Eric Hufschmidt, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (self-published by Eric Hufschmidt, 2002, ISBN 1-931947-05-8, printed in the USA, Endpoint Software, Goleta, CA). This book and video are of the "Blame the British" kind, pointing the finger at Bush, Cheney, and CIA & Pentagon leaders, but never mentioning possible Mossad involvement. Important nonetheless. Copies of the book & video are available at http://www.erichufschmid.net {p. 31} Despite the loss of fuel in fireballs, and despite any fuel lost down elevator shafts and stairways, an enormous amount of fuel remained inside the North Tower. This would create a fire much more severe than an office building normally experiences. Not surprisingly, photos of the North tower show fires and large quantities of smoke on several floors (Figure 4-8 is one example). People above the fire zone were jumping out of windows because the smoke was so thick and the fire so extensive that they could not use the stairways to get below the fire zone or up to the roof. It would appear as if the fires in the North Tower could support the theory that the fire damaged the structure of the tower, thereby contributing to or causing its collapse. However, the situation with the South Tower was significantly different. Even if most of the fuel remained inside the South Tower, as the FEMA report suggests, photographs show that the fire never spread beyond a small section of the crash zone. The fires remained on one side of the tower, and only on a few floors. Compared to the fires in the North Tower, these were small fires. Rather than jump out of the windows, some of the people in the South Tower who were above the fire walked down the stairs. The fire was not their problem; rather, smoke and darkness was their problem . The Raging Fires Most experts believe fire caused both towers to collapse, but the fire in the South Tower does not appear to be any worse than hundreds of other fires in office buildings. Could such a small fire cause the South Tower to collapse when so many other office buildings survived fires that spanned more floors and which burned for a longer period of time? Or was the fire worse than it appears from the outside? The North Tower fires were severe, but were they severe enough to destroy the tower? {p. 32} The fires could melt aluminum? Aluminum melts at 660°C. If FEMA's temperature estimates are correct, the interiors of the towers were furnaces capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery; they were not ordinary office fires. From the FEMA report: The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000°C (1, 800°F), with an estimated confidence of plus or minus 100°C (200°F) or about 900-1,100°C (1, 600-2, 000°F). Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,1 00°C (1, 700- 2, 000°F) in some areas and 400-800°C (800-1,500°F) in others. Did the fires produce enough heat? While the experts may be correct that the fire reached 1,100°C, a fire will not damage a building unless it can produce enough heat. Consider the difference between an {p. 33} electric toaster and an electric light bulb to understand the difference between heat and temperature. Both devices send electricity through a metal filament in order to raise the temperature of that filament. The difference between them is that a lightbulb produces an extremely high temperature, whereas a toaster produces a lot of heat. It is possible for a lightbulb to produce as much heat as a toaster if the lightbulb is very large or if 50 light bulbs are turned on at the same time. This shows that the quantity of heat can be increased simply by adding more sources of the heat. However, the temperature cannot be increased simply by adding more sources of the temperature. For example, a very large toaster will not produce the same high temperature as a lightbulb, nor will turning 50 toasters on at the same time produce the same high temperature as one tiny lightbulb. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center was due to the chemical process involved in the oxidation of hydrogen and carbon. That chemical process occurs at a certain temperature regardless of how much fuel is burning. Increasing the quantity of fuel will not increase the temperature of that chemical process; rather, it will only increase the amount of heat that is being created. The only thing that affects the temperature of a fire is the material that is burning. For example, carbon produces a higher temperature than hydrogen. The experts claim the fire raised the temperature of the steel to 340°C or higher. While the burning of hydrogen and carbon will produce temperatures that high, raising the temperature of dozens of massive steel beams to 340°C requires a lot of heat be produced for a long period of time. Consider a lightbulb to understand this concept. A lightbulb produces temperatures that are beyond the melting point of steel, but none of the steel beams melted when employees inside the World Trade Center turned on light bulbs. The reason is that a lightbulb does not produce much heat. A lightbulb does not even produce enough heat to melt itself. On the morning of September 11th employees in the North Tower turned on hundreds of light bulbs on almost every floor. The filaments and plasmas in those bulbs produced temperatures of thousands of degrees, just as if they were tiny, extremely high-temperature fires. Those bulbs caused the temperature inside the tower to increase, exactly as fires raise the temperature. However, none of the steel inside the tower became weak from those high-temperature bulbs. The reason is that the bulbs did not produce enough heat. The burning of jet fuel, office furniture, and carpeting will produce flames that have a temperature above 340°C. However, the temperature of the flames is irrelevant. The plasma in a fluorescent bulb is at a temperature beyond the melting point of every object in the universe, but none of that plasma has vaporized any of us yet. Likewise, the temperature of the flames in the World Trade Center meaningless. The important issues are: 1 ) How much heat was generated. 