9-11/anomalies/collapse

Navigation

9/11: anomalies: collapse-related

Overview

Many of the objections to the official story of what happened on 9/11 center on the cause for the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. The objections can be summarized thusly:

• Airplane impact plus fire is an inadequate explanation for the collapses (especially WTC7)
• There is strong evidence that controlled demolition techniques were involved in all three collapses

inadequate explanation

It is often said that the 9/11 airplane impacts were so unusual, so unprecedented, that of course we should not be surprised if our pre-existing models break down. This claim basically dismisses the idea that rational investigation can be brought to bear; if our previous understanding was wrong, we need to understand how it was wrong so that we don't make the same mistakes again.

The major points:

• If the planes are to be held responsible for the collapses, they were acting solely through a combination of damage plus fire – not the initial fuel explosion, and not the force of the impact.
• The WTC buildings were specifically designed to withstand a jet impact.
• The steel used was rated to 2000°F for up to 6 hours; there is considerable evidence that the fires could not have burned anywhere near that hot, much less for 6 hours (WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed after 1h:41m:51s and 0h:55m:51s respectively; WTC7 is a special case)
• No structural steel building has ever, before or since 9/11, collapsed due to fire, despite many excellent opportunities.

evidence of controlled demolition

There is considerable evidence that controlled demolition was used on all three buildings:

• The explosive outward force of the twin tower collapses cannot be explained by the weight of the material above.
• "Squibs" are seen in multiple videos and photos
• Explosions (other than the impacts and collapses) were both reported and captured on audio recordings and seismographs.
  • This is not proof, of course; but if they weren't explosive charges, then some plausible alternate explanation needs to be found for each one.
• During at least one of the collapses, explosions are heard (and recorded) roughly in synch with the collapse of each floor
• Just as WTC1 begins to collapse, smoke is seen at the bottom of the tower (in one video; are there any others with a view of the bottom?)
• Molten steel (much too hot to be caused by oxygen fire) is seen pouring from one corner of WTC2 in the seconds before it began collapsing
• The chemical signature of thermite, which is often used in controlled demolition, was found on the collapsed steel
• The contents of the buildings were pulverized – normally you would find a few surviving artifacts

WTC7

• WTC7 did not suffer either airplane impact or severe fire. (We have not as yet uncovered any videos or photos of the back side of WTC7 before collapse, but none of the front-side videos show anything more than smoke rising from the back and a few isolated fires of normal intensity.)
• WTC7 collapsed about 8 hours after the impacts, so a sufficiently hot fire would have had time to melt steel – but this would have required it to be absolutely engulfed in extremely hot flames – which is not at all the case. Videos of WTC7's collapse show virtually no fire on one side, so any melting would have had to be on the back side – in which case it should have collapsed in that direction. WTC7 collapsed straight down.
• Unlike the explosive, top-down collapses of the twin towers, WTC7 collapsed from the bottom – a signature of a well-executed controlled demolition.
  • Perhaps there was somehow a very hot fire at the bottom levels, out of view of any of the recordings or photos. In this case, there should have been heavy smoke coming from all sides, and the collapse still would not have been as perfectly even and smooth as it was; more likely, the building would have tipped in one direction or the other as structural members on one side or the other gave way first. Symmetrical demolition is very difficult, and can only be done reliably by skilled experts.

More detailed arguments

• If the planes are to be held responsible for the collapses, they were acting solely through fire plus structural damage:
  • At the time of impact, there were three forces working towards destruction of the towers:
    • initial impact (the plane's inertia tending to push the building strongly in one direction)
    • the force of the explosion
    • structural damage from the impact and explosion
  • The first two forces were only in effect for a few seconds, so all that remained by the time of the collapse was structural damage.