|
|
|
Can Physics Rewrite History? |
|
|
|
A compilation of physical
impossibilities & overlooked evidence |
|
in the official explanations
for the destruction of the |
|
World Trade Center Complex |
|
|
|
by C. Thurston |
|
updated 02/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
This
report is divided into the following sections: |
|
|
|
Dramatic Features of the Destruction that are Ignored by the
Official Theories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel
a sense of urgency over this issue because it involves the dangerous
influence of a powerful and highly organized, but factually incorrect, set of beliefs that continues
to have a strong hold on the minds of many Americans, as well as others around
the world. These beliefs inherently create an unconscious mental disconnect
from reality, while provoking misdirected feelings of fear and anger. This result
has unfortunately been exploited as an opportunity for drastic changes in law
and policy that would have been impossible otherwise. |
|
|
|
I am
wary of any important belief — whether it is mine or someone else's — if it
is promoted and accepted with little or no substantial verification. I am
learning to consider the possibility that a tempting new belief may have
been engineered
to serve the purposes of others unknown to me. |
|
|
|
My
independent research efforts into this matter are of a volunteer nature and
are motivated by a desire to learn the truth about these events. Even if you
disagree with my conclusions I hope you can at least share my intentions. This report
is primarily intended as an information assist for others who may also be
looking into these questions on their own. |
|
|
|
The
information presented here can be easily verified and/or expanded upon with
simple internet searches. I have provided many relevant links to good sources
of data and analysis on both sides of the issues. Independent research is a
healthy exercise for anyone's critical and logical faculties — it is also a
profound opportunity to reclaim possession of our understanding and
perspective.
How can we hope
to control our future if our beliefs about the past and the present are the
products of deliberate deception? |
|
|
|
How
were three
steel frame high-rise structures completely destroyed on 9/11? Many conflicting theories have
been put forward, but unlike most of history's unanswered puzzles, the
destruction of the WTC Towers and the mysterious collapse of WTC Building 7
are matters of physics. We cannot even begin to define the crime of 9/11
until we have a basic understanding of the physical events that we all
witnessed. The consideration of who had the means, motive and opportunity can
only begin once we know what actually happened! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing
photographic and video evidence that has undisputed authenticity and is a
part of the public record presents a number of striking problems with the belief that the
airplane impacts initiated a chain of events that ultimately destroyed the
Towers, and of course WTC Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. To
clearly see these problems, it is helpful to first have a basic understanding of
materials behavior and the design of the Towers, and then become aware of the
distinct and remarkable features of the events themselves. This report
includes a critical evaluation of the leading "official"
explanations, followed by an examination of the compelling forensic evidence
that is consistently either ignored or misrepresented by these explanations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structural
steel has been used
in the construction of buildings, bridges, towers, etc., for well over 100
years and its characteristics and behavior under adverse conditions have been
well tested and analyzed over this long period of time. The greatest risks to
modern highrise buildings (apart from military attacks and severe
earthquakes) are fire, high winds and accidental airplane collisions.
Consequently, the engineering and design of tall buildings must guarantee that they can successfully
withstand these adversities. |
|
|
|
The
World Trade Center Towers were the world's tallest buildings when they were officially
dedicated on April 4th, 1973. Historic innovations in high-rise design were conceived and implemented
in order to
safely reach such unprecedented heights. Structural
steel buildings up to this time had typically been designed with vertical columns
evenly spaced in a grid-like arrangement in order to support the horizontal beams that
would carry the floor above. This would be repeated from one floor to the
next to create a tall building. One undesirable consequence of this type of
design is that the interior office spaces in these buildings are periodically
interrupted by the support columns. The
Towers were designed using a type of architecture that was relatively new at
the time and is referred to as a "tube within a tube." Closely-spaced columns are positioned
around the perimeter of the structure while other columns are concentrated in
a heavily reinforced central core. The photos below show the dense spacing of
the columns that make up the perimeter walls and the relative size of the
core structure, which also contained the elevator shafts.
The
office floors were suspended in between with no other vertical support. This provided
a column-free office environment and also produced a very strong, flexible
and relatively lightweight structure with tremendous sheer strength. The
Towers could be 100 stories high and still withstand hurricane force winds
and multiple high-speed collisions from large commercial jet aircraft. |
|
|
|
Engineering
News-Record
reported in 1964 that the specially manufactured high strength steel
perimeter columns
had strength significantly greater than the 5 X load requirement of standard
building codes, stating that "live loads on these columns can be
increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." From
the book City in the Sky (Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003,
page 133), we're told that the calculations of the engineers working on the
Tower design showed that ALL the columns on one side could be cut, along with
the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the
building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind! http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html Post-9/11
assertions that the Towers were either poorly designed or poorly built do not
square with the historic record. They were built to be incredibly strong and
were considered to be engineering marvels. John Skilling, the lead designer,
won prestigious awards for their design excellence. |
|
Considerations
Regarding Fire: |
|
|
|
1)
In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing
liquid, its internal temperature (as opposed to the surrounding temperature)
must be raised to 1538˚C (2800˚F). |
|
|
|
2)
The strength of steel is determined by its internal temperature (regardless of fire temperature) at
a given moment. While internal temperature will gradually rise during
prolonged exposure to constant high temperature, if the temperature
stabilizes, the steel will not continue to weaken as a cumulative effect. As
its temperature changes — either up or down — its strength also changes accordingly. |
|
|
|
3) At high internal temperatures below the melting point, steel
can lose its load bearing strength and rigidity and become subject to
bending, sagging, etc. Much well documented testing has been done over the
years to determine this temperature threshold. The ability to predict the
behavior of steel during intense fires is fundamental to its use as a
construction material. To summarize the significant consensus of these tests,
the strength of steel is reduced to 20% of normal when it reaches an internal temperature of around
720˚C (1328˚F). |
|
|
|
This is
significant because, as mentioned above, standard building design
specifications require that structures be able to bear five times their
maximum theoretical load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steel in a building