2) For how long of a period of time was the heat in contact with the steel. The burning of one office desk would not have damaged the structure of the North Tower. The tower was so massive that the burning of two office desks would not be able to weaken its structure, either, even if some carpeting and paper was also burned. In order for the steel structure to become 340°C, the fire would have to produce thousands of times as much heat as all the light bulbs, computer monitors, coffee makers, and microwave ovens that were turned on each day. Another way to look at this issue is to consider that the burning of an office desk is equivalent to turning on a certain number of coffee machines or light bulbs. For example, the burning of a typical desk may be equivalent to turning on 60 computers for one hour. This makes it easy to realize that a lot more than one office desk must burn in order for a fire to damage a steel building. The burning of jet fuel is equivalent to brewing pots of coffee. A possible reason some people are confused by these issues is that they assume a fire that is dangerous to people is also damaging to steel. The people who jumped out of the North Tower created the illusion that the fire was extreme, but people can be devastated by the smoke from a tiny fire of burning plastic, and temperatures of boiling water kill us quickly. However, an office fire would have to be phenomenal to damage thick steel beams. Did the fires have enough time? Let's assume there was enough jet fuel to completely melt the entire tower. Unfortunately, heat will not affect an object unless it is applied for a certain amount of time. You can see this effect if you have a stove that burns gas. The flames in a stove are much hotter than the fires of the North Tower because a stove mixes the fuel and air in perfect proportions, but you can safely pass your fingers through those hot flames if you move them quickly. A lot of jet fuel was mixed with air when the planes crashed into the towers, and an enormous amount of heat was generated when it burned. However, that jet fuel burned so rapidly that it was just a momentary blast of hot air. The blast would have set fire to flammable objects, killed people, and broken windows, but it could not have raised the temperature of a massive steel structure by a significant amount. A fire will not affect steel unless the steel is exposed to it for a long enough period of time for the heat to penetrate. The more massive the steel beams are, the more time that is needed. {p. 37} FEMA's estimate of 1,000°C at the ceiling may be correct for the first few seconds when the jet fuel ignited, but there is {p. 38} no evidence that such high temperatures persisted for any significant period of time. There is not even any evidence to support the estimates of 600°C. The Exterior Columns remained cool A significant amount of the strength in the towers came from the exterior columns. Considering that only one of their four sides was in contact with the inside of the tower, and considering that the fires near the windows were small, it is unlikely that the exterior columns could have reached a high temperature. This means that the exterior columns would have retained their strength throughout the fire. This in turn means the breaking of the exterior columns cannot be blamed on the fire. The South Tower fires seem insignificant Photos of the South Tower show fires that are much less intense than those of the North Tower. Despite this, FEMA suggests the possibility that something melted: This videotape suggests that, in the minutes immediately preceding the collapse, the most intense fires occurred along the north face of the building, near the 80th floor level. Just prior to the collapse, a stream of molten material - possibly aluminium from the airliner - was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner at approximately this level. The video that FEMA refers to was taken at the offices of Skidmore, Owings Merrill LLP (SOM) at 14 Wall Street, which is just a few blocks away from the South Tower. FEMA was allowed to view this video, but when I sent an e-mail request to SOM to buy a copy of the tape, the curt response was: We need to know for what is it going to be used. I never heard from them again. Why the secrecy for a video that supports our government's theory that a fire caused the collapse? FEMA says the molten material came out of the northeast corner of the tower. As Figure 4-5 shows, the airplane swept a lot debris to the northeast corner, including lots of airplane pieces. There would be plenty of aluminum in the area to melt, but I do not see any evidence in the photos of a fire capable of melting visible quantities of aluminum. However, there would be more than 2,300 kilograms of human body parts in that corner from both the airline passengers and the office workers. Their body fluids and fat could explain FEMA's "stream of molten material," and it would explain why the video is a secret. Why