of them as explosions. Also, the repeated description of the events as collapses by the broadcast networks must have had a powerful effect in shaping people's understanding of them, particularly given the heightened state of suggestibility induced by the profound state of shock and disbelief most of them were in.47 The explosions were clearly happening, but with the explosives being set off in rapid succession it would have been nearly impossible to hear distinct explosions above the continuous roar. Also, 47 Quoted from: http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html Also, in a presentation titled 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands, Jim Hoffman gives a detailed explanation as to how the explosives were likely set off in the Towers and how this may have masked the sounds of distinct explosions, saying that: “[T]he reason I think people don’t think of [the Towers’ collapses] as explosions is because they occurred over a period of fifteen seconds in either case… Normally people think of an explosion as you hear a loud crack, a bang, and then it’s just that one event. But if, in the case of a demolition where you might have thousands of explosions that are all blending in, then you get one, huge explosive event. But you don’t hear any distinct explosions because there’s so much above the roar of it.” Hoffman’s presentation is available to watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvOQre3CTyo 27

the sound level of the explosives could possibly have been reduced in some way. Regardless, at 5:57 Mohr argues that the explosives would have to have been extremely loud in order to eject pieces of steel great distances from the Towers. Firstly, we need to once again take a look at what the NFPA 921 Guide has to say about explosive investigations. In particular, in section 18.1 of the Guide, it discusses the issue of explosion sounds and how important they are in determining if an explosive event took place. This section states: Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.48 So, as stated by the official NFPA 921 Guide, the actual sound of an explosive is not essential in determining if an explosive event took place. Still, let’s consider Mohr’s premise that extremely loud explosives would have been needed to eject steel beams hundreds of feet. He claims that explosives of such power would create “deafening 140db sounds a half mile away.” First of all, witnesses did hear the sounds of the Towers’ collapses miles away and described them as explosions.49 But even if the sound level of the explosions was not the 140db Mohr claims they needed to be, does this mean they could not have been powerful explosives? Mohr asserts that explosive sound levels cannot be decreased without lowering the power of the explosive itself. However, this is evidently untrue. One of the main explosives/incendiaries that is believed to have been used in the demolition of the Towers is nanothermite. The Active Thermitic Material paper published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal by members of the Truth Movement discusses the properties of nanothermite,50 and cites a report on the 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. One section of the report states that: At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D; programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.51 From this, the authors of the ATM paper write that: 48Quoted from: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=841 49Witnesses interviewed by Fox News described the sounds of the Towers’ collapses as “explosions” and that they travelled far across the city: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw7vaGYZKFk&t;=3m16s 50See: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, by Niels H. Harrit et al. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCP J.SGM 51Quoted from: Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance, by Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek, pg. 43-44 http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf 28

The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.52 So, contrary to Mohr’s assertions, explosives using nanothermtic technology can be formulated to have extremely powerful properties while reducing the noise levels. From 7:08 on, Mohr discusses several of the most controversial aspects of the destruction of the WTC, including: the sulfidized steel, the pools of molten metal, the iron microspheres, the red/gray chips of nanothermite and the symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC7, all of which will be addressed in greater detail in later sections of this paper. Mohr discusses in this video why he feels Richard Gage’s 10 reasons for demolition are not compelling and why it is more likely that the features are consistent with a “natural collapse.” However, his arguments are demonstrably false. While the Towers may have exhibited characteristics that can be seen as unconventional for demolition, it is quite obvious that they and Building 7 exhibited every feature that is entirely consistent with demolition, including: The collapses were very rapid The collapses were mostly symmetrical The collapses produced huge clouds of pulverized debris The structures were totally dismembered The collapses showed ejections of dust and debris Witnesses described explosions as the buildings collapsed The collapses produced chemical residues of explosives and/or incendiaries There is not a single example of a building collapse that exhibited every one of these characteristics. As David Ray Griffin has accurately pointed out: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.53 Mohr has evidently failed to cast doubt on Richard Gage’s arguments for controlled demolition. But as we shall see, Mohr provides more detailed arguments for his case for “natural collapse” in later videos. And his next video deals with one of the most fallacious arguments against the controlled demolition theory. 52Quoted from: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, by Niels H. Harrit et al., pg. 26 53Quoted from: Review of ‘A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report’ A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html 29

