The 9/11 File/CASE 19/2001 – 2026

The buildings

Controlled demolition

The case for explosives in the towers and Building 7, and the case against

Coast Guard member Michael Guzman unloads donated supplies at Ground Zero, September 17, 2001.
PA2 Tom Sperduto / U.S. Coast Guard · Source & image context ↗

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

Unproven

No physical evidence of explosives, detonators, cut charges or residue has been produced, and the collapses lacked the sound of demolition charges. But NIST did not test the steel for explosive residue, and the steel was removed quickly, so the absence of proof is partly an absence of testing.

THE EVENTS / THE INVESTIGATION / THE STORY

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

01

The case for demolition

What proponents point to.

↗02

The case against

Why investigators reject it.

↗03

What demolition experts said

One Dutch expert said yes; the best-known American firm said it could not be done.

↗04

Marvin Bush and the security company

A real board seat, a real contract, and no evidence of anything planted.

↗

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

6 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED The towers, WTC 7 & demolition

“Firefighters reported hearing explosions.”

In the FDNY oral histories, some described what sounded like explosions; Richard Banaciski described “all these explosions” like a belt.

Who says it: The oral histories.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DISPUTED The towers, WTC 7 & demolition

“Demolition experts say Building 7 was a controlled demolition.”

One Dutch contractor said so from video. The best-known American demolition firm said it could not have been prepared in an occupied building without anyone noticing.

Who says it: Richard Gage; Danny Jowenko.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The towers, WTC 7 & demolition

“The buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.”

No charges, detonators, wiring or residue have been found, and no recorded blast. NIST did not test for residue, so absence of proof is partly absence of testing.

Who says it: A&E for 9/11 Truth, others.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The towers, WTC 7 & demolition

“A Bush-linked company ran World Trade Center security and could have planted explosives.”

Marvin Bush sat on the board of Securacom, which had an $8.3 million WTC security contract from 1996. Its main project there closed out in 1998, and no evidence ties it to explosives.

Who says it: Demolition proponents; Margie Burns (2003).

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 162 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. New York Times, August 2005: The September 11 records (FDNY oral histories) ↗

    The 503 firefighter and EMS oral histories released after the Times sued, including accounts of explosions and of WTC 7’s expected collapse.

  2. NIST: Questions and answers about the NIST WTC towers investigation ↗

    NIST’s replies on free fall, molten metal, thermite (“many thousands of pounds”) and explosives.

  3. University of Alaska Fairbanks (Hulsey, Quan, Xiao), March 2020: A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 ↗

    Concludes fire did not cause the collapse and that it involved near-simultaneous failure of every column. Funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ($316,153).

  4. FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interview: Firefighter Richard Banaciski, 6 December 2001 (New York Times archive PDF) ↗

    One of the oral histories most quoted by demolition proponents: “It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings.”

  5. NIST: Questions and answers about the NIST WTC 7 investigation ↗

    NIST’s answers on the 2.25 seconds of free fall, the 130-decibel blast it says was not heard, diesel fuel and thermite.

  6. BBC News, 4 July 2008: “Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7” (The Conspiracy Files, archived copy) ↗

    The BBC’s 2008 summary of the WTC 7 arguments, quoting Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Danny Jowenko, Mark Loizeaux, Gene Corley, Daniel Nigro and Barry Jennings.

  7. Securacom Inc., prospectus filed with the SEC, 2 October 1997 ↗

    The company’s own filing: the $8.3 million World Trade Center contract of October 1996, its client list, and Marvin P. Bush as a director since 1993.

  8. Securacom Inc., annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC, 30 March 1999 ↗

    Signed by Marvin Bush as a director.

  9. Stratesec Inc. (formerly Securacom), annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC, 30 March 2000 ↗

    Attributes the fall in 1998 revenue to the closeout of the World Trade Center project; Marvin Bush is not among the directors signing.

  10. Common Dreams, 4 February 2003: “Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United,” by Margie Burns ↗

    The article that made the Securacom story widely known, with the company CEO’s account of its WTC work.

  11. Democracy Now!, 11 September 2006: Loose Change filmmakers debate Popular Mechanics ↗

    A long, even-handed debate between the two sides.

  12. Harrit et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009: Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe ↗

    The paper reporting red-gray chips its authors call unreacted thermitic material.

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

PREVIOUS CASE
The BBC reported WTC 7’s fall before it happened↗NEXT CASE
Thermite and the red-gray chips↗

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.

← 9/11 case filesAll AI Files