didn't fires spread in the South Tower? In order for the fires in the South Tower to heat the core columns to a significant temperature, a lot of hot gas from the fire had to travel along the ceiling to the core columns. Since the columns were thick, the flow of hot gas would have to continue for some period of time. However, a large flow of hot gas would set fire to everything flammable in the ceiling (such as the plastic of electrical wires, lights, and cables). The hot gas would eventually set fire to papers and other objects that were near the ceiling, and later it would set fire to items lower to the floor, such as the plastic in computers monitors (Figure 4-11). Photographs of the South Tower should show the fire spreading throughout the area as time passed. However, photos show the spectacular flames vanished quickly, and then the fire remained restricted to one area of the tower. Rather than spreading throughout the area, the fires slowly diminished. How could a fire produce such incredible quantities of heat that it could destroy a steel building, while at the same time it is incapable of spreading beyond its initial starting location? The photos show that not even one floor in the South Tower was above the ignition temperature of plastic and paper! Why didn't the windows around the crash zone break from this incredible fire? The photos show the fire was not even powerful enough to crack glass! Why do photos show only sooty smoke and black holes, such as Figure 4-12? Why is there no evidence of an intense fire in any photograph? How can anybody claim the fires were the reason the South Tower collapsed when the fires appear so small? Fire has never caused a collapse The fire in the office building at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia in 1991 was so intense that it damaged the structure of the building. As FEMA's 1991 report describes it: After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted some as much as three feet under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage. {p. 39} The Meridian Plaza fire was extreme, but it did not cause the building to collapse. The fire in the South Tower seems insignificant by comparison to both the Meridian Plaza fire and the fire in the North Tower. How could the tiny fire in the South Tower cause the entire structure to shatter into dust after 56 minutes while much more extreme fires did not cause the Meridian Plaza building to even crack into two pieces? And why did the North Tower handle a larger fire for twice as long? There is no support for the "Hot Fire Theory" The most popular theory is that fire destroyed the towers by weakening the steel with high temperatures. The point of this chapter is that the fires seem too insignificant to support such a theory. Many people believe the fire destroyed the towers when the naked steel beams were exposed directly to intensely hot flames. First, the columns were not naked. Rather, most of them were protected against such small, short duration fires. Figure 4-5 shows that flying debris in the South Tower may have destroyed some of the fireproofing around some core {p. 40} columns, but most columns certainly retained all of their fireproofing. Therefore, only a few core columns are likely to have become warm from a 56 minute fire. Second, the fires were not producing much heat. Even if every core column had been stripped of its fireproofing, massive steel columns will not reach high temperatures in only 56 minutes from fires that are incapable of spreading to other flammable office furnishings. If the fires were capable of raising steel beams to a high temperature, the fires would have also raised the computers, wooden desks, and other flammable materials to high temperatures, which would have caused fires to spread throughout the floor. The sooty smoke and the black holes in the towers cannot be dismissed as interesting aspects of the fires, nor as problems with the photography. Rather, they are signs that the air flow was so restricted that the only significant fires were near broken windows. The fires in both towers were probably coating the columns with soot rather than heating the columns to a high temperature. It does not appear that the fire in either tower was capable of raising the temperature of the core or exterior columns to a high enough temperature to cause the steel to lose strength. The flames are nearly invisible even when a photo is brightened (Figure 4-13). Damage from thermal expansion is possible Thermal expansion is a serious problem for many products. Bridges, sidewalks, and buildings are designed to cope with it, but only to a certain extent. If some steel beams in the towers increased to 90 or 140°C they would not have lost any strength, but they would have expanded, which would cause them to push against other beams. If they expanded more than the structure was capable of dealing with, then the fire would have damaged the structure. Thermal expansion can cause a structure to break into pieces but, as the next chapter shows, the towers shattered into dust rather than cracking into pieces. Therefore, the Collapse by Thermal Expansion theory seems unlikely. {p.  62} Fires break out in Building 7 CNN and other news agencies have a time line of events on September 11, and they report Building 7 on fire at 4:10 PM, but FEMA and some newspaper reports claim fires burned for 7 hours, and one report claims 8 hours. Since everybody agrees that Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM, if the fires burned for 7 hours, that means