Dear Skeptical but Not Quite There Yet

Dear Skeptical but Not Quite There Yet,

There is an important distinction to be made between the sources of information supporting the official 9/11 version of events. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a division of the Department of Commerce, did the main study for the official case (the NIST report) and it concluded that no pancaking occured. The pancake theory was first put forth by Thomas Eagar of MIT and even though the NIST report claims no pancaking occured, defenders of the official story still rely on it to explain away other evidence of explosive demolition like the jets of smoke that pop through the lower sections of the tower as they collapse (as a result of air compressed by the pancaking.) It is important to bear in mind the existence of the core structure in any interpretation of a collapse progression. We would not normally expect the type of collapse observed in the case of the three buildings on 9/11 because of the wat they were built. Before 9/11 set a precedent, it would not be expected that a jet flying into a building would make it collapse. The idea that a plane could damage the structure was understood. What would have been inconceivable would be the fact that they collapsed. We may, for instance have expected the top of the south tower to continue tipping and break off because of the direction it seemed to be falling at first. Instead the tower below seems to begin to collapse as well at which point the top has begun a tilted free fall--this would have surprised the construction manager for the towers, Frank DeMartini, who is on camera saying that he believed the towers would be able to withstand the impact of multiple jetliners, because, he said that would be like punching a pencil into steel netting-- (a screen door for example) pieces would break but the structure would redistribute the load. The damage from an incoming airplane may seem like a lot but relative to the undamaged areas of the entire building it would not have put much stress on those latticed core columns that rose like the trunk of a tree in the middle of each tower (the towers in fact resembled a biological structure (skin over flesh over bone) The planes exploded and were shredded upon impact with the perimeter columns that made up the buildings' skin The planes created a large fireball because most of the jet fuel immediately caught fire. But this was nothing the core columns couldn't handle. Basically the core columns were subjected to aluminum shrapnel, a couple of heavy engines like bullets and a flash fire that only got smaller and cooler as material burned off. It is hard to imagine that so many of the 47 columns could have been damaged as a result. The towers were observed in each case to tip ever so slightly and settle back into place exactly as designed to do (in wind, storms, etc.) They functioned perfectly and would have stood until the fires were extinguished and beyond if somehow the core columns had not failed.

How did they fail? Even though NIST does not accept pancaking floors, it must somehow explain the unexpected collapses, and does so by presupposing that the load of the upper floors in each tower was enough to lead to progressive collapse (what we all observed on 9/11) and what they then sought to provide was a plausible chain of events begiinning with the impact of each planes and ending at a point where a collapsed (undefined what type) might have initiated. They go through these contortions in order to imply without explicitly saying so, that their analysis suggests that the chain of events leading to the initiation of a collapse in their version is followed by the progressive collapse we observed. The sad fact is that their computer modelled only their interpretation of what may have happened to cause the tops to begin collapsing, and not what kind of collapse ensued in their model. If their model showed the collapse we observed, why not show us? Because it would never match what we observed, which had to involve core columns breaking at every floor.all the way down the undamaged rest of the towers.

The North Tower, by the way, is the one with the antenna, and yes, the antenna being seen to begin falling first is a sign of failure initiating in the core, which we do not dispute. NIST claims to have found no evidence of controlled demolition, but that doesn't mean they looked for any (this is legalese they're speaking) Instead they model on the computer a possible scenario to initiate a collapse that includes the antenna falling first. But again the question is could that have caused a progressive collapse, and if so why doesn't their model include the ensuing collapse so we can compare?

Given that eyewitnesses reported explosions, given the fact that three different buildings suffered the same kind of collapse for three different reasons and that until that day it had never before in history occured once, given the very explosive look of the collapses with material ejected outward not downward, I think we could ask for a better explanation than what has been provided, one that would at least *consider* the evidence for demolition with explosives. Absent the back story of the 19 muslim hijackers, the most likely scenario would be arson for the purpose of insurance fraud, and there would have been a prompt examination of the crime scene, not a quick secret clean-up by the mayor who has profited handsomely from it all.


Real Truther

Designing for plane impacts

Designing for plane impacts in major skyscrapers ought to have been standard since the Empire State Building collision in the 40's. I wonder if architects of the Sears Tower, Taipei 101, the Petronas Towers, etc. can comment?