World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Controlled demolition 9/11 conspiracy theory
Company type	Conspiracy theory
Industry	Conspiracy theories
Founded	September 2001
Key people	Steven E. Jones, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Niels H. Harrit
Products	Publications, documentaries, online content

Some conspiracy theories claim that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused solely by the airplane impacts and subsequent fires during the September 11 attacks, but also involved pre-positioned explosive devices.Template:Ref Controlled demolition theories represent a significant subset of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Initial advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin contended that the rapid and complete collapse could not have occurred without an additional energy source beyond the aircraft impacts and fires.Template:Ref

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) along with Popular Mechanics investigated these assertions and found them unsupported. Structural mechanics specialists generally endorse a collapse mechanism driven by fire-induced weakening and gravity, without involving explosives.Template:Ref Template:Ref Template:Ref NIST's findings revealed no evidence backing controlled demolition claims.Template:Ref Academics such as Zdeněk Bažant (Northwestern University),Template:Ref Thomas Eagar (MIT),Template:Ref and James Quintiere (University of Maryland)Template:Ref have also rejected these theories.

In 2006, Jones proposed that government insiders might have employed thermite or super-thermite to bring down the buildings.Template:Ref Template:Ref Template:Ref Template:Ref Subsequently, in April 2009, Jones, along with Dane Niels H. Harrit and others, published an article in The Open Chemical Physics Journal presenting purported evidence of nano-thermite found in dust from the collapse site.Template:Ref The journal’s editor resigned amid controversy,Template:Ref Template:Ref while NIST responded that the dust samples lacked a verified chain of custody and declined to conduct independent testing despite invitations.Template:Ref

History

Conspiracy theories involving controlled demolition began circulating in September 2001. Eric Hufschmid's 2002 book, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, explicitly promoted this viewpoint. Key figures supporting these ideas include David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones. Griffin’s 2004 work, The New Pearl Harbor, became influential within the 9/11 Truth movement. That same year, Griffin released The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which accused the government of cover-up and implicated the Bush administration.

Steven E. Jones advanced demolition hypotheses further with his 2006 publication "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?". That year, Brigham Young University placed him on paid leave due to the speculative nature of his claims; he retired soon thereafter. The university’s structural engineering department publicly disavowed his assertions.

NIST’s conclusive report found no support for controlled demolition or missile attack theories regarding the WTC towers’ failure, attributing their collapse to fire damage combined with impact effects. The broader engineering community has dismissed controlled demolition claims as lacking scientific foundation. Popular Mechanics also countered these allegations in a dedicated feature.

Proponents have contributed articles to scientific journals as well. In 2008, Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti, and James Gourley published "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" in The Open Civil Engineering Journal. Later that year, Ryan, Gourley, and Jones authored "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" in The Environmentalist. James R. Gourley provided commentary critiquing Bažant and Verdure’s progressive collapse mechanics; Bažant and Le responded by labeling Gourley’s critiques as scientifically flawed and underscored the importance of proper structural mechanics knowledge to avoid misleading conclusions.

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit and collaborators published "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, asserting detection of nano-thermite within dust samples. Following this publication, the journal’s editor-in-chief resigned.

Online platforms have facilitated growth in support for controlled demolition theories. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth claim a membership exceeding 2,400 individuals endorsing this perspective. This theory frequently alleges involvement by U.S. government entities as justification for launching the War on Terrorism. It features prominently in documentaries such as 9/11: Blueprint for Truth by Richard Gage and films like Loose Change.

Although mainstream media typically dismisses conspiracy theories—for example, a 2006 New York magazine article examining emerging conspiracy theorists—the theory has received endorsement from public figures including Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, as well as actors Ed Asner and Daniel Sunjata.

Main towers

On September 11, the North Tower (1 WTC) and South Tower (2 WTC) were each impacted by a Boeing 767 aircraft: American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower, while United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes following the collision, whereas the North Tower stood for 102 minutes before falling. According to an investigation by NIST, the collapses were caused by damage to structural columns and fireproofing insulation from the initial impacts, compounded by fires fueled by jet fuel that weakened the steel framework. NIST found no proof supporting claims of controlled demolition.

Certain investigators, including Jones, refer to eyewitness reports describing molten metal within the debris and propose that nano-thermite might have contributed to the destruction. Jones conducted analyses on dust samples collected at the scene, asserting they contained evidence of nano-thermite; however, NIST questioned the sample handling procedures and declined to perform independent verification.

NIST concluded that the molten substances observed were probably aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at temperatures lower than steel. They also highlighted that covertly placing explosives inside secured buildings without detection would be highly impractical. Experiments by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center demonstrated that conventional thermite is incapable of severing vertical support columns like those present in the towers. Advocates for nano-thermite argue it releases energy more rapidly, making it suitable for such purposes.

The NIST report evaluates structural behavior up to the point where collapse initiates and maintains that once initiated, progressive collapse becomes unavoidable due to kinetic energy transfer throughout the structure. Engineering assessments agree that controlled demolition is unnecessary to explain the failures; impact damage combined with fire-induced weakening adequately accounts for the collapses. Controlled demolition would require extensive preparation incompatible with building security protocols and timelines. Additionally, explosives would need to withstand the initial aircraft impacts, which is improbable.

Organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth have compiled witness testimonies describing explosions prior to collapse; nevertheless, seismic records do not indicate explosive detonations occurred. Alternative explanations attribute these sounds to structural failures and air pressure changes during collapse progression. NIST explains horizontal smoke bursts as air being forced through elevator shafts during structural failure.

In 2011, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserted that jetliner impacts alone could not have caused the collapses and implied pre-planned explosions were involved; this claim was dismissed by Al-Qaida in their publication Inspire as unfounded and illogical.

7 World Trade Center

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story high-rise located north of the main World Trade Center site. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not struck by an aircraft but sustained damage from falling debris and endured fires burning for approximately seven hours before collapsing around 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. A replacement building was inaugurated on this location in May 2006. Numerous videos capturing its collapse from multiple viewpoints facilitate comparative analysis. Critics point out that this collapse received limited coverage in the 9/11 Commission Report, and NIST took seven years to release its investigative findings.

In November 2010, Fox News journalist Geraldo Rivera featured representatives of "BuildingWhat?", a television advertisement campaign led by relatives of 9/11 victims advocating for further inquiry into 7 WTC's collapse. Rivera acknowledged that if explosives had been used, these protesters might have valid concerns. He later discussed this topic with legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business Network, who expressed doubts about the possibility of the building collapsing "on its own."

Some advocates of controlled demolition theories propose that 7 WTC was intentionally brought down because it could have functioned as a coordination center for demolishing the Twin Towers or to eliminate critical documents related to corporate misconduct. The building hosted numerous government agencies, including a covert CIA office, a U.S. Secret Service station, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center. Nonetheless, former counter-terrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke rejected these suspicions, emphasizing that leasing space in the building was open to anyone.

Prior to this event, no steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed solely due to fire, although smaller steel structures have partially failed under fire conditions. The collapses of Tehran's Plasco Building in 2017 and São Paulo's Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in 2018 demonstrated such vulnerabilities. Furthermore, NIST reported that debris from 1 WTC caused structural harm to 7 WTC before fires spread throughout.

BBC News announced 7 WTC's collapse approximately twenty minutes before it actually occurred; many media outlets had anticipated its fall amid ongoing attacks. Reporter Jane Standley later described this premature report as a "very small and very honest mistake" made under intense pressure.

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds (September 2002), owner Larry Silverstein recounted conversations with firefighters about whether to "pull" firefighting operations due to concerns over safety following significant casualties. Silverstein clarified that "pull" meant withdrawing firefighters rather than demolishing the building—addressing theories interpreting this phrase as evidence of controlled demolition planning.

NIST report

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated an inquiry in 2002 into the World Trade Center collapse, concentrating first on the Twin Towers. In August 2008, NIST released a draft of its conclusive report concerning 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC). The extended timeline of the investigation was largely due to the intricate computer modeling required to simulate the collapse, alongside the extensive documentation review. This protracted process led some critics to question the credibility of the conclusions.

On November 20, 2008, NIST published its definitive report on the collapse of 7 WTC. Since physical remnants had been discarded before the investigation began, the analysis depended on video footage, photographs, and architectural plans. The report determined that prolonged fires compromised key steel supports, especially following the failure on the 13th floor, which initiated a chain reaction resulting in total structural failure. Additionally, damage to adjacent towers disrupted water supply lines, rendering sprinklers ineffective on lower floors.

NIST excluded explosives as a contributing factor, affirming that no blast event occurred and dismissing the likelihood of thermite being used to sever columns. Supporting evidence included the absence of explosion sounds in recordings and lack of eyewitness accounts describing blasts at audible distances. Although proponents of demolition theories referenced eyewitness testimonies and video interpretations suggesting explosions, NIST found these assertions unproven. The agency also considered it highly unlikely that enough thermite could have been covertly introduced into the building. Furthermore, NIST rejected claims that diesel fuel fires played a role in the collapse.

UAF study

A four-year investigation (2015–2019) led by Professor J. Leroy Hulsey from University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was titled "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7." This study utilized enhanced computational capabilities unavailable during NIST’s original analysis. UAF offers a comprehensive 256 GB downloadable dataset containing all input parameters, results, and simulations from this research. Hulsey’s final conclusions contradicted both NIST and private engineering analyses by asserting that fire did not cause WTC 7's collapse; instead, it was characterized as a total structural failure involving nearly simultaneous failure across all columns.

Criticism

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute advocated for additional discourse regarding NIST’s recommendations, while Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers endorsed the FEMA report for aligning with professional consensus within its membership.

Following publication of "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?", Brigham Young University placed author Jones on paid leave pending an institutional review due to concerns over speculative claims; he retired six weeks later. BYU’s structural engineering faculty publicly refuted Jones’ theories. Despite this, Jones asserted broad support from colleagues after presenting at a seminar.

Professor Zdeněk Bažant from Northwestern University, who developed the first peer-reviewed theory explaining the collapse, dismissed conspiracy theories as arising from misunderstandings about engineering safety margins. Bažant and Verdure proposed that data from controlled demolitions might improve modeling of progressive collapses, noting that such phenomena are not mutually exclusive with controlled demolition scenarios.

Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor specializing in materials science, also rejected controlled demolition claims, criticizing segments of the 9/11 truth movement for selectively interpreting data to fit preconceived narratives.

Regarding Jones’ assertion that nanothermite was involved in the collapses, experts such as Brent Blanchard raised concerns about unresolved questions related to evidence handling and noted no visible signs of thermite during debris removal operations. Dave Thomas from Skeptical Inquirer observed that residues like iron oxide and aluminum are commonly found in construction materials and pointed out that nanothermite demonstrations have failed to cause significant damage to steel beams.

Executing a controlled demolition would require extensive preparatory work—such as opening walls across multiple floors—and discreetly placing explosives without detection by thousands present within the towers. The logistical complexity renders such conspiracy theories highly improbable.

Developer Larry Silverstein expressed that comprehensive investigative reports should put an end to 9/11 conspiracy claims, which he said dishonor those who lost their lives. After NIST’s thorough examination of Building 7’s failure, Richard Gage from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth questioned why doubts persist, while NIST lead investigator Dr. S. Shyam Sunder emphasized adherence to scientific evidence.

James Quintiere, a fire protection engineering professor at the University of Maryland, voiced skepticism about NIST’s expertise regarding explosives but acknowledged that their collaboration with external specialists was not optimally efficient.

External links