the fire started about 10:30 in the morning. The North Tower collapsed at 10:29, so this implies the collapse of the North Tower caused fires to break out in Building 7. The FEMA report contains photographs of Building 7 that were taken shortly after the collapse of the North Tower, and the photographs show a small amount of damage to the exterior of Building 7 as a result of flying debris. However, FEMA has no idea how this small amount of damage started fires inside the building. There were other buildings near the North and South Towers that were also damaged by debris, but they did not suffer catastrophic fires or collapses. Why would Building 7 be any different What was burning in Building 7? Did the diesel fuel inside Building 7 have anything to do with the fires? There is so much secrecy about Building 7 that you may not be surprised to learn that nobody has an explanation for what was burning. Some people suspect the diesel fuel was burning, but nobody can explain how the fuel caught on fire. The FEMA report even admits in several places that they have no idea what happened: The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Their remark that the fires and collapse is "unknown at this time " implies that at some later time they may figure it out. However, by the time they published their report, all the rubble for Building 7 was gone. Therefore, they knew there was no possible way they could analyze the rubble and explain what caused the building to collapse. ... The FEMA report avoids mentioning that all of the rubble was destroyed. Instead, they create the impression that they are still investigating, and that a future report will fill in the missing details. ... Some people assume that the diesel fuel inside this building caught on fire. The FEMA report mentions that about 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel was recovered after the collapse because several tanks survived intact and still contained their fuel. However, thousands of gallons were missing, so a lot of fuel may have burned. But how did the diesel fuel catch on fire? The tanks were surrounded by fireproof endosures, and the pipelines were protected by a double-wall steel pipe. If the fireproofing and the double- wall pipe protected the diesel fuel, that means the fire started in something else. Was there other flammable material in that building that nobody wants to admit to? The nearly invisible fires in Building 7 Figure 5-30 shows the rear of Building 7. The front of Building 7 (where the main entrance was located) faced the North Tower. The North Tower would be directly on the other side of the building in this photograph (also in photos Figures 5-31 to 5-33). The front of Building 7 has some broken windows and other minor damage from falling debris, but the sides and rear of the building have no damage and only a few fires. Every photo taken of Building 7 shows only a few tiny fires in only a few windows. The fires appear so insignificant that I would expect the sprinkler system to put them out. Since these fires were burning all afternoon, the sprinkler system had plenty of time to spray water on them. Was the sprinkler system defective? Of course, if diesel fuel was burning, the sprinkler system would not be able extinguish the fires. Or, if they were magnesium fires, or fires from an experimental weapon system, the sprinkler system would not do much good, either. The firemen also had many hours to extinguish these fires, so why didn't they? Since hundreds of firemen were killed when the towers collapsed, it is possible that there were not enough firemen remaining to deal with Building 7. Or perhaps the firemen - who had complained about the dangers of Building 7 - were afraid to go into that building because of the giant transformers, 13,300 volts, and tanks of diesel fuel. {p. 64} Building 7 collapses At 5:20 in the evening the building suddenly collapsed. Figures 5-31 to 5-33 show how the collapse occurred. Building 7 collapsed in a different manner than the towers. The towers shattered into huge clouds of powder starting near the crash zone and working downward to the ground, causing the towers to resemble fireworks. But Building 7 collapsed at its bottom, causing it to resemble the typical demolition of an old building. While a lot of the concrete in Building 7 turned to powder, this building did not break down as thoroughly as the towers. Figure 5-34 is the portion of the photo taken by NOAA on September 23 that shows the rubble of Building 7. This building was reduced to a tiny pile of rubble, although large pieces of the exterior survived. Those large sections fell on top the rubble in the manner seen in the photo; i.e., the cleanup crews did not put them into those positions. When Building 7 collapsed, the interior fell first, and that caused the outside of the building to move inward, as if the insides were being sucked out. The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile. This is how conventional demolitions operate. Underneath the pile of rubble are ten giant transformers. If it were not for those transformers, the pile would be even lower to the ground. Incidently, the electrical power substations are going to be rebuilt in the same location, and a new building will be put over them, creating the same situation as before. However, reports have not yet specified whether this new building will also contain 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel and the CIA. Incredible fires should be visible The fire in Building 7 was supposedly so extreme that