Sunday, 21 August 2011

9/11 - Part 3: "The Twin Towers"

   It seems incredible to me that so many people still believe the ‘official’ story of 9/11. As a Truth Seeker that prefers evidence over guesswork, I am certain that the there is enough evidence (surrounding 9/11) to warrant much deeper scrutiny on everybody’s part. For anybody to dismiss the events of 2001 as “what we were told”, is naïve at best and ignorant at worst.

   Over the next few posts, I will attempt to compile some of the more compelling aspects that I think constitute a case against the ‘official’ story. There are numerous other aspects, but covering every tiny detail would take forever so I’ll try to stay as relevant as possible. If there is anything substantial that I miss and you feel it cannot be ignored, please feel free to point it out (in a constructive way of course!) in the comment box below each relative subject. I will be (initially, but not exclusively) covering WTC Building 7, Shanksville, The Pentagon and ‘The Planes‘.

   To begin with, though, I want to look at the destruction of The Twin Towers. There were some strange coincidences and events leading up to the events at WTC 1 & 2. A two week security alert was abruptly ended on September 6th, bullet-proof windows and fireproof doors had been recently installed in areas of the towers to secure against “aerial attack”, the roof was closed from September 10th onwards (with roof-exiting doors locked on 9/11, preventing a roof escape), Ben Fountain (financial analyst with the Fireman’s Fund) claimed that there were a number of unusual evacuations in the weeks leading to 9/11, Fiduciary Trust (in the South Tower) had scheduled an emergency drill for 9/11 and Scott Forbes, an IT employee at Fiduciary Trust, later recounted a “power down” on the 8th and 9th of September. This was to carry out “cable upgrading” and would have disabled locks, security cameras and electricity in general for, potentially, 36 hours. Some have suggested that these events would have presented the ‘opportunity’ to put in place any mechanism needed to bring about the ultimate building collapses. Whilst you could consider such matters commonplace in a complex like the World Trade Centre, it suggests the possibility of a ‘stage-setting’ for events to come… the collapse of The Twin Towers.

   The ‘official’ story claims that high-jacked airliners Flight 11 & Flight 175 hit the North and South Towers (respectively), at 8.46 & 9.03am. The impact destroyed the core supports and subsequent explosion of material and fuel sources created fires and heat, so intense, that fire insulation (how much existed in the first place is still debated to this day) was removed . The resulting weakening of the steel infrastructure lead to the collapses. Much of this conclusion (specifically structural damage) is speculative at best, given the lack of a detailed forensic investigation of the remaining materials and oversight / omission of key structural considerations during subsequent ’official’ reports. 

   If you look at the notion of impact (initially excluding heat and fire), it seems dumbfounding that the material nature of a Boeing airliner could have done so much damage to steel and concrete. Frank A. De Martini (Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management) began employment at the actual towers, following his work on the damage from the 1993 WTC bombing. He became construction manager and was “the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing” (NY Times - 12/01/01). He was killed on the 88 floor of the North Tower on 9/11. In a January 2001 documentary, he stated:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.”

   The argument concerning the extent of impact damage is even apocryphal if you look at positional impact of Flight 175 into WTC 2, near the corner of the tower. Through initial impact, WTC 2 should have suffered little core damage. Why then the collapse? Especially if you consider that building 2 (the South Tower) was hit after WTC 1 (the North Tower), yet collapsed first. 56 minutes in total. WTC 1 (with “more substantial core damage”) took 102 minutes to collapse! Even those that tow the party line have made statements that question the official story. MIT professor Thomas Eagar made this statement in “Without Precedent - The Inside Story O The 9/11 Commission” (a book by, bizarrely, official 9/11 Commission authors: Thomas Kean, Lee H Hamilton & Benjamin Rhodes): ”The number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns.” (Source: ‘The Truth Agenda’ by Andy Thomas)

   With this in mind, you therefore have to consider the level of damage inflicted by heat and fire. It has been established through structural documentation that the steel core columns in the towers, would have needed between 2500-3000 degrees Fahrenheit heat exposure before they were weakened enough for structural failure. It has also been established that Kerosene-based jet fuel fires can only reach temperatures (under optimal conditions) between 1700-2000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is claimed that the highest recorded temperatures in the South Tower were around 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. If you consider the inclusion of insulation and fire proofing, then core steel temperatures would have been substantially lower. Tests carried out by Underwriters Laboratories showed that, with insulation, steel temperatures would never have exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit. You do the math…

