Paul Laffoley, WTC Architect on 911

[Mech]

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a_3ScRx9gvc

Twin Tower architect, Paul Laffoley tells of the Bin Laden Construction Co. asking him where to put the demolition charges.

[KNOWTHIS]

I read about him once before. I’m not so sure that I trust him. I feel like this is the card that the government is going to play if the controlled demolition crowd becomes to powerful. If they’re ever forced to admit it they’ll just say that Bin Laden planted the explosives.

I think this is his MySpace page. I should send him a message.
www.myspace.com/paullaffoley

[KNOWTHIS]

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8472

Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

Response to NIST's Invitation for Written Comments

Documentation of spoken remarks presented on December 18 conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee

Emailed to NIST on January 3, 2008

Richard Gage, AIA – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth


I'm Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years. I represent Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a fast-growing body of more than 230 architects and engineers dedicated solely to bringing out the truth about all three high-rise building collapses on 9/11. We believe that we have answers to your questions about the puzzling collapse of World Trade Center 7.



In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, "to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses."


Let's start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA's AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.


Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that "molten steel was found at 7 WTC." Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, "21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "molten steel running down the channel rails… like you're in a foundry – like lava from a volcano." Joe O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said "it was dripping from the molten steel." Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of molten steel and concrete."

The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your top engineers, John Gross, in his appearance at the University of Texas in April of this year.


Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?


Appendix C of FEMA's BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."


NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory.


Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There's no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate's key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.


In addition, World Trade Center 7's catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. You can see all these characteristics at our website www.AE911truth.org. The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other – perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said "This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt."


Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive.


The National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (1998 Edition) dictates in fire investigations that certain residues should be tested for. Thermate would leave behind signs of sulfidation/corrosion by sulfur. Such residues were in fact noted in Appendix C of the FEMA BPAT report (see note 11). "If the physical evidence establishes one factor, such as the presence of an accelerant, that may be sufficient to establish the cause even where other factors such as ignition source cannot be determined." Thermate and sulfur obviously qualify as accelerants in this case (with regard to the destruction of steel which in turn could have caused the near-free-fall-speed collapse). (The fires were not particularly suspicious, but Building 7's collapse was, because of its symmetry and speed.)


Because NIST seems to have forgotten or neglected to apply key features of the scientific method, I am including as an attachment to this submission Steven E. Jones, "Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method", Journal of 911 Studies, April 2007, Journal of 9/11 Studies: JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf.


How much longer must we endure NIST's cover-up of how Building 7 was actually destroyed? Millions of Americans, including the 230+ architects and engineers and 600 others of AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully resourced and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7.

Global Research Articles by Richard Gage

[Mech]

I think the guy is brilliant.

AND...he passed up super moneymaking work because he refused to PIMP out his talents.

Trust him not if you wish...but I doubt hes lying.

[KNOWTHIS]

So you don't think that his comments could be used to exonerate the Bush administration of guilt should the demolition theory ever be proven without a doubt? They could say, "well yeah, bombs brought them down but it must've been Osama's crew that planted them".

His comments create the perfect pretext for that argument.

[KNOWTHIS]

I just sent him a message on MySpace asking about his feelings in regards to "conspiracy theories" about the controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11. Let's see if he responds?

[Mech]

No...it doesnt exonerate Bushie...or Cheney. Or for that matter Rummy and Sleeza.

Especially Cheney. IE "The order still stands".

[KNOWTHIS]

But couldn't they use Laffoley's statements to suggest that the charges must've been snuck in by the Bin Laden Construction Co. as oppsed to the Bush admin.? That's exactly what I thought of when I first read about him.

[Mech]

Not when SECURACOM ...run by Marvin Bush was doing security at the site.

Also.....the Bush's vacation with the Bin Ladens.


I have no idea why you think thiss dude is lying.

Paul hasn't forced what he knows down anyones throat.

Its usually the people who try to force their version of the events down peoples throats are the ones who are lying...like Fox news guests...etc.

Youlll never see Laffoley speaking on network TV.

