Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel—and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Seismic Spikes
Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com. A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
Alright so there is one gigantic issue with this take and that is the credibility of NIST. They ignored evidence and changed there claims. The reason you can't change the mind of a conspiracy theorist is that the essence of the event has been scientifically proven to only be possible by the governanent. How they organized it is still a bit of a theory but there is plain evidence that debunks most counter arguments in your post.
https://youtu.be/nu2QqxpYcvALets see if you can answer a few of these.
- Why did the buildings free fall at a rate no fire ever caused before or after including a building not hit by a plane?
- Why is there a visible beam of molten steel in the footage if molten steel is out of the question?
- Why are there a lot of particles present in the rubble that are created when using specialized military grade thermite?
- Why where strips of this stuff found that did not burn but when ignited produce the same elements?
- Why can we see explosive jetbeams racing down the tower when it falls?
- Why does the nist model last only 2 seconds? Did they fail to reproduce the entire thing?
- Why did NIST omit the clearly audible explosions?
You put a lot of effort laying down the source of the argunent so it is only fair i give you a credible source back. This is a talk held at a university that will explain in detail why NIST is a fraud and it will use scientific analysis to show you what happened :
www.csicop.org/.../how_i_debated_a_9_11_truther_and_survived
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Thomas_(skeptic)
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm
I don't find the defense arguments very convincing. Props to you to find a source that directly counters mine though that is a rare sight. The problem i have with these articles is that it doesn't go in on some stuff i still have no alternative explenation for.
So i am still left with these gaps in the official theory.
1. Why was thermite found in the concrete rubble?
2. Why can we see explosions rushing down the twin towers as they collapse?
3. Why did the building free fall straight down without failure and why aren't the floors larger if it pancaked?
This one especially i can't wrap my head around in theory. If you stack a bunch of materials and drop something on it eventually it will slow down or stop. Sure the weight along the way would increase but it makes no sense for all sides of the building to fall down in the same manner as this is the floors support structure. If anything it would happened slower or parts of the tower especially at the bottom would still stand.
4. Why do modern buildings instantly collapse because of a located fire? This one makes the least sense. in building 7 where the fires where clearly to small to cause this. If it where true it would mean the building had imploded on a large office fire because even with a weakened structure this was insanely small compared to when it normally happens.
5. How much force do you need to pulverize the building i a way it can even damage the other buildings to collapse trough ruble alone? Isn't it supposed to fall straight down? Building 7 wasn't that close was it?
Controlled demolition explains all of these things, the official story very little.
I want you to consider this.
A guy (Dave Thomas) who studies pseudoscience, fridge beliefs and so on, looked at your guy's (Richard Gage) "evidence" and concluded the following:
"I started reviewing numerous articles on Gage’s Web site and scoured many other sources for more information. Soon, a picture emerged of a massive pseudoscientific movement based on faulty physics, cherry-picked data, and demonization of opponents as complicit in the “conspiracy.” I’d long been dubious of 9/11 “controlled demolition” claims, and my perusal of Gage’s site left me EVEN MORE skeptical of “Truth Movement” arguments."
I think Mr. Thomas is sincere in his judgement. Do you question his sincerity? I know you are sincere in your judgement. That is important because I don't think either of you are trying to sell me a story (say like the official government report etc.). Despite both of you being sincere and knowledgable, one of you are incorrect. Given that I am more of a skeptic...
I think Dave does the exact same thing Richard does, Richard does this because he has enough evidence to make a case which i agree with given the sheer amount of convincing footage in the video. If you have evidence that disproofs this claim i would love to see it but so far there is a gigantic difference. Richard in his presentation SHOWS me the evidence he has, where on the guy disproving it i don't hear or see good evidence that disproofs the things i am seeing for myself.
If you go to the video i posted at 1:09:00 you will see a few very clear things.
The initial start of the collapse is not consistent with the rest of the collapse especially in the second tower, and you will see shape charges race down the building demolition style right under the smoke from the larger explosions above. The exact same kind of charges that are caused by specifically placed thermite and the exact same kind of materials that where found in the rubble. Its as clear as day.
so do you think David Thomas is insincere? He cannot see the "clear as day" evidence you can see? Or does he honestly and intelligently reach a different decision, being a skeptic?
I think he is either insincere or deluded. The more interesting question though is what do you believe after seeing the evidence for yourself?
Ah, so anyone that looks at the "clear as day evidence" is either "insincere or deluded," according to your judgment.
Its the reverse, you look at the clear as day evidence and dispute it it is the case. Keep in mind that only my side of the argument has clear evidence since i still need to see arguments of evidence to the questions i raised.
"Its the reverse, you look at the clear as day evidence and dispute it it is the case." what does that mean? In light of Dave Thomas (say an intelligent guy) ... He saw the "clear as day" evidence and disagreed. Is he insincere or deluded? You said you think he is. So is anyone who sees the "clear as day" evidence, who is also reasonable and intelligent, either insincere, deluded, or not really intelligent? concentrate now...
I'm not a truther (not in the traditional sense anyway) but using one source seems a little skecthy. However, none of these "facts" or their associated debunking relate to many of the more mainstream theories surrounding 9/11.
Still an interesting MyTake though!