by Home home
predominantly due to fire.
NIST found the plane impacts removed the protective heat
shielding foam (called Spray on Fire Resistant Material or
SFRM) from vital columns, beams and trusses. This
supposedly rendered the steel liable to warping under
exposed heat. The plane impacts indirectly contributed to
the collapse, but only as a result of the stripping of the
SRFM.
NIST stated:
“The WTC towers likely would not have
collapsed under the combined effects of
aircraft impact damage and the extensive,
multi-floor fires that were encountered on
September11, 2001, if thermal insulation had
not been widely dislodged or had been only
minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”
What is agreed therefore, is that key to the collapse,
according to NIST, was the loss of heat shielding from a tiny
percentage of the structure. In WTC 2 the south-east corner
of the building was damaged but the tensioning beams on
145
A Dangerous Ideology
the roof (the hat trusses) maintained the building's cohesion
initially. However, fires on the east side of the building
caused exposed steel beams to warp (thermally expand) and
floor supports started to sag, overloading the neighbouring
columns.
Both towers stood at 110 stories. The mass of the top 28
floors of WTC 2 overwhelmed the weakened support trusses
and columns, and it started listing eastwards. This
overloaded the entire structure and, according to NIST, the
top section 'began its decent,' totally destroying the 80 floors
below through a mechanism they identified as 'progressive
collapse.'
WTC 1 suffered a similar fate. Sagging floor trusses pulled
the exterior supporting structure inwards and the top 17
floors tilted southwards before completely overloading the
entire building. The floors plummeted to earth, turning to
dust as they fell.
NIST explanation for the total destruction of the Twin Towers
(and WTC 7) is considered by most, reasonably well informed
conspiracy theorists, to be scientifically illiterate fantasy.
Newton’s third law of motion[80] states that when two forces
meet, both oppose each other equally. The top floors of the
WTC buildings had always exerted downward force on the
structure below them. The upward, opposing force,
supporting their mass, was equal to this. Otherwise, the
building would never have stood in the first place.
As the top sections of the towers began to tilt, they were
exerting no more load upon the supporting structure than
ever before. The mass of the planes, at less than 180 tons
each, added only negligible additional load to the 500,000
ton buildings (well within design tolerances.) Uneven
distribution of the load was the problem. According to the
engineers, architect and scientists who disagree with NIST,
the most likely outcome was the loss of the top sections or a
partial collapse of the structure where the load distribution
was most intense.
However, as we all saw, that is not what happened. A
uniform, total collapse occurred (in all three cases.)
146
A Dangerous Ideology
In regard to WTC7 NIST referred to it as a 'global
collapse:'[52]
Once the upper building section began to
move downwards, the weakened structure in
the impact and fire zone was not able to
absorb the tremendous energy of the falling
building section and global collapse ensued.
Many conspiracists have pointed out the term 'global
collapse' was made up by NIST. The process they outlined is
more commonly known as 'total progressive collapse.' They
suggest the reason NIST chose to invent this term
unnecessarily was to deflect from the fact that 'total
progressive collapse' has never occurred in a steel frame
constructed skyscraper, other than on 9/11.
This has been strongly attacked people who accept NIST's
explanation. They claim there are many examples of 'total
progressive collapse.' However, the key examples cited don't
appear to match the uniform, symmetrical collapses
witnessed at the WTC complex.
For example a historical survey commissioned by NIST lists
3 other collapses which they claimed were comparable to
WTC buildings.[55] These were the 50 story 'One New York
Plaza' building, 'One Meridian Plaza' (38 stories in
Philadelphia) and the 62 story 'First Interstate Bank' in Los
Angeles.
Each of these buildings were steel constructed buildings
which suffered major fires. The First Interstate bank burned
for 3.5 hours and 4 floors were damaged; the 35th floor
collapse onto the 34th of One New York Plaza (as a result of
fire) and, after burning for 18 hours, 9 floors of One Meridian
Plaza were severely damaged. None of them completely
collapsed to dust.
Some have pointed to other buildings, such as the 32 story
Windsor Tower in Madrid, which partially collapsed in 2005.
It was totally engulfed by fire above the 10th floor for nearly a
day. This caused a collapse of the South facing portion of the
structure above the 21st floor. Again, no total progressive
147
A Dangerous Ideology
collapse occurred.