reaches an internal temp of 720˚C, the building will still be able to
carry its maximum load. Since maximum theoretical loads rarely occur (extremely
large crowds of people or concentrations of heavy equipment, for example),
the steel temperature in a typical situation could probably go significantly
higher before failure would occur. |
|
|
|
4) Fire tests carried out in the
1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facility at Cardington in
Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed
the performance of its parts, when tested separately. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to
atmospheric temperatures of 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected
steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over 1100˚C
(2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel, but the
structure did not collapse. Keep in mind that real fires in closed spaces
cannot be sustained due to oxygen starvation. |
|
|
|
5) In addition to being relatively
lightweight in proportion to its strength, one of steel's best qualities and
a major reason why it is used so commonly in building construction is its
ability to dissipate heat quickly and stand up unscathed in even the worst "towering
inferno" conflagrations on record. The steel at the location of a
fire within a building will be constantly cooled as the heat is drawn away
into the surrounding framework. Open test structures were subjected
to prolonged and intense fires of up to 1200˚C (2192˚F) in an
international study of structural steel car parks, but internal steel temperatures never
reached higher than 360˚C (680˚F). http://www.corusconstruction.com/ Fire
temperature and internal steel temperature are NOT the same. This is why meat
thermometers were invented. Remember 360˚C for later when we look at the
various theories and claims based on the unproven assumption that the Towers
"collapsed." |
|
|
|
6) The Towers were designed to
withstand impacts from the largest commercial aircraft that were in use at the
time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were
not significantly larger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days
carried jet fuel
just like they do now. Building survival is accomplished through redundancy
and dynamic redistribution of loads to the surviving parts of the structure. |
|
|
|
According
to John Skilling, the lead designer of the Twin Towers (from a Seattle Times
interview from February 27, 1993), an impact from a Boeing 707 travelling at
600 mph "would result in only local damage" and that “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, he says, “The building structure would still
be there.” |
|
|
|
7)
Prior to 9/11 (or since) no steel-frame highrise has ever collapsed from
fire. There
have been numerous cases of high-rise fires far more severe than those
observed on 9/11. Here's a few examples: |
|
|
|
•
Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building burned for 17 hours over 26
floors |
|
• LA, May
1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories, 5 floors burned for 3.5 hours |
|
•
Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories, 8 floors burned for 18
hours |
|
• New
York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories, burned for six hours |
|
•
Madrid, February 2005, Windsor Bldg, 32 stories, burned for 24 hours, total
loss |
|
|
|
All of
these fires were true "towering infernos" with dramatic, raging
emergent flames bursting out from entire floors of the building through
shattered windows. None of these buildings collapsed. 8) In 1975, an arson fire burned
for three hours in the North Tower, eventually spreading to portions of six
floors. 132 firefighters were involved in the effort to bring it under
control and the fire captain reported that it was "like fighting a blow
torch." The fire began in a wiring closet in the central core area and
grew until the flames burst out through the windows on the 11th floor. The
steel structure was not damaged by this fire, which was longer lasting and
arguably more severe than the fires in the South Tower on 9/11. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet
fuel (refined kerosene) is a hydrocarbon and will burn at a maximum temperature of approximately
1000˚C (1832˚F) in an open fire when supplied with unlimited
amounts of air (as opposed to pure oxygen). This information is easily
available from any physics desk reference. Temperatures are lower if the fire
is oxygen-starved, as evidenced by black smoke. Significantly higher
temperatures are possible only with forced mixing of pure oxygen. Early
reports on 9/11 wildly overestimated the amount of jet fuel involved based on
tank capacity. The planes were designed for intercontinental flight, but
carried only the fuel needed for their domestic flight plans. |
|
|
|
It is
now acknowledged, even by the government's theories, that most of the jet
fuel was consumed in the first few minutes by the huge fireballs at the
time of impact. The idea that large pools of jet fuel could be burning for
the entire 1-2 hours preceding the Towers' destruction is not consistent with
the behavior of a volatile and highly flammable liquid in a high temperature
environment. It would have either ignited, or — if inadequate oxygen was
available to support combustion — it would have left the building as a vapor
along with the smoke. The smell of jet fuel was indeed reported over a wide
area. |
|
|
|
The burning
jet fuel did of course start the fires inside the buildings, which were more
severe in the North Tower where more of the jet fuel was carried inside the
building. But the jet fuel could not have been a significant ongoing fuel for the fires. Known combustible
materials within the buildings (carpets, desks, paper, plastics, etc.) are
also mostly hydrocarbon in nature and can produce combustion temperatures no
higher than jet fuel. House fires typically produce temperatures in the 500 -
650˚C range. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) The airplane impacts were quite
dramatic, with the huge fireballs that we all saw over and over again on TV.
After the first few minutes, however, we simply had office building fires
with some amount of structural damage. Interior damage is hard to determine based on visual
evidence. The investigative report released by NIST in 2005 claims that 14-15% of
the core columns in each Tower were severed. While sometimes repeated as
fact, this is an estimate derived from questionable computer simulations.
Even if true, this amount of damage would leave the buildings well within
their load-bearing redundancy. More on the NIST Report later. |
|
|
|
2) Airplanes are made of aluminum,
which is a much lighter and weaker material compared to structural steel.
Airplanes may look big and substantial, but they are actually made to be as lightweight
as possible. The
thickness of their aluminum skin is only 2 mm. |
|
|
|
3) Both buildings quickly
re-stabilized after impact and showed no observable signs of instability or
the beginnings of structural failure prior to the sudden onset of their
destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
4)
The North Tower,
unlike the South Tower, took a direct hit with the airplane completely disappearing
inside the building. If the load bearing central core of the building (see
construction photos, above) had been severed by the impact of the plane,
structural distress would have been evident almost immediately. Apart from
the fires, the North Tower remained stable until the sudden onset of
destruction, almost two hours after impact. |
|
|
|
5)
The South Tower
took a glancing blow at the corner which created a very dramatic fireball,
but this apparently did little damage to the structural core (in spite of
speculations to the contrary from the NIST report). Less fuel was taken
inside the building compared to the North Tower, and people were evacuating
from the upper floors through the impact zone via stairwells in the central
core area prior to the onset of destruction. The fires were smaller in this
Tower, but its destruction occurred first, 56 minutes after impact.