Part 3: Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses In part 3 of Chris Mohr’s rebuttal, he discusses the fact that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the first steel-framed high-rise skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire. However, Mohr tries to make the case that this was not surprising for the WTC buildings by using two standard arguments: that the fires in the buildings were extremely severe and that other smaller steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire. Regarding the first argument, we have already seen that NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either of the Twin Towers, and other skyscrapers have endured much more severe fires. Still, at 0:59 Mohr disregards this fact and claims that the conditions at the WTC were far worse than in other skyscrapers (once again claiming over 90,000 liters of fuel entered the Towers.) One of the main subjects Mohr discusses in this video is the partial collapse of the steel-framed TU Delft building in the Netherlands. He discusses this building beginning at 1:39 and believes its partial collapse adds validity to the idea the WTC could have collapsed from fire. He claims that the building had a “fast, all at once, almost symmetrical collapse pretty much straight into its own footprint.” Blogger “ScootleRoyale” at the Debunking the Debunkers blog notes a fundamental problem with Mohr’s arguments regarding this building: One minute in Mohr states that Gage does not acknowledge the differences in construction between the twin towers and the other skyscrapers he cites as examples of towers which burned more severely without collapse. Humorously, he then does what so many debunkers do and contradict his own criticism by citing the collapse of a building even less like the twin towers ... the TU Delft building. 30

Mohr characterized the TU Delft collapse as “very fast, almost symmetrical, and into its own footprint”. Really? It was about 1/4 of the height of WTC7, and 1/8 the height of the twin towers, and collapsed nowhere near a free fall rate, and it was only one wing of the building ... how exactly is this proof that a massive skyscraper can undergo a progressive, global collapse at basically free fall?54 Indeed, in an article I myself wrote discussing other steel-framed building collapses, I noted several aspects of the building’s collapse that were in stark contrast to the characteristics of the WTC, including: The building burned much longer than either of the Towers The collapse was localized, leaving most of the main structure standing The building was constructed very differently from the Towers The collapse took approximately 10 seconds. Unlike many of the other structures referenced, we have several videos of this collapse, and they show that the collapse of the 13-story section took roughly 10 seconds from start to finish. However, the Twin Towers, which were each 110-storys tall, each collapsed in approximately 15 seconds. Building 7, a 47-story building, collapsed in less than seven seconds. This contrasts strongly with the collapse of the Faculty building. If the Towers and Building 7 were truly gravity driven collapses, as was the case for this incident, then we would expect them to have taken far longer to totally collapse than they actually did.55 The last point in this list is what truly contradicts Mohr’s assertion that the collapse of the Delft building was “fast.” Certainly the collapse was “fast” in the sense that the building section fell in a manner most would characterize as quickly, but in comparison to the Towers and Building 7, its collapse was not fast at all.56 At 2:59 Mohr claims that “Richard Gage’s researchers will no doubt come up with ways this collapse was different from the Twin Towers.” Indeed Mr. Mohr, as I wrote in my previously mentioned article: Although there are undoubtedly similarities between the Faculty of Architecture Building collapse and the WTC collapses, it becomes quickly apparent that under careful examination, the differences obviously outweigh the similarities.57 Beginning from 5:13, Mohr begins to discuss numerous smaller steel-framed buildings that have collapsed from fire. 54Quoted from: Chris Mohr's “respectful rebuttal” smells like debunking http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mohrs-respectful-rebuttal-smells.html 55Quoted from: Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC, by Adam Taylor, pg. 18 http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Other_Collapses_Apr27_2013.pdf 56It is useful to watch the collapse of the 13-story Delft building being timed to show that its collapse took 10 seconds. An accurate timing of the building’s collapse can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1SF3K5PaWI 57Quoted from: Other Collapses in Perspective… by Adam Taylor, pg. 18 31

Of course, I have addressed several of these structures in my previously mentioned article. While my entire article is recommended reading, here are my summarized reasons for why each of the structures Mohr cites are not valid comparisons to the Twin Towers and Building 7: The Sight and Sound Theater Not a total building collapse, only a roof collapse The building did not have a sprinkler system Construction on the stage floor damaged the sprayed-on fire-resistant coating of steel structural members The building was under construction and fire doors were not yet installed, allowing the fires to pass through these openings freely58 The McCormick Place exhibition hall Not a total building collapse, only a roof collapse Trusses failed in the building, but trusses are said to have not failed in the Towers The roof trusses were uninsulated The Towers’ floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than McCormick Place’s roof trusses The Towers’ floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses of the McCormick Place only had to support snow loading59 58Ibid. pg. 4-5 59These differences are noted at 911research.wtc7.net: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html 32