Two long posts to represent the fallen Towers, WTC1 & WTC2. One shorter post to represent WTC7. Many of the surrounding buildings were damaged by the collapse of the Two Towers. The 22-story WTC3, which was adjacent to both was destroyed. Three nearby nine-story buildings, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 were all badly damaged.
Some find it odd that WTC7, which was the furthest, was seemingly not seriously damaged, but then fell on its own nearly seven hours later. As I wrote in the first post today, many of the conspiracy crazies focus on WTC7 as the actual primary target.
As if that made any sense at all. Destroying 316 stories worth of buildings (not to mention nearly 3000 Americans) to take out one office containing supposedly damaging documents? Seems like merely starting a weekend fire in an office a floor or two below would do the trick, if you wanted to not draw attention to the real target. It’s hard to imagine anyone coming up with such a plan. The phrase “utterly idiotic” comes to mind.
In this last post, I want to touch on some details.
Back when I made the mistake of trying to debate these nut jobs, one of the allegations was that firemen were heard to use the word, “pull,” with regard to WTC7. To them, “pull” is a term only used by demolition people to refer to deliberately taking down a building.
And the story varies. In one case, it was supposedly Mayor Guilliani who declares the building will be pulled. Another version has the building owner saying it.
This is utter nonsense. If anyone did use the term “pull” it was in reference to pulling the emergency workers from WTC7 once it was decided the building was a lost cause (about 2:30 PM). And consider the implication: that the mayor was in on the plot. Or maybe it was the firemen. Or the building’s owner.
A secret government plot that involves the building’s owner? Even involving the mayor of New York sounds kinda nuts for a secret plot. And the idea that any emergency worker was part of this is incredibly offensive.
Another allegation is that “explosions” were heard by people on the scene. This is despite any documented accounts of such. This is despite any explosions audible in the various recorded news and private video. This is despite seismic readings from nearby monitors that would have detected such explosions.
And this is despite NIST analysis that the required explosives would have generated pressure waves that would have blown out windows and would have created a sound level of 130dB to 140dB 1km from the site.
Given what was going on in the Towers once the planes hit, it’s not at all surprising there were loud noises. The buildings were in the process of becoming dangerous unbalanced.
WTC7 “Free Fall”
Another contention is that video shows the north face of WTC7 falling in “free fall.” It’s actually not quite free fall, but it is very fast.
The reason is that the interior of the building had already collapsed at that point. There are many signs on the video that this happened. For instance, seeing daylight through the top windows, because the roof and top floor had fallen down. At the point the north wall fell, it was free of the building and fell over on top of the already fallen debris. In post-event aerial photos, you can see the north wall laying atop the debris.
Built to withstand an airplane crash
There is also a contention that there must have been a demolition, because the designers certified the Towers to withstand impact by an aircraft.
In fact, they guessed. And they had a Boeing 707 in mind.
This was back in 1964 when the buildings were designed. Computer modeling was in its infancy at best. Further, NIST found no documentation on the methods used to determine the result of impact by a (much smaller) aircraft.
Tiny balls of metal
A last contention is that microscopic balls of melted metal indicate energies far in excess of the fires that burned. Assuming such metal spheres exist (they were supposedly found in dust blocks away), they would have to indicate something with an incredible amount of energy; supposedly explosives.
Or, say, perhaps the energy of thousands upon thousands of tons of collapsing building? I lack the engineering skills to calculate the energy released, but I have little doubt it amounts to many tons of dynamite. The Hiroshima bomb, which took out an entire city, was a mere 16 kilotons. The kinetic energy of so much mass falling that far surely amounts to some serious tonnage.
Finally, keep in mind, that the Hudson building, at 26 stories, was the largest building ever demolished. To believe in the conspiracy, you need not only to accept the formidable (I would say impossible) logistics involved, but also that the planners were capable of planning a successful demolition 10 times larger than any done in history. And doing it completely, utterly covertly such that eleven years later, not one shred of evidence exists.
Bat-shit fucking crazy doesn’t even begin to describe these nut jobs.