Firefighters who reached the 78th floor sky lobby reported only "two pockets
of fire." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
destruction of the WTC Towers has been attributed by official investigators,
and various "experts" promoted by the mainstream media, primarily
to fire — causing one form or another of structural failure leading to "total
progressive collapse." While most of these theories allow that impact damage
was probably a contributing factor, few have suggested that this damage alone
caused the total failure of the buildings. While
we look at these so-called "collapse" theories, it must be clearly
understood that the use of the word "collapse" is a misnomer. What these theories are REALLY
saying is that the upper part of the building above the impact zone CRUSHED
the lower undamaged portion of the building. Remember that the structural
integrity of the Towers was undiminished below the impact zones and much
heavier and stronger materials were used in the lower parts of the building
in order to support the much lighter upper floors. |
|
|
|
1) One of the first explanations
was put forward only two days after 9/11 (on September 13, 2001) by the American
Society of Civil Engineers in an paper titled "Why Did the World Trade
Center Collapse? — A Simple Analysis", by Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou. One might
wonder how they were able to come up with such a seemingly confident and
fully developed theoretical explanation for a shocking, unprecedented and inexplicable
occurrence within such a short period of time. Like the voluminous and
complex "USA Patriot Act," which appeared full blown in October
2001, it almost
seems to have been prepared ahead of time. In any
case, their theory depends on the simultaneous failure of at least half the
support columns on a "given floor," which they say would allow the
upper part of the building to fall freely onto the lower part, thus allegedly
triggering a sequence of events that would "doom" the entire tower.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ They
claim that this "triggering" condition would be achieved if more
than half of the column steel on a "given floor" reached
temperatures exceeding 800˚C (1472˚F), but they fail to distinguish
between fire temperature and internal steel temperature and offer no
explanation for how this could possibly occur. This assertion (based on the
failure of only half the support strength) also reveals that they are either
unaware of or are ignoring the 5 X maximum load strength requirement for
building design. This is surprising, considering that they are
representing the American Society of Civil Engineers. |
|
|
|
An obvious
fallacy with
theories of this type is that column strength and heat conductivity in the
Towers were NOT segmented by the vertical spacing of the office floors. During
a fire, the heat produced by burning material on a particular office floor
would be dissipated by the steel framework over a multi-story region of the building. Also,
the load-bearing strength of the columns was vertically continuous over many "floors" for
any region of the building. The columns in the core structure were specially
fabricated to be multiple stories in height and were joined together by
welded connections. Dense cross-bracing interconnected the core columns and
created a monolithic entity that was structurally independent of the office floor attachment
locations, which were on the outer perimeter of the core structure. Therefore,
it really makes no sense to talk about about column behavior on a "given
floor." The columns didn't have "floors." The
clustering of the core columns in the center of the building also places most
of them at a significant distance away from the vicinity of any conceivable office fire.
Bazant and Zhou's theory apparently assumes that the Towers were built according
to the old-fashioned "post and beam" column grid arrangement. Like
others to follow, they use complicated equations and obscure concepts to
create an intimidating aura of authority, while overlooking or
misrepresenting the fundamental features of the scenario. |
|
|
|
In
addition to these theoretical fallacies, we've already seen that high
internal steel temperatures are very difficult to achieve over a wide area in a large
structure. Not only is Bazant and Zhou's so-called triggering condition
clearly impossible given the test data presented earlier, but the results of
the examination of steel recovered from the fire zones, as reported by
NIST in 8/04,
shows no evidence of temperatures over 625˚C (1157˚F) and only rare
instances of temperatures over 250˚C (482˚F)! This is consistent
with the international fire test results mentioned earlier. (See the section
below for more on the NIST report.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A more
detailed critique of Bazant and Zhou's paper can be found by following links from
here: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/bazantzhou.html 2) Another theory was put forward
by Thomas Eager,
a professor of materials engineering from MIT. It appeared in JOM, the
journal for the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and was also
presented in a NOVA interview that many people have seen. The transcript is
available online. Eager claims to believe that the Towers were not designed
to withstand a fire covering an entire single floor! He doesn't say where he
gets this idea, but we know from the comments presented earlier that Skilling
certainly DID allow for this possibility. Because
the spilling of the jet fuel may have caused this to happen, Eager suggests
that the heat from this type of fire scenario caused the floor slab truss
connections ("clips" he calls them) to fail — "unzipping"
almost simultaneously around an entire floor — causing a pancaking sequence
that also somehow pulled down the vertical support structures. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html |
|
|
|
"Pancaking"
collapses are
sometimes seen in Third World countries where badly designed and poorly reinforced
structures with heavy concrete floors are subjected to earthquakes. Modern
American buildings (including the WTC Towers) are designed and built
according to robust standards and specifications that require structural
unification of horizontal and vertical assemblies. This is done specifically to
prevent pancaking floor collapses under any circumstances.