[KNOWTHIS]

I’ll keep an open mind. I’m waiting to see if he’ll respond to me.

[KNOWTHIS]

[url=Mike Hagan's Radio Orbit - Paul Laffoley Talks About The World Trade Center (MP3 Download) (May 21, 2007) [time code: 22:00 to 53:00]http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/052107_PAUL_LAFFOLEY.mp3[/url]

In the interview above he seemed to suggest that "they" [the Arabs] had attacked the WTC complex because they knew that they already had explosives pre-planted there. They targeted those particular areas with the planes and that triggered all of the collapses including building seven. There’s no mention of the Bush administration’s involvement whatsoever. He also said that it’s common to have buildings pre-wired with explosives which I don’t believe. What an incredible safety hazard that would be during a fire or earthquake. He also seemed to denounce people dealing in what he called "conspiracy business". He mentioned an unnamed MIT professor in particular. He probably meant Jeff King. I just don't trust this guy's motives.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

[KNOWTHIS]

Here's the response that I got at MySpace. Apparently it's not actually Paul's page but someone moderating it on his behalf.

Hi!
Are you asking me or asking Paul?
I tried to make it clear on the profile that Laffoley isn't the one managing the profile. Google "Laffoley 911" to find interview segments where he discusses the events.
He worked on the design team in the 1970s and says that despite the 'official story' that the buildings were capable of withstanding an impact, in reality the construction phase was illegaly cutting costs by doing a crappy job of welding the supports and fireproofing ... good enough to pass inspection but not structurally secure for that kind of event.
As far as the fine points of argument in 911 truth discussions, it's not something he keeps track of - still busy painting all the time.
~miqel

[KNOWTHIS]

Here's a second, more clarified response that I've received from Laffoley's MySpace moderator. I would like to find this article that he referred to if it even exists.

Laffoley's MySpace mod.:

Since that interview I saw another article online from a constrcution contractor saying the exact same thing (i didn't save the link, but i noticed they didn't mention Laffoley) - it's actually a matter of safety. Skyscrapers are engineered to be replaced eventually and pre-planning a method of taking a building down is just as important as how you put it up.In a densely packed downtown area planning for safe removal is simply a part of the design process.

As to whether they placed LIVE charges in the building is a different question. Probably not - explosives will age and safety is an issue, so most likely they design places (at structurally important spots) for charges to be easily placed when it's time to bring a building down. Paul does not claim to know whether 'actual' charges were placed at the time - he just heard people discussing the matter of where they should go.

The reason this is not publicized is that it would be pointless to mention except to demolition crew who needed to know where the weak spots were if the building was condemned.

I've forwarded these messages to Judy Shelton of A&E For 9/11 Truth.

This was her first reply:

This assertion that the buildings weren't really structurally sound is at odds with everything we know about them. But even were that true, the towers didn't collapse, they exploded. And they came down evenly, at almost free-fall speed, meaning that every single column would have had to fail at precisely the same instant and in exactly the same way. So even setting aside the fact of the top-down explosions, to assume instantaneous and equal failure of all the columns defies both physics and common sense.
Judy Shelton

I sent this information to Kevin Barret. He had never heard of Laffoley. If Laffoley is still interested in doing interviews I may refer him to Barret and supply contact information for a possible interview. I’m still not sure what to make of Laffoley. I definitely don’t agree (as does Judy Shelton) with his assertion that the buildings were poorly constructed. He may however be telling the truth about buildings being engineered with the thought that at some point they might have to be brought down safely. This doesn't necessarily entail actually planting explosives at the time of construction which I had initially thought that he meant. I believe, as does Shelton, that the explosives used were planted shortly before the attacks.

Second reply from Judy Shelton:

I don't believe explosives WERE placed there by the builders. I don't think anyone here has ever heard of such a thing -- although if someone on the Team says anything different, I'll get back to you.

I think we have to assume that the buildings were wired much closer in time to 9/1l. The towers were undergoing renovation of their elevators some months prior to 9/11 (we have proof of that). At that time, there would have been access to the core columns of the buildings. It is possible that explosives were planted then.

Judy