They are an offense to the people who died that day—especially the courageous emergency workers, who ran into, rather than away from, extreme hazard—and an offense to the human race.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Excellent and thorough posts. Thank you for going into such detail!
September 11th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Thank you! I (not unsurprisingly) made no headway with the crazies back in the day, but at least now I can put to use all those hours of research.
September 11th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Absolutely remarkable—all 3 posts! Clear and concise (as concise as dense information can be) with obvious hours of dedication to research, of thought and to rationality. I’m blown away—thank you for sharing!
September 11th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Well, thank you very much! It was eight years before I’d first encountered the crazies, so I looked into the matter to see if they had a point. Found out they absolutely don’t, but it took those hours of research to know for sure. After that, the online discussions got a bit heated… 🙄
September 11th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
No doubt…even with some of my posts, which I felt were rather innocuous, some liked to challenge my thinking and reasoning. It’s all good when one does his/her homework, but as soon as emotion takes over, I can only imagine what you must’ve gone through, but you’re a survivor I can tell.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Heh; in this case “online warrior” is probably the apt term. Back in the days of USENET, there were “news groups,” a kind of off-line chat system divided into tens of thousands of areas of interest. Posts were like emails (all text-based), and any given post could have a “tree” of threads descending from it. This is unlike the blogging model of post and comments or the micro-blog models, such as Facebore, that are based solely on comments. There was a kind of parity, and posts were usually much longer. Almost as if we were writing blog articles at each other.
Debates could go on for months (or longer). And many of us who spent considerable time in groups we cared about did battle against Trolls and Idiots. Many of us had the ethic that public nonsense and falsehoods need to be debunked publicly. If someone put out crap, there needed to be counter-crap to balance it.
Times have changed, and now there’s so much crap that no one can really fight it, which in some ways is very sad for our society. I hung up my Troll-fighting sword and armor a long time ago, but every once in a while it’s fun to gear up and fight a bit of nonsense. These three posts are an echo of those days.
March 16th, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Interesting post. However, this post needs a tremendous amount of revision. Firstly, if Larry Silverstein was speaking of “pulling” the emergency workers, I so not believe he would have referred to them as an “it”. Second, Silverstein himself said directly after he gave that command that they watched the building fall (don’t take my word for it watch the video yourself). Therefore I am pretty sure he was referring to the building. Third if what the NIST, Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 Commission gave us an explanation that actually made sense, then there would not be more than 1500 architects, engineers, and demolition experts demanding the truth about these buildings. President Obama himself spoke of how scientific research has been tampered with. He said, “We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined, and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.” What do you think he was talking about? Furthermore, it is actually an insult to the people who lost their life that day and to their families to be lied to about the underlying cause of their death. I am not here to support anyones conspiracy theory because a lot of them are not logical at all. What I do know, however, is that the official story and what I SEE are two completely different things. THAT is what proves to me that I am being lied to, which raises questions about what the hell else we are be lied to about?!
PS. I would be surprised if this reply actually made it to your comment board. Lol 😉
March 16th, 2015 at 4:41 pm
I’ll allow this input, but I’m not interested in a lot of back and forth on it. I would just ask you to consider some inarguable and obvious facts:
There are some other facts to consider:
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone, this many years later, could still believe that 9/11 was anything other than exactly what it appeared to be. We know about the conspirators and their plans. We have phone calls from people who were in the planes, so we know the hijackings were real. We have fairly simple explanations of how the Towers fell and why they fell the way they did.
If you have any feel at all for the planning, logistics, and material, on that count alone, the idea of deliberate demolition is utterly ridiculous. You really don’t need to consider anything else.
If despite all this you still believe in a conspiracy, there just isn’t much else to say.
March 3rd, 2023 at 4:11 pm
[…] Another nasty example of people believing utter bullshit is the belief that 9/11 was some sort of inside job or “false flag” operation. It’s nasty because it’s a lie and because it dishonors those who died on that day. Long ago I made the mistake of getting into an online argument with some of those folks. Bonhoeffer was right, there’s just no talking to stupid. It’s a lost cause. Yet any logical analysis based on physical reality pretty clearly demolishes the belief. (See these … three … posts.) […]