Eager
also ignores the continuous vertical strength of the core structure and its
heavily cross-braced and unified design. Even if some of the floor
connections had somehow broken loose, the more heavily built and potentially
free-standing column structures would have remained in place. While the floor
assemblies interconnected the core with the perimeter columns and added
strength and flexibility to the structure as a whole, they were also designed
to be as lightweight as possible. A
detailed evaluation of Thomas Eager's analysis can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html |
|
|
|
3) Two highly produced,
made-for-television specials have been particularly influential in determining
many people's beliefs about the destruction of the WTC Towers. Unfortunately,
the non-commercial reputation and credibility of PBS and NOVA have been exploited as a
vehicle for the presentation of deliberately false information and analysis. To
a traumatized television audience in 2001 this was not so apparent. But now,
in the sober light of a better understanding, the fraudulent nature of these
presentations is painfully obvious. Below
are two graphics used in the NOVA program "Why the Towers Fell." The one on the left
misrepresents the structural core of the building to look like mysterious
floating horizontal slabs with no vertical support! The one on the right is
from an animated sequence of falling floor trusses that is also very
misleading. Missing
from this animation
are at least three major components that would have prevented this behavior:
1) the perpendicular cross trusses, 2) the welded-plate wall connections, and
3) the steel floor pan that is connected to the trusses, onto which the
concrete slab is poured. The floor pan interconnects the trusses and provides
stiffness and strength to the entire floor system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
diagram shows a more truthful view of a typical truss assembly:
Another
TV special titled "Anatomy of the Collapse" was produced for the Discovery
Channel and also appeared shortly after 9/11. These two programs are similar
and include numerous fraudulent statements. We are told, for example, that
jet fuel had not been considered in the design of the Towers, that it had
saturated the entire buildings and that steel temperatures had reached
2000ºF. None of these statements are true. |
|
|
|
We are
also told that the buildings would collapse without the floor trusses, that
the floor trusses were connected by only two bolts, that the perimeter walls were
comparable to sheets of cardboard and that the columns were like
free-standing wobbly sticks. The perimeter and core column structures were,
in fact, highly robust and independent structures unto themselves, each fully capable of standing
on its own. And the biggest lie of all? We are told that total destruction
was inevitable.
|
|
|
|
3) The first major government
report was issued by FEMA, and it uses these misleading diagrams to make it look to
the casual, non-technical reader like there was no central core at all! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
careful reading of the fine print says the vertical members on the right side
of the diagrams are core columns and we are only looking at a detail of the
structure, but this is not obvious at a glance. There is also no indication
of the immense strength and dense cross bracing of the structural core of the
building. Many people seem to believe that the Towers were supported only
by the perimeter walls. It is easy to imagine that a building would collapse if it were
built to look like this diagram! http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html Even
the 9/11 Commission Report, on page 558, claims that: "The interior core of
the buildings was a hollow steel shaft…" This is a blatantly false
statement with
no conceivable explanation other than the desire to intentionally deceive the
American public. The 9/11 Commission Report includes many other outright
lies, distortions and critical ommissions. See David Ray Griffin's book, The 9/11 Commission Report:
Ommissions and Distortions, for a comprehensive and thoroughly documented examination of over
one hundred of these deliberately deceptive failings. |
|
|
|
Below
is another view of one of the Towers during construction. Compare it to the
diagrams above and the statement by the 9/11 Commission. This gives a good
look at how much of the footprint of the building was taken up by the core
structure and its massive design. |
|
America,
who used to be so proud of her expertise and execution on every level, is now
pleading incompetence in new creative ways every day, including projecting that
incompetence back into the past. Forgetting about the jet fuel and the possibility
that an entire floor might catch fire was bad enough, but now there's this: |
|
|
|
4)
Hyman Brown, construction
manager of the WTC and University of Colorado civil engineering professor
said this in 2004 (quoting from the Boulder Weekly): |
|
|
|
"It
is correct that the towers did not collapse because of the airliners hitting
it. But we do know how it collapsed and it has nothing to do with
conspiracy," says Brown. "What caused the building to collapse is
the airplane fuel and the fire-suppression system that we now have, which
basically blocks off five-floor blocks, so the fire can’t go up and the fire
can’t go down. You now have a fire confined to a five-floor area, burning at
2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts. All the
tonnage above the five-floor area comes straight down when the steel melts.
That broke all the connections, and that caused the building to
collapse." |
|
http://archive.boulderweekly.com/102104/coverstory.html |
|
Who
could have guessed
that the fire suppression system, instead of causing the fires to die down
from lack of oxygen and depletion of flammable material like everybody
expected, actually caused the fires to become hotter! So hot that they melted
all the steel in a five floor area of the building! To fuel this fire, Mr.
Brown apparently assumes that unlimited quantities of jet fuel (and oxygen)
were available on all five floors of both buildings for up to two hours in a
1093˚C (2000˚F) environment. The behavior of volatile flammable
liquids in a high temperature environment would not allow this. |
|
|
|
When Mr.
Brown says that the steel "melted," I think he means to say that it
failed — the melting point of steel, as we've seen, is 1538˚C
(2800˚F). But failure is also a clear impossibility. Remember those open
steel test structures? They were subjected for a longer time to a fire even hotter than the one he imagines, but
the highest recorded steel temperature never went beyond than 360˚C
(680˚F) —
far below the temperature where failure could occur. Mr. Brown's fire may
have been confined to a five story region, but the steel was still free to dissipate
heat throughout
the entire building framework! |
|
|
|
Also,
to match his own description, this fire would have to fully engulf all five
floors, with large emergent flames bursting from every window on all sides of
the building. From photographic evidence we see only lots of black smoke
with flames here and there. And the "tonnage" he's speaking of is simply
the upper part of the structure that the lower part was designed to
support. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
wouldn't spend so much effort examining Mr. Brown's highly improbable theory,
except that he has been connected informally by the media to findings
reported by NIST,
the US government science agency that has recently completed a $20,000,000
investigation into the destruction of the WTC Towers. It was said in 2004 by
the media that Mr. Brown's views were supported by the preliminary findings
of the NIST investigation! |
|
|
|
5)
The final report released by NIST in 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/)
does indeed start with the assumption that the Towers simply
"collapsed" on their own, once impacted from above by a block of
floors that allegedly "fell" through the impact zone. They depend
on fire to "soften," "shorten," "buckle" and
"snap" core and perimeter columns and floor trusses where necessary
in order to create a plausible sounding "collapse initiation" sequence.
But they
don't explain how the combustion of typical office contents could possibly
produce enough heat at a high enough temperature to cause the extensive steel
deformations necessary to support their hypothesis. And they also do not
explain how they reconcile this hypothesis with their own investigative
data
(mentioned earlier) from 8/04!
|
|
|
|
The
NIST report also fails to explain or reconcile the fact that they were unable
to duplicate failure in their post-9/11 floor model fire tests. They try to convince us that
hypothetical damage to the fire-proofing of the steel explains everything,
but they provide no scientifically verifiable data to support this conclusion
or carry it beyond the status of pure speculation. The
following article by Kevin Ryan describes these issues in detail. He is a heroic
whistle-blower who was fired from his senior position at Underwriters Laboratory
for first attempting to resolve these problems through internal procedures,
and then finally bringing them to the public's attention as a last resort. UL
was responsible for the fire testing of steel assemblies used in the
construction of the World Trade Center. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm |
|
|
|
Like
Mr. Brown, NIST simply assumes that once the alleged "collapse"
begins, it will be obvious to everybody why it would crush the entire
structure. This part is never explained. Out of all the thousands of pages in NIST's
supposedly exhaustive report, the actual destruction of the buildings is
dismissed with ONE SENTENCE: "Global collapse then ensued." That's
it! That's all they have to say about it. This is the key issue and it
should have been the focus of the entire report! NIST's
failure to look at evidence or to carry their analysis beyond the point of
"collapse initiation" is extremely suspicious and highly
unscientific. Their inability or unwillingness to PROVE their a priori assumption that the Towers were
destroyed by a so-called progressive gravitational collapse invalidates
the entire report. |
|
|
|
Also in
the October 2005 report (updated by a FAQ in August 2006), we find a
stunning reversal
that would put even a star NFL running back to shame. Not only has NIST
officially backed away from the "pancaking collapse" theory (with
no apology), but those much-maligned floor truss connections (remember the
"two bolts"?) that were originally blamed for just about
everything, are now somehow conspiring with alleged floor sagging to pull on
the specially manufactured, high-strength steel perimeter columns (remember
the 2000% load capacity?) with enough force to cause an entire face of the
building to "snap" from inward bowing! And
they still don't explain how even this fantastic scenario would cause the
inevitable destruction of the lower portions of the building. |
|
|
|
After hearing
the astonishing comments by S. Shyam Sunder, Ph D, the lead investigator for NIST,
made during an interview about "conspiracy theories" with NOVA and
available on their website, I feel compelled to question either his
competence or his honesty, or both. Among other bizarre statements, he claims in a matter-of-fact
sort of way that the Towers "fell" at the rate of free-fall because
they were "70% just air in volume" (as if that explains anything)
and because the columns weren't made of "solid steel" but were
"steel boxes" with walls only 1/4" - 3/4" thick! |
|
|
|
Buildings
have NEVER been constructed with solid steel members. The very idea is
absurd! They would be excessively and unnecessarily heavy. Box columns,
I-beams and H-beams of comparable strength are much lighter. Large box
columns were indeed used in the core structure. At the base of each Tower
they measured 52" x 22" and the steel was, in fact, FOUR INCHES
thick! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"NIST
Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire," a paper by Frank Legge Ph D, uses data from the NIST report
itself to show that NIST's conclusions contradict their own findings. This
simple and straightforward refutation is presented purely within the terms
and context of the NIST investigation. It is posted at this link, and also
includes a number of useful reference links: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/ A
detailed critique of the NIST Report can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html 6) Popular Mechanics magazine in its March 2005
issue attempted to discredit legitimate questioning of the WTC destruction by
using intimidation tactics and presenting long lists of experts. This effort
was continued in 2006 with the release of Debunking 9/11 Myths, a book length presentation of
similar material. While the authors and their band of "experts"
claim to have exhaustively debunked 9/11 skepticism, they have in fact only
attacked long-discredited claims and "straw man" arguments while
ignoring the serious questions. They fail, for example, to satisfactorily address any
of the observations described in the next section of this paper. A detailed critique of the Popular
Mechanics
article can be found here: |
|
Paul
Craig Roberts
has this to say about the origins of the Popular Mechanics article: "Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to
9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon
and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief
and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and
Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff.
It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report…" |
|
|
|
All of
the Popular Mechanics experts apparently forgot their high school physics since they,
like gullible members of a new cult, "believe in" the free fall
progressive collapse theory
— a ridiculous impossibility. See "The elapsed time of the
destruction" section, below. The Popular Mechanics experts also claim to believe
(of course) that the Towers "collapsed" because fire weakened and
distorted the steel. I believe
that all the above theories (and all similar ones) have to be rejected
from the outset
for at least two reasons: |
|
|
|
a) They all depend on fire to do
what fire is
not able to do
— and has never done before — that is, heat structural steel to the point of
causing a total building failure. |
|
b) The intact lower portions of
the buildings would have arrested or deflected any conceivable collapse
(crushing) process. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dramatic Features of the Destruction that are Ignored
by the Official Theories: |
|
|
|
1)
The Towers look like they are exploding, complete with enormous rising mushroom clouds
before any debris reaches the ground (indicating tremendous heat release) and
lateral ejection of material with great force to great distances. In the
photo on the right, below, steel perimeter column sections are thrown into
the air like toothpicks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massive
sections of structural steel column assemblies were ejected as far as 500
feet — a distance equal to more than 1.5 football fields! The blast wave alone shattered
windows in buildings 400 feet away and multi-ton sections of heavy steel column structures
were lodged into the sides of neighboring buildings!
