|
by Serendipity.com
Table of Contents:
"Why of course the people don't
want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or
a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi
leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
1. Introduction
On September 11, 2001, the 28th
anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile (and the 2nd
anniversary of the coming into effect of a peace treaty known as WYE II,
signed on September 4th, 1999, at Sharm-el-Sheik by PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Baruk, to come into effect one week
later), terrorists (but not Arab terrorists) took control of four planes
and (according to the official story) crashed two of them into the World
Trade Center towers, causing fires within. Again according to the official
story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media
immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged
culprit) the fires then caused the steel girders to melt and the towers to
collapse.
But, as will be shown below, the
Twin Towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires.
The most likely explanation is that explosives were placed besides their
structural supports at numerous levels in the towers, explosives which
were detonated 56 and 104 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the
towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American
citizens and others.
The Twin Towers were designed to
survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which in weight, size and speed is
similar to a Boeing 767 (the kind of jet which hit the South Tower). Had
one of the towers collapsed, that would have been amazing. That both of
them collapsed, quickly, neatly and symmetrically (without falling over
onto the surrounding buildings in Manhattan's financial district),
collapsed completely into fragments, ash and huge clouds of dust — with no
remains of their central massive vertical steel columns left standing —
solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon
examination, unbelievable, despite what the so-called "experts" say.
Due to the astuteness of some
Americans, who thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the
events of September 11th, the official story quickly began to unravel. The
big lie has been revealed for what it is (but word of this has not yet
reached most people). And the reason for it. If you don't already know,
this page will inform you as to what really happened and what's really
going on. As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say
'Know'.
2. The Official Story: The Twin
Towers
The official story is:
1. On the morning of September 11th
four Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab
terrorists armed with boxcutters.
2. Pilots among these terrorists
took control of the Boeings and changed course toward targets in New York
City and Washington D.C.
3. Two of the Boeings were
deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers, causing raging fires within
which melted the steel supporting structures, thereby causing the
buildings to collapse completely.
4. A third Boeing was deliberately
crashed into the Pentagon.
5. Passengers on the fourth plane
overpowered the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
6. This was an attack on America
and it was planned and directed by Usama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qa'idah,
a previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization
composed mainly of Arabs.
This cries out for further
explanations, but the official story provides almost nothing more. We are
simply expected to believe it without question.
A nation (and world) in shock
largely accepted this story, since it did appear to provide some
explanation. Even those who considered this explanation hard to believe
were inclined to believe it because on September 11th there seemed no
other explanation — and the President of the United States and all
mainstream news sources in the U.S. were telling the world that this is
how it was.
But the official story does not
withstand critical examination. It is, in fact, full of holes. It's not
just full of holes, it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool the American
people and the rest of the world.
According to the official story the
four jetliners were hijacked by nineteen Arab terrorists. It is certainly
possible to find Arabs who are willing to die for their cause (freedom of
their people from ongoing American interference and domination and brutal
Israeli aggression) — although finding nineteen of them for a single
mission could be difficult — but where do you find such Arabs who also
know how to fly Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s? (None of the alleged Arab
hijackers had ever worked as professional pilots.) At least four highly
trained pilots are needed. Alleged hijacker-pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwanal
Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour had received pilot training (courtesy of the
CIA?) but were considered by their flying instructors to be incompetent to
fly even light single-engined planes.
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight
instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the
air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times
beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the
airport. ... Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times
in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo ... — The Prince
George's Journal (Maryland), 2001-09-18, as quoted in Operation 911: NO
SUICIDE PILOTS
The official story expects us to
believe that these alleged nineteen on-board hijackers (acting with
military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants
(with nothing more than boxcutters and shouted commands), forced their way
into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation
of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them, some
ex-military, could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with
boxcutters), took command of the planes, having acquired the necessary
flying skills from training courses and flight manuals, flew them expertly
to their targets (good navigators, those Arabs; and flying with the skill
of a trained military pilot in the case of the jet which, allegedly, hit
the Pentagon), met absolutely no opposition from the U.S. authorities
(including the U.S. Air Force) responsible for safeguarding America's
airspace (despite the fact that the Pentagon jet was in the air for nearly
an hour after the first impact), hit those targets and killed themselves.
Sure. And pigs can fly. — Anyone who would believe this story (after
thinking about it) obviously has nothing between their ears.
Clearly the towers did not collapse
because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90
minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the
mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel
caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. Let us examine this
hypothesis as to its credibility.
Much (perhaps, in the case of the
second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed
immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers.
Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most
of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten
minutes.