The problem with the comparison argument is that it is
impossible to resolve. Skyscrapers are uniquely designed.
Therefore, comparing the partial collapse of a reinforced
concrete structure, like the Windsor Tower, with the 'global'
collapse of steel framed structures, like the WTC buildings,
is challenging to the point of irrelevance. The designs are
very different. The exception to this uniqueness was the Twin
Towers, whose architecture and construction were
practically identical (and very different from WTC 7's.) This
may explain why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in the same manner
but it doesn't explain why WTC 7 also completely collapsed
that day.
This debate has devolved into the typical 'tit for tat' exchange
between conspiracists and their mainstream adversaries.
Both sides claim their argument outweighs that of their
opponents. My own research suggests the conspiracy
theorists are probably right to say there has never been
another example of fire induced 'global collapse' of a steel
constructed skyscraper. The only three examples in the
history of construction all occurred in the same place, on the
same day. 9/11.
NIST's stated, once the top sections of WTC 1 and 2 became
detached, the force of their sudden fall caused the floors
below to give way as they instantly became overwhelmed.
This initiated the process of 'total progressive collapse.' The
problem many have with this pronouncement from NIST,
apart from its apparent contradiction of the laws of physics,
is that they didn't clarify anything at all about mechanism of
the collapse. Instead, NIST stated, for some
reason, the
Towers were “poised for collapse.” [56]
Their report infers, that as soon as the collapse was initiated,
total collapse was inevitable. Thousands of engineers and
architects don't understand why that would have been the
case. Therefore, speculation regarding the precise reason for
the collapses has largely been left to public debate. The
official account, generally accepted by government and the
wider public, doesn't explain much.
The two most prevalent hypotheses in support of NIST are
148
A Dangerous Ideology
the 'pancake' and 'pile driver.' Essentially this suggested the
dislodged mass above the fire suddenly jolted down upon the
floor below it. This floor (offering no resistance at all) then
added its own mass to the combined total. Consequently the
more massive body achieved a greater impacting force on the
next floor (which again offered no resistance,) and so on,
with each floor progressively adding additional force to the
collapse.
The problem with this notion is, at each progressive stage of
the 'global collapse,' the force of the falling mass must have
met resistance from the opposing force of the completely
undamaged structure below it. Newtons 'Law of the
Conservation of Momentum' dictates that, in an isolated
system (such as the collapsing WTC's) the momentum (its
mass times its velocity) of the falling body (the top floors)
added to the momentum of the thing it hits (the floor below –
which were supposedly static) is equal both before and after
the collision.
In other words if you increase the mass, as suggested by
NIST who claimed each progressive stage added more floors
to the total mass of the falling body, the velocity within the
system must reduce to maintain the total momentum.
Therefore, the acceleration of the collapse, from the point of
initial structural failure, should have progressively reduced.
This does not correspond to observation.
Nonetheless, avoiding the Newtonian problem of momentum,
people such as Dr. F. R. Greening (PhD,) have completed
calculations demonstrating the kinetic energy of such a
collapse. They claim it shows how a pancake - pile driver
effect can occur.[58] In keeping with good science, this has
been roundly rebutted by “conspiracists” like Gordon Ross
(MEng.)[59]
Observational analysis shows that all three towers fell with
near free fall acceleration.[53] In the case of WTC 7 NIST
partially conceded this:[54]
“....the north face descended essentially in
free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below.”
149
A Dangerous Ideology
Many engineers and architects have pointed out that NIST's
models of 'progressive collapse' makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever. They claim NIST would have us believe that
between 25%, in the case of WTC 2, and 17%, of WTC 1,
smashed their way to ground level by overcoming the
resistance of the respective 75% and 83% of the structures
beneath them. At each stage, due to very near to free fall
acceleration, this supporting structure apparently offered no
opposing, resistant force at all. Logically (you would think)
the supporting structure must have been absent for some
reason.
A very basic analogy would be to imagine that you up ended
a cargo container and placed a smaller one on top,
supported by four concrete blocks, one at each corner. The
smaller container having the same cross-sectional area and
being no more than quarter of the mass of the larger one
below it. According to NIST, if you then suddenly removed
two blocks on one side of the smaller container it would fall
straight down, at near free fall acceleration, and uniformly
obliterate the larger container below it. Plummeting to earth,
through the path of greatest resistance, as if the larger
container (opposing, resistant force) wasn't there.