ABC
News correspondent N. J. Burkett was standing more than a block away from the WTC Towers on 9/11 when
the South Tower destruction suddenly began. He interrupted his live TV
commentary by shouting as everyone ran for cover: "...A HUGE EXPLOSION NOW —
RAINING DEBRIS ON ALL OF US! WE"D BETTER GET OUT OF THE WAY!"
|
|
|
|
2)
The destruction of each Tower began suddenly and was not preceded by obvious
buckling or other dramatic visible deformations. There were no reports from
firefighters of sagging, creaking or twisting steel that might signal
impending failure. |
|
|
|
3) One problem that everyone is having
is that no one has ever seen a "natural" collapse of a steel frame high-rise
building (because it has never happened), so no one knows what it ought to look like! Earthquakes
sometime topple modern buildings, but they retain their shape, even if distorted,
and they don't explode or fall apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the
Towers did experience gravitational collapse due to global structural
failure, you would expect to find a huge heap of identifiable parts of the
building piled
within and spilling outside of the original footprint. It would include
sections of floor slabs, floor pans, large chunks of concrete, glass and the
remains of identifiable building contents, including the bodies of the
occupants. |
|
|
|
This
is not what happened — both Towers almost entirely disintegrated into rather short (30
ft or less) pieces of steel, dust and other metal debris. Hundreds of tiny human
bone fragments
have been discovered on the roofs of neighboring buildings, and the remains
of over 1000 bodies disappeared completely. Were they vaporized out of
existence? Or obliterated into particles too small even for DNA analysis? How
could this possibly happen? http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/nydailynews_400bits.html |
|
|
|
This
photo was taken looking straight down within the footprint where one of the
Towers once stood. The elevation of this area is not significantly higher
than the original street level and shows only pieces of metal and dust.
Search and rescue workers were stunned that so many bodies had apparently
vanished —
along with the desks, the computers, the glass and all the other building
contents. Joe
Casaliggi of Engine 7, one of the early emergency workers who dug through the wreckage
where the Towers once stood, put it this way: "You have two 110-story office buildings: you don't find
a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a
telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big [holds up thumb and
forefinger]. The buildings collapsed to dust." http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse
update/collapsed to dust.mpg Note
the complete lack of identifiable portions of the building itself. Of
particular interest is the fact that the corrugated steel floor pans are
all apparently missing — along with the concrete floors. There is no stack of "pancaked"
floors piled up within the footprint of the former building. |
|
|
|
4) Almost all of the non-steel building materials and contents
were pulverized, much
of it into talcum powder size (sub 100 micron) dust particles. This took the
form of the dense pyroclastic dust clouds that expanded to enormous size as
they raced down the surrounding streets at tremendous velocity and with
clearly defined boundaries, depositing most of the mass of the buildings outside
of the perimeter of
their original footprints.
Concrete
and gypsum, along with large amounts of asbestos and countless other
dangerous materials, were all part of these huge toxic dust clouds that spread over lower
Manhattan and poisoned the air at Ground Zero. If you
dropped a large chunk of concrete from 1000 ft onto pavement far below, it
would certainly break apart, but it wouldn't be pulverized into microscopic
particles. In the case of the Towers, the disintegration into dust somehow
took place in mid-air, long before any debris reached the ground. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5) Both the nearly total
pulverization of the building materials and contents and the rapid
expansion of the
dust clouds (the photo on the right, below, was taken only 30 seconds after the start of the
destruction of the North Tower) to great elevations and large distances from
the building locations would require the release of tremendous amounts of
heat energy.
The only energy source presumed to be available to explain these phenomena is
the elevated mass of the buildings themselves, which is inadequate by at
least an order of magnitude according to conservative estimates. http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6)
The elapsed time of the destruction was nearly identical to the time it would take a
free-falling object to reach the ground from the same height. Common sense
would certainly suggest that if the lightweight upper part of the building
had somehow dropped onto the intact structure below, the strength and
resistance of the more heavily built lower portion of the building would not
only slow the process, but would arrest it altogether or deflect it to one
side. Several scientific papers supply proof for this conclusion — see the
following websites for an abundance of bona fide analysis. http://www.journalof911studies.com/ And IF
the structural support for the upper part of the building actually DID give
way because of damage and high temperature, it would have exhibited gradual
deformations as
it approached its failure threshold. The interconnected framework, even if it
began to bend or sag, would still prevent a sudden drop of the upper floors.
(See Cardington fire tests, mentioned earlied.) What we see instead looks as
if the presence of structural support is instantly obliterated as the wave of destruction
begins. |
|
|
|
Based
on video and photographic evidence, and FEMA's mapping of the widespread
debris field, each Tower appears to have been progressively and
systematically exploded from the top down, starting from the impact zone. The explosive
sequence was timed to occur at a pace close to free-fall, thus allowing the
falling debris to blanket over and partially hide the continuing explosions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Bazant & Zhou paper mentioned earlier, and other papers by Frank Greening and Manuel Garcia, all claim to have mathematical
models that show how a high-rise steel structure can crush itself at the rate
of free-fall. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html These
theoretical "pancaking" scenarios do not take into account the
strength of specific structural features like the continuous verticality of
the core column assemblies or the fact that much stronger and heavier
materials were used in the lower part of the building. They also employ the
entire mass of the structure to drive the process while ignoring the fact
that most of this mass is actually landing outside of the original
footprint and
would therefore be unavailable. In
Garcia's article, for example, "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist," available at the Counterpunch
link above, he repeatedly makes reference to a falling "block of
floors" that is supposedly impacting the structure below like a
"hammer." Where is this alleged "block of floors"? All we
can see in the photos above is an ever-expanding slurry of pulverized
debris that is
somehow being propelled far beyond the original perimeter of the structure. Greening's
paper is posted at 911myths.com (a "debunker" website, linked above)
and, like Garcia, he tries to build a theory around the idea of "momentum
transfer." The equations he uses assume impacts from solid masses like you
see with billiard balls, but in the case of the Towers, a rigid falling
mass is nowhere to be found. |
|
|
|
But
even if we forget all these objections, something else about the notion of a
progressive collapse occurring at the rate of free fall defies intuition. The
obvious problem
with this idea is that it does not allow time or energy to overcome the
INERTIA of the materials in the lower part of the building that must be instantly
accelerated up
to the rate of free fall in order to join the already falling material from
above without slowing it down. In fact, each of these encounters with stationary mass
WOULD require an energy expenditure from the falling material, which WOULD
slow it down — and, when combined with the strength of the structure, quickly
stop the process altogether. |
|
|
|
There
are only two ways a building can be destroyed at the rate of free fall: |
|
a) All structural support is simultaneously removed at the foundation level
— all parts of
the building will then begin to fall at the same moment and at the same rate.
This is the method that is typically used in the controlled demolitions that
we see on TV. The advantage to this approach is that it minimizes damage
to neighboring buildings (see WTC7). |
|
b) Or, something (like timed
explosives) progressively destroys the building from the top down at the rate of free fall, while
simultaneously removing resistance in advance of the falling debris. This is
NOT the way controlled demolitions are normally done, although tall chimneys
are sometimes destroyed this way (see end of report). See the
following two links for thorough examinations of Garcia and his theories: http://911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/physic11282006.html "Garcia
not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting
organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia's employer, appears to
be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of
research there." |
|
7)
Oxidation, sulfidation and intergranular melting were observed by FEMA in their
metallurgical examination of steel samples from the Towers. They describe
this as "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack."
Edges of a one inch column were described as having been thinned to
"almost razor sharpness," while a formerly solid flange had
"gaping holes—some larger than a silver dollar." http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
|
|
|
|
These
findings were reported in The New York Times, where they were described as
"perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." Deposits from a
previously molten liquid mixture containing iron and sulfur have also been
found in the same types of locations. These, according to Dr. Steven
Jones, a PhD physicist from BYU, are the chemical signature for the types of reactions
caused by thermite and Thermate — incendiaries and explosives sometimes used in
building demolitions for cutting through heavy steel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8)
Intense hotspots
persisted at sub-basement foundation levels at Ground Zero for weeks, in spite of 24/7 drenching of
the site with water. The boots worn by workers at Ground Zero had to be
constantly replaced due to the melting of the soles. Several days after 9/11,
NASA conducted an infrared aerial survey of Ground Zero and detected hot
spots in the rubble that were over 1300ºF! The image on the left, below, is
from their report. Molten metal was later found at these locations. What was
the source of this heat? Again, the use of incendiaries, or some other type of high
energy method of destruction, appears to be the only plausible explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9) Dr. Steven Jones has also discovered
the presence of previously molten iron microspheres in the dust that blanketed lower Manhattan
in the wake of the destruction. The "atomizing" of molten iron can be
explained only as a byproduct of explosives and incendiaries. Dr. Jones,
a Physicist and Archaeometrist, has written a detailed scientific paper analyzing
the destruction of the WTC buildings. It is available at this link: |
|
|
|
10)
The upper part of the South Tower begins to tip at the beginning of its destruction.
Instead of continuing this rotation as would be expected from a rigid
structure according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the
rotation stops as it begins to disintegrate before falling into the structure
below. Without this unexplained disintegration, this upper block of floors
would have toppled to the side and crashed to the ground as an intact
structure.
|
|
|
|
11) The debris distribution from
both Towers exhibited almost perfect radial symmetry as the wave of destruction
moved rapidly down each building, spewing cladding, structural steel and
pulverized material in all directions like a giant fountain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12) The huge outward arching
dust plumes exhibited
during the destruction of each Tower not only defy gravity, but are an
unmistakable signature characteristic of the use of explosives.
13) The destruction followed the
path of greatest resistance. In natural materials failures, like a broken window or the collapse
of a burning wooden building, even small variations in stresses and
materials strength are amplified into highly asymmetrical breakage patterns, while the
process inherently seeks the path of least resistance. 14) The tremendous size of the primary debris field (measured before hitting the ground) is not
consistent with the downward pull of a gravity-driven event.
15)
A number of small explosions with forceful lateral ejections can be seen occurring
many floors below the leading edge of the destruction. These are visible in
the photo below, and also in the right-hand photo on the first page. These have
exactly the same signature appearance as cutter charges (squibs) used in
controlled demolitions to remove structural supports within a building at strategic points
in a timed sequence. Popular Mechanics would have us believe that this is just air being
forced out as a bellows effect by pancaking floors. But where are the
pancaking floors? And why would this occur so far down the building? |
|
|
|
16) In aerial views of ground zero showing
the immediate aftermath of the destruction, all we see are smoking craters
where the Towers once stood, and debris scattered for blocks in all directions.
|
|
|
|
17) Many
eyewitnesses reported explosions before and during the destruction. Firefighters, for
example, recollected their experience as they were running from the South
Tower: |
|
|
|
fireman2:
It was as if as if they had detonated, det.. |
|
fireman1:
yea detonated yea |
|
fireman2:
as if they had planned to take down a building, |
|
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ... |
|
fireman1:
All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin' |
|
The New
York Times, in August 2005, released over 12,000 pages of oral histories from
9/11. These included statements from 503 first responders, including firefighters,
emergency medical workers and others. More than a hundred of these accounts included
reports of explosions. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/WTC_histories_full_01.html |
|
18) The Towers had stabilized after
impact, the fires were no more serious than a typical office fire and no
steel-frame highrise had ever collapsed from fire before — yet there were several
reports of warnings
that "collapse" was imminent. For example, from the 9/11
Commission Report: |
|
|
|
"At
about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and
advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin
Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse." |
|
|
|
Who was
this "engineer" and how or why did he know this? NY Mayor Rudi
Giuliani also revealed in a live interview that he had been warned that the
Towers would "collapse." Who could have told him this? And why
didn't anyone bother to tell the firefighters inside the buildings? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And
then of course there is Building 7, which many people have forgotten. It fell later in the
day and from the beginning was treated like an insignificant footnote. WTC7 was
an imposing 47-story structure and more modern than the Towers. It was not
hit by an airplane
and was a block away from the Towers with another lower building in between. According
to the debris distribution data contained in the FEMA report, WTC7 was not
seriously battered by heavy debris from the Towers. The lighter orange rings in the
diagram below indicate the range of light debris, while the darker orange
areas indicate the reach of heavier debris, like steel column sections. WTC7
is the trapezoid-shaped darker blue building in the upper part of the
diagram.