   Those who follow the ’official’ story claim that fuel from the (almost full) plane fuel tanks, snaked it’s way through shafts and stairwells like a river torrent… hence the extent and reach of the fire. A cursory glance at the ‘plane impact’ footage shows a huge fire ball. I doubt that much fuel would have survived very long after such an impact, in fact it was probably burnt off in the initial moments. Other footage seems to support the “lack of significant fire” theory. There is numerous evidential footage of people waving their arms, whilst standing in the gapping holes left in the side of the towers. Would people be able to physically stand and move, for such a period of time, if temperatures were so extreme. Footage also shows plumes of dark and black smoke. It is claimed that this generally an indication of “inefficient fires”, where there is not enough oxygen for the amount of fuel. They are typically cool fires, not hot flames like a blowtorch. These sort of fires would not have the potential to weaken steel. Also, structural documentation shows that the core was designed to prevent what is known as a “chimney effect”. There were apparently hermetic sealing procedures that would limit oxygen intake into the core. Even FEMA’s 9/11 report concluded that this sealing procedure worked normally on the day. If the ‘official’ story were true, it would be the first recorded occurrence of a high-rise, building collapse through structural fire in the history of engineering… fact.

   All of this is deduced on the consideration of the high jacked planes being the genuine articles. It boggles the mind if you consider the ramifications of use of alternative planes or methods. The truth community has raged with debate since that fateful day. Documentaries like “In Plane Sight” and “September Clues” have investigated possible use of dummy airliners, military hardware or even no planes. Researchers like Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson have investigated the possibility of exotic / energy weapon usage. (I will look into some of this in a separate post, shortly). The controlled demolition researchers point to numerous eyewitness testimony claims of squibs going off in the towers, several additional explosions (including the basements), pools of molten metal in the sub-levels, photographic suggestion of Thermite use to sheer the support columns and video footage of ground level smoke plumes before the collapse.

   I believe the debate is legitimate, in matters of answering the question of method, yet the act of dividing the truth seekers is harmful to the cause. Given that nearly all substantial debris was shipped over seas to Asia at an astonishingly rapid pace, I don’t believe we will ever truly establish method through forensic means. I know we need to find answers and ascertain method, but surely it is more important to focus on irrefutable evidence of an inside job… and there is one great big hulking piece with regard The Twin Towers.

   The collapse of the towers totally defies the laws of physics, if held to the official story. The buildings practically fell into their own footprint at a freefall speed of 8 -11 seconds (depending on which sources you use to time it, but nowhere does it exceed that time span). The Law of Freefall would have allowed you to drop a billiard ball from the top of the towers, to the ground (encountering no resistance) in exactly the same amount of time.

   The ‘official’ story has been revised several times to create the ‘pancake-effect’ theory and the ‘total global structural failure‘ theory. These theories have been mangled and revised so much by sceptics since the 9/11 report. The only thing you need to consider is this: Even if you gave each floor (below the impact points) half a second of floor collapse time and allow for the weight / mass of the upper floors to overcome the resistance of the lower floors, the absolute quickest time of collapse would be approximately 40 - 50 seconds.

   The laws of gravity alone should have halted the collapse to some degree, at some point. If the official story were true, there would have been higher protrusions of the core columns and huge chunks of debris spread over a much wider area. Instead, we have a pulverized concrete cloud that moved in a speed and manner similar to a volcanic eruption and steel core debris segments that were (mostly) no longer than 30 feet. There simply is no scenario that allows a for a building to collapse through pancake effect or global structural failure or any other way they want to call it, at freefall speed and in the manner witnessed... unless brought down by controlled demolition or exotic weapon.

   Here is the smoking gun of The Twin Towers 9/11 scenario.
Regardless of method, it is proof (if ever anybody needed one) that those in power and those that investigated 9/11; lied about the true nature of this scenario. It was, however, only the first piece of evidence in a long trail, left in the wake of 9/11...

To Be Continued…

No comments: