|
Original article: |
|
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006debunking.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Your gullibility is
showing... |
|
|
|
Dear Damian Penny, |
|
|
|
After reading your recent
review of Debunking 9/11 Myths,
I feel compelled to offer a few comments. Your assertion that this book is a
"comprehensive refutation" of all unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 tells me right away that you haven't done much independent research into
these matters. Popular Mechanics
is well known for employing three types of tactics in their attempt to
discredit independent efforts to understand what happened on 9/11: |
|
|
|
1) They use "straw
man" arguments while cherry-picking easily debunked claims that most
serious 9/11 researchers have already abandoned long ago. |
|
|
|
2) They misrepresent and
distort evidence relating to important questions that they can't otherwise
avoid, while claiming that they have exhaustively sought input from large
numbers of intimidating-sounding experts. |
|
|
|
3) They entirely ignore
many of the most serious and important failings of the "official
story" while claiming that they have addressed the entire scope of 9/11
skepticism. |
|
|
|
It is important to keep in
mind that the people who produce these materials for Popular Mechanics are PAID to come up with this stuff -- they are
mercenaries in the information war, so to speak -- whereas legitimate 9/11
researchers are volunteering their time and effort out of a sense of civic
responsibility and dedication to learning the truth about this profoundly
important turning point in our history. |
|
|
|
It makes me wince when I
hear someone like yourself, who has so obviously been taken in, trashing the
selfless efforts of these dedicated fellow citizens. It takes a lot of
courage and rugged determination to risk your career and your credibility for
the sake of the truth when you know that your conclusions will be unwelcome
and politically unpopular, and that you will be exposing yourself to slander
and orchestrated attacks from paid-for media hit pieces. |
|
|
|
Debunking 9/11 Myths is based on much of the same material and general
approach that was used in the Popular Mechanics magazine article from last year. Here are links to
two rebuttals of that article: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you believe that
"Loose Change" represents the entire sum and substance of 9/11
research, then I suggest you take the time to look at these three films,
which are also available online: |
|
|
|
"9/11 Mysteries"
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 |
|
|
|
"Improbable
Collapse" |
|
|
|
"Who Killed John
O'Neill?" |
|
|
|
The idea that the fires in
the Towers melted the steel was originally put forward by over-excited media
pundits in the immediate wake of 9/11. Anyone with a physics desk reference
knows that the temperature of an open-air hydrocarbon fire -- whether itís
fueled by jet fuel, paper, or office furniture -- is nowhere near hot enough
to melt steel. The official investigations had to abandon this idea when its
obvious absurdity was made plain. But claims that fire fatally weakened the
structures are also impossible given the well-known behavior of steel in
severe fire scenarios, as has been demonstrated repeatedly for over 100
years. |
|
|
|
Even in the worst fires,
steel will dissipate heat very quickly throughout an entire framework and
stay much cooler than the fire itself. Fire temperature alone says nothing
about actual steel temperature, even after loss of fireproofing. (This is why
meat thermometers were invented.) Steel also returns to its normal strength
as it cools -- it is not permanently weakened by fire. For these and other
reasons, fire has never in history caused the collapse of a steel frame
high-rise. Think about it, would steel be used in the construction of
high-rise buildings if it was known to fail during a serious fire? There have
been many far more serious and longer lasting high-rise fires than occurred
on 9/11 and none have resulted in collapse. |
|
|
|
As a matter of fact, in
1975 an arguably hotter fire burned in the North Tower for over three hours,
causing over two million dollars in damages, but none of the steel had to be
replaced. Even the floor trusses survived undamaged. |
|
|
|
NIST's own testing of
steel samples recovered from the fire zones showed no evidence of
temperatures anywhere near hot enough to cause weakening. Kevin Ryan, a
courageous whistle-blower, was fired from his job as a senior manager at
Underwriters Laboratory for bringing this fact to the public's attention. |
|
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm |
|
|
|
Regarding WTC7, our
government investigators need to get their stories straight. FEMA's Building
Performance Study carried out shortly after 9/11 includes detailed diagrams
of debris distribution from the destruction of the Towers. Not only is WTC7
shown to be well beyond the range of "exterior steel columns and other
heavy debris", it is only partially within range of "aluminum
cladding and other lighter debris", which couldn't possibly create the
kind of damage that's now being described. |
|
http://911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
scroll down to Figure 1-7 |
|
|
|
Specific anomalies of
exterior columns landing beyond the areas of generalized mapping are
carefully indicated, and the closest example of that to WTC7 is at the far
end of the Verizon building, at least 200-300 feet away. But even if these
new damage claims are true, the building would still be within its 5 X LOAD
design redundancy. Diesel fuel produces just another hydrocarbon fire
that can't possibly weaken the steel for the reasons given above, and being
built over a substation cannot account for the symmetry, speed of fall, and
nearly perfect vertical collapse of the building -- all of which are characteristic
features of controlled demolition. |
|
|
|
Also, it's important to
keep in mind that WTC7 was at least one and a half football fields away from
the North Tower. Heavy debris from the Towers that WAS laterally displaced
this great distance (causing damage to Bankers Trust and the Winter Garden,
for example) is MOST important as evidence for the tremendous blast pressures
that occurred in the destruction of the Towers. |
|
|
|
Here's a short list of
evidence from the destruction of the Towers that cannot be explained by a
gravitational collapse. None of these points have been addressed adequately
or at all by Popular Mechanics: |
|
|
|
1) Mid-air pulverization
of the concrete |
|
2) Explosive events,
squibs and streamers |
|
3) Perimeter column steel
ejected up to 500 ft |
|
4) Windows blown out by
blast wave in buildings 400 ft away |
|
5) Symmetry of debris
distribution |
|
6) Rapid expansion of dust
clouds |
|
7) Destruction occurred at
near free-fall pace |
|
8) Destruction followed
path of greatest resistance |
|
9) No surviving floor
slabs or corrugated steel floor pans |
|
10) Rising mushroom cloud
before falling debris hits the ground (indicating tremendous heat release) |
|
11) Total disintegration
of building contents into dust |
|
12) Almost entire mass of
each Tower landed outside original footprint |
|
13) Steel samples show
signature of thermite and thermate |
|
14) Steel samples show
rapid oxidation and intergranular melting |
|
15) Intense hot spots and
molten metal persisted in the rubble for weeks |
|
16) No prior case of steel
frame high-rise destroyed by fire |
|
17) Eyewitness reports of
explosions |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for considering
these thoughts, |
|
|
|
C Thurston |