Conspiracy theorists add, currently, the only known way
that a supporting structure can offer no resistance at all, is
through some type of demolition process.
They also contend that thermal causes suggested by NIST
are not borne out by the evidence. NIST stated the internal
temperatures of the fires reached 1000 degrees Celsius
(1800 degrees Fahrenheit). Conspiracists counter that the
vast majority of the jet fuel was witnessed to have burned up
in the large fireballs observed at the points of the impacts.
Little fuel can have remained and the ensuing fires were
essentially fed by burning office furniture. The palls of black
smoke were evidence of these relatively low temperature
fires.
In addition, Steel is an effective heat conductor. While parts
of the beams, missing their SFRM coating, may have been
exposed to direct heat, the heat would have dissipated as the
thermal energy was conducted through the steel girders.
150
A Dangerous Ideology
They claim the localised effect would have been far less than
suggested by NIST.
NIST's own heat map of the WTC 1 structure,[56] prior to
collapse, show the core temperature was less than 600
degrees Celsius. Most of the temperatures shown by NIST,
on the 96th - 99th floors, were below 150 degrees Celsius.
Conspiracists point out this wouldn't even affect, let alone
weaken steel.
Leading the conspiratorial accusations are an organisation
called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Their main
aim is to encourage a more thorough, independent inquiry
into 9/11 to include an investigation of possible demolition
as a cause.[60]
NIST stated that they didn't investigate this possibility
because there was no reason to do so. This predetermination
of possible causes does not seem to be very scientific, claim
the conspiracists. They highlight the hundreds of eye witness
reports of explosions as being just one of the reasons why
ruling out this possibility seems both illogical and contrary
to the available evidence. NIST's claim, that there was no
evidential reason to even investigate demolition as a
potential cause of collapse, is provably false.
The conspiracy theorists managed to get a paper published
in Europhysics News.[163] However, this wasn't peer
reviewed (despite some fervent conspiracists claims that it
was.) The paper was published by leading members of the
'Scientists For 9/11 Truth' organisation. Subsequently, it
has been widely attacked for its lack of peer review.
Conspiracy theorists point out that the official NIST report,
which most people accept, isn't peer reviewed either.
Following publication, Europhysics News back tracked
considerably stating:
“It is shocking that the published article is
being used to support conspiracy theories
related to the attacks on the WTC buildings.
&nb
sp; The Editors of EPN do not endorse or
support these views.”
151
A Dangerous Ideology
Given the paper concluded the WTC buildings collapsed as a
result of controlled demolition, unless Europhysics News'
editors didn't read it, prior to publication, it is difficult to
imagine how else they thought it would be interpreted.
The Scientist For 9/11 Truth suggest the journal buckled
under official pressure.[164] Nonetheless, the paper does
offer evidence that suggests the collapses could not have
occurred as NIST described. It references the use of military
grade explosives as the cause of the WTC Twin Tower
collapse. The catalyst for this collapse is thought by many
scientists to have been 'nano thermite.'
Samples of WTC dust contained microscopic red/grey chips
consistent with the use of explosives. In a paper, which was
peer reviewed, on 'Active Thermitic Material' the scientists
concluded:[165]
“Based on [these] observations, we conclude
that the red layer of the red/gray chips we
have discovered in the WTC dust is active,
unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic
pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Once again debate concerning this evidence has meandered
off down so may rabbit holes it is difficult for most of us to
unravel its complexity. A significant objection comes from
those who ask how these 'explosives' got in the Towers
without anyone noticing teams of demolition experts laying
charges. Conspiracists respond with reports of strange
activity in the building prior to 9/11. As ever, if we are
willing to have a crack at it, our only recourse is to get stuck
in and do our own research.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that many conspiracy
theorists have some doubts about the leadership of the
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Some believe that
at least one of its leading scientific advisors, the physicist
Steven Jones, has promoted one particular theory of
explosive demolition (Military Grade Nano Thermite) as a
definitive 'answer.' This is not, they say, the purpose of an
organisation which merely seeks a more detailed
investigation. Controlled opposition is widely suspected.
152
A Dangerous Ideology
Leading the charge against silly conspiracy theorists is the
science and technology magazine 'Popular Mechanics.'[61]
They claim NIST, who are a non-regulatory agency within the