|
|
|
|
WTC7 did
have fires of uncertain origin and extent. Official reports suggest that
fires in WTC7 had been "raging out-of-control" all day, but there
is no convincing photographic evidence of this. The fires in the photo above, taken on
the afternoon of 9/11 shortly before the collapse, are minor, and clear
images (below) from the moment of onset of the collapse do not even show
emergent flames, let alone any other evidence of an all-consuming inferno. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTC7
came down in 6.5 seconds, imploding perfectly within its footprint, collapsing straight
downward from all points and looking just like a perfect controlled
demolition. Even the "kink" in the roof line seen in the second
image of the sequence above is evidence of a demolition technique that is
used to make sure the walls collapse inward, thus minimizing damage to
surrounding structures. The homepage of the website for "Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth" includes a video of the collapse of WTC7: |
|
|
|
The
straight-down, vertical collapse of Building 7 could not have happened and
with such perfect symmetry unless all 58 perimeter columns and all 25 core
columns were somehow cut almost simultaneously at the foundation level. In
the three-image collapse sequence above, notice in the first image the light
and dark mottled pattern of small clouds of smoke that appeared at the onset of the
collapse. These look just like evidence of explosive cutter charges as used
in controlled demolitions to break up the internal structure of a building as
it begins to fall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large
amounts of fuel oil were reportedly stored in the building, but even if this
was burning it could not have caused the simultaneous structural failure of all the support columns — or
any of them for that matter. As we have seen, open-air hydrocarbon fires are
incapable of creating enough heat at a high enough temperature to cause the
failure of steel-frame high-rise structures. The fact that WTC7 was built
over a pre-existing three story substation also does not explain the
perfect symmetry of the collapse, or the collapse itself. |
|
|
|
Official
investigators and "conspiracy theory debunkers" are now suddenly
claiming that a section of the lower facade of WTC7 was "scooped
out" by flying debris from the North Tower. This of course contradicts
the detailed debris distribution mapping contained in the FEMA report
produced shortly after 9/11. But even if true, this cannot account for the
symmetry of the collapse since it would create an overhanging mass. And it
can't explain the collapse itself since these new damage estimates still
leave the building as a whole well within its load-bearing redundancy. |
|
|
|
The
site diagram above shows the distance that heavy steel would have to be
propelled in order to cause serious damage to WTC7. More than anything else,
this would be evidence of explosive force used in the destruction of the
Towers! |
|
|
|
This failure
of WTC7 was attributed to "progressive total collapse" brought on
by fire, in FEMA's report, but with the caveat that their hypothesis
"has only a low probability of occurrence." WTC7 was not even
mentioned in
the 911 Commission Report! |
|
|
|
And, most
revealing of all,
none of the official theories have been able to explain the live news
coverage from British television announcing the collapse of WTC7 while it was
still standing
in the background of the live video feed from NYC! Somebody was reading
their script a little too soon! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What
would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious
fire, or even a serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of
fact, no one would build them — they would be too dangerous. If the WTC
buildings DID collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be
extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic
analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind). |
|
|
|
This
did not happen.
The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed — over the strenuous
objections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and the families of the
victims — and most of it has been melted down in overseas markets. Access to
Ground Zero was forcefully restricted and study of the final blueprints for
the Towers has not been permitted. |
|
|
|
Two groups
have been extremely vocal in their protest of the destruction of evidence and
lack of real forensic investigation: the families of those killed and
firefighters. Fire Engineering Magazine — the primary journal for
firefighters everywhere — ran a scathing editorial in January 2002 in which
they referred to the official investigation blessed by FEMA and run by the
American Society of Civil Engineers as a "half-baked farce that may
already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests,
to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure." http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225
|
|
|
|
This is
obviously a big concern for firefighters because they have to go into burning buildings!
Prior to 9/11 there was no precedent to caution them against entering the WTC
Towers to go about their work of rescuing people and putting out the fires.
Surviving audio recordings of firefighter communications from the South Tower,
as mentioned earlier, show that they had reached the 78th floor sky lobby and
found only "two pockets of fire." They called for "two
lines" and began to implement their evacuation plan just before the
destruction suddenly began! http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm |
|
|
|
Now
what are firefighters supposed to do? In this new world, fires in high-rise steel structures
can apparently trigger a "total progressive collapse" at any moment
with no clear warning conditions. And this can happen not only in stable
damaged structures, but in fully (or nearly) intact structures as well! |
|
|
|
I
wonder how much fear this adds to the lives of our firefighters and if
high-rise fire rescue efforts have been curtailed in any way since 9/11,
perhaps even causing unnecessary loss of life, due to this new uncertainty
over entering burning steel structures. |
|
|
|
And
This: |
|
|
|
If
the government's story is true, then companies that offer controlled demolitions using explosives
are clearly going to have some new competition. Thanks to those wily
hijackers, we now have a much cheaper solution. If a structural steel
high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is to pick a floor
somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood
the floor with jet fuel, light a match and stand back. |
|
|
|
The
building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously explode, shattering all of the steel in
the building into tidy 12-30 ft sections. The rest of the building and all of
its contents will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that will be
spread over a large area so that somebody else will have to pay to clean it
up! |
|
|
|
|
|
And
This: |
|
|
|
This photo
shows the start of an explosive demolition of a large brick
chimney. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look
familiar? |
|
|
|
Characteristic
features indicating the use of explosives: |
|
1) Outward
arching dust plumes |
|
2)
Formation of debris cloud that is symmetrical around the vertical axis of the
structure |
|
3)
Heavier material is propelled out ahead of the dust |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion: |
|
|
|
We have
to find the courage to think for ourselves, open our eyes and look — and keep
looking. The truth will not go away. Once we see that most of what we were
told about these events is actually false, we can finally get to work on
discovering the real story of 9/11... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...any ordinary person can tell an explosion from a collapse!" |
