COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Controlled demolition

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

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The case for demolition

What proponents point to.

Proponents list several things. The towers came down fast and nearly straight; WTC 7 fell into its own footprint with a period of free fall. Witnesses, including firefighters in the oral histories the city released in 2005, described what sounded like explosions. Firefighter Richard Banaciski, waiting at a command post on West Street, told an FDNY interviewer in December 2001 that after 10 or 15 minutes “there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” [1][4] Video shows puffs of dust bursting from floors below the collapse front. [2][3]

They also argue that no steel high-rise had ever collapsed from fire, and that NIST stopped its tower models at collapse initiation. [2]

What we can’t tell you. People in a burning, collapsing building hear many loud noises: transformers, falling debris, elevators. Witness reports of “explosions” do not by themselves identify a cause.

The sources

  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.”

The case against

Why investigators reject it.

NIST says the puffs were air pushed out ahead of the falling mass, like a piston, forcing smoke and debris out the windows as each story failed. It says photographs and video from several angles show the collapses beginning at the fire and impact floors and moving down; and the seismic spikes came from debris hitting the ground, about 10 seconds after the collapses started, with nothing before. [1]

For WTC 7, NIST calculated that a charge able to cut the critical column would have been as loud as a gunshot half a mile away, and no recording or witness has it. A demolition would also have needed weeks of preparation in occupied buildings, with charges, cutting and wiring in place, and no one involved has ever come forward. [2]

NIST concedes it “did not test for the residue” of explosives or thermite in the steel. It argues such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive, because the same metals are in construction materials and sulfur is in the gypsum wallboard used throughout the buildings. [1]

What we can’t tell you. The steel was recycled quickly, so the tests that would settle the residue question can no longer be done.

The sources

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

What demolition experts said

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

Richard Gage, the architect who founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told the BBC that Building 7 “is the smoking gun of 9/11.” Proponents often cite Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition contractor who, shown footage of the collapse, said: “That is a controlled demolition… absolutely. It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job done by a team of experts.” [1]

Mark Loizeaux, whose firm Controlled Demolition Inc. holds the record for the largest steel building ever demolished, told the BBC that bringing down a building like Tower 7 takes months of design and preparation, gutting walls, hundreds of charges and miles of cable and detonating cord, all impossible to hide in an occupied building. Charges big enough to cut its columns would also have shattered windows on every side, he said, and the windows on the sheltered sides were intact. [1]

Gene Corley, who led FEMA’s first inquiry, said: “We looked for it, yes, and we found no evidence of controlled demolition.” [1]

What we can’t tell you. Jowenko gave his view after being shown footage of the collapse, not after studying the building.

The sources

  1. 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.

Marvin Bush and the security company

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

Securacom, a security systems firm based in Virginia, listed New York’s World Trade Center, Washington Dulles airport and United Airlines among its clients. Its 1997 prospectus says it won an $8.3 million contract in October 1996 as part of the security upgrade at the World Trade Center, which in 1996 and early 1997 was its largest client. Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of the future president, had been a director since 1993. [1][4]

The company, renamed Stratesec, reported that its revenue fell by almost half in 1998 because of “the closeout of the World Trade Center Project.” Marvin Bush signed its annual report as a director in March 1999 but was not among the directors in March 2000. [2][3]

In 2003 the journalist Margie Burns wrote that this connection had never been examined by any investigation, and quoted the company’s later chief executive saying it had a contract at the towers “up to the day the buildings fell down.” For believers in demolition this is the access they need: a company tied to the Bush family working on the buildings’ security. [4]

No document, witness or investigation has linked Securacom or Marvin Bush to explosives, and the company’s work was electronic security systems. Its main project there ended in 1998, three years before the attacks. [1][3][4]

What we can’t tell you. What work, if any, Securacom still did at the towers in 2001 is unclear: the company’s filings describe the main project as closed out in 1998, while its later chief executive described a continuing contract.

The sources

  1. 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.

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

    Signed by Marvin Bush as a director.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

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.

All 162 rated claims ↗

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

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 are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. 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.