The Twin Towers were giving off a
lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt
steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene
torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a
building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just
won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced
the implosive collapse observed? If the columns had melted it is unlikely
that the resulting structural weakness would be completely symmetrical (as
required when a building collapses upon itself in a controlled
demolition). Irregularity in an uncontrolled collapse would have produced
the kind of collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained
down over a wide area (causing huge damage to the surrounding buildings in
lower Manhattan and many fatalities among their occupants). This did not
happen. These considerations (and others, given below, concerning the
probable maximum temperature of the fire) show that the claim that
thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and
caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not
account for the collapse of the towers.
Examination of the times of the
events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the
fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse. The North Tower was hit
first, at 8:45 a.m. The plane (or some object, not necessarily a large
passenger jet) hit the tower directly, in the center, and a huge explosion
immediately followed the impact. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was
hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit;
rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and
comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being
consumed in the fireball.
Since the plane and its fuel
initially shared a common trajectory, after impact the metallic components
of the plane followed much the same path as the jet fuel. This path was
through one corner of the South Tower. The steel beams bearing most of the
load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal
from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would
thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.
Thus neither the plane impact nor
the fire damaged the South Tower sufficiently to account for its collapse,
so the South Tower collapsed from some other cause.
The fire in the South Tower was
thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower
collapsed first, at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North
Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the
fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more
intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the
fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the
North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed
after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.
A convincing case (with numerous
web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not
collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an
amazing discovery, really. ... Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches,
bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and
other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet
fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
... heating steel is like pouring
syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to
warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting
constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C
as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000
tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated
molten — on one plane load of jet fuel? ... — Muslims Suspend Laws of
Physics! Part I
In a sequel to this article J.
McMichael writes:
... the maximum temperature in the
unprotected steel supports in those test fires [in the U.K., Japan, the
U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from
the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
... I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure
sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. — Muslims Suspend Laws
of Physics! Part II
In fact all of the so-called
experts who claim to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result
of the plane impacts and the fires are merely guessing, due mainly to the
destruction of the evidence, and are simply offering reasons (insufficient
as they are) to believe the official story (as many people want to do).
For some examples of these so-called experts' ignorance of what they are
talking about, as well as a lack of consensus in their "explanations", see
Eric Hufschmid's When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert.
The "official report" on the
collapse of the Twin Towers was released in mid-2002 by a group conducting
its "inquiry" under the direction of FEMA. This report is convincing only
to those who wish to believe what it says, but is quite unconvincing to
anyone who reads it critically. Chapter 2 of this report, along with
reasoned objections, is available at The WTC Report: WTC 1 and WTC 2:
... it is well known that the
maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric
hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is
825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ... [The] WTC fires were
fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) and thus did not reach
anywhere near this upper limit of 825 degrees. In fact, the WTC fires
would have burnt at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires.
The official story has it that the
towers collapsed because (a) the only connection between the outer
perimeter wall and the central core were flimsy lightweight trusses, (b)
the plane impact weakened these trusses and the heat of the fires caused
them to buckle until (c) the trusses at the impact floors gave way and (d)
the floors above lost their support and fell upon the lower floors causing
all floors to pancake.
That this "truss theory" is false
has been demonstrated in The World Trade Center Demolition.
Firstly, there must have been
strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that
the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If
this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move
several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved,
so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must
have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the
central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered
catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.
Secondly, the assumption that there
were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the
central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers
which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their
construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the
assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders
connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.
Thirdly, there is photographic
evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams.
This truss theory is a fabrication
which has been spread about to give an appearance of plausibility to the
official story as to how the towers collapsed. There have even been a
couple of made-for-TV "documentaries", complete with "experts", promoting
the truss theory, and suggesting that, because of the trusses, the design
of the Twin Towers was fatally flawed, and that the trusses were not
properly fire-proofed. The refutation of the truss theory is a refutation
of the official "explanation" as to "how the towers fell".
Another problem with the official
story is the fact that both the Twin Towers collapsed evenly and smoothly.
If the fire melted the floor joints
so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors
would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns.
This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would
topple over ... How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared
instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of
concrete and steel? ...
When the platters [the floors]
fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the
ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported
in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the
ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like
giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing
those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard
of damage caused by them. — Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
Whatever damage the fires did would
not have been evenly distributed (especially in the case of the South
Tower, where the jet struck a corner of the building). If the collapse was
due to the fires then it too would be irregular, with parts of the Twin
Towers remaining intact and connected while other parts fell. But both
towers collapsed completely symmetrically, with the floors pancaking upon
themselves, exactly as we have seen in other cases of controlled
demolition of tall buildings.
It is interesting to note that the
contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene — to cart
away the rubble that remains — is the same contractor who demolished and
hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The
name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! — The Blockbuster
Could there be more of a connection
between these two building collapses than the identity of the contractor
who supervised the removal of the debris?
Go to Next Page |