it caused a steel building to crumble. However, all photos show only a few tiny fires in only a few windows, and only tiny amounts of smoke were produced. I would think that a fire of the magnitude necessary to collapse a steel building would have set fire to a lot of the office furniture, carpeting, and other flammable objects. This in turn would have caused a lot of flames to be visible in a lot of windows. Also, such a large fire would produce a lot of smoke. I also suspect that such a large fire would have caused many windows to shatter. How could an incredible fire burn in the building without any photos showing evidence of large flames or tremendous plumes of smoke? Compare the fires in Building 7 to the fires in Buildings 4, 5, or 6 (Figure 6-2). The fires in Building 7 were so small that you could safely roast marshmallows over them. Apparently, the smaller the fire, the more destructive it is! Somebody knew Building 7 would collapse Tom Franklin, the photographer who took the famous "Iwo Jima flag raising" photo on September 11th, was near Building 7 at about 4 PM. In his description of how that photograph came about, he makes an interesting remark about Building 7: "Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. We were catching our breath, drinking water and juice, when I decided to walk back toward the debris. It was between 4 and 5 p.m. I would say I was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag. " Franklin's remarks shows that somebody told the firemen by about 4 to 5pm to stay away from Building 7 because it was going to collapse. Franklin obeyed and walked away from the area, but he did not bother to take photos of the raging fires. How could he walk away from a 47-story building that was engulfed in flames and about to collapse on him without taking a few photos? He should have been able to feel the heat on his head. How could he ignore the first fire ever to destroy a steel building? Or did Franklin look at Building 7 but not see any flames? Several people took photos of the side and rear of the building because they saw a few flames, but apparently nobody took a photo of the front of the building. I suppose there was not even one flame on the front side. More interesting, what evidence could anybody have that Building 7 would collapse? Considering that no fire had ever caused the collapse of a steel building before, why would anybody believe Building 7 would crumble from a few tiny fires? Who were those people who told the firemen to stay away? New business opportunity: Fire Demolitions, Inc. If our government and university professors are correct that a fire can cause a building to collapse in the exact same manner as a demolition company destroys buildings with explosives, then I would like to start a new business: the Fire Demolition Company, Inc. This company will demolish buildings by setting a few small fires inside, rather than by installing hundreds of packages of explosives. A demolition by fire will be significantly less expensive than a demolition by explosives. It is also quicker. For example, Fire Demolition Inc., can take down a 110 story building in 56 minutes simply by setting a few small fires on a few floors. By comparison, a conventional demolition company would spend days just wiring the building with explosives. {p. 73} Can Explosives Explain It How could the towers disintegrate so easily? For 30 years the steel framework of the towers survived winds that put a lot of stress on the structure. According to the engineering sites that describe these towers, the shaking and stress from a severe winter storm was more intense and of a much longer duration than the stress produced by the airplane crashes. If those engineers are correct, the towers were not flimsy, and the design limits of the towers were not exceeded by the airplane crashes. That would explain why both towers survived the airplane crashes; the airplanes did nothing more than shake the towers for a brief moment. As Chapter 4 explained, the fires did not seem severe enough to explain the disintegration of the buildings. So if not the fires or the airplane crashes, what would cause the towers to shatter? FEMA and other "experts" promote the theory that the floors fell down like pancakes, but none of the floors simply "fell down." Hundreds of corrugated steel pans were shredded during the collapse of the towers, and thousands of steel beams were broken at their joints. What can cause such total destruction of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel assemblies and concrete? The concrete turned to powder in the air When the upper portion of the North Tower fell down onto the base (Figure 5-21) it fell a distance of only one or two floors. It would not be travelling very fast when it hit the base. I can understand that it might crack the floors, bend some steel beams, and even bust a few holes in the flooring, but how could it shatter into dust after falling such a short distance? And how could it start a reaction in which the entire tower shatters? And how could the powder be ejected with such a high velocity that the clouds reached perhaps 200 to 400 feet wide? Throwing dust any significant distance requires a lot of energy. (Figure 5-29 shows the tower throwing streams of dust an enormous distance.) How could the towers disintegrate in 8 seconds? There were thousands of massive steel beams in the towers, and they hit the ground at a high velocity. This created shocks that seismic stations picked up. According to the Columbia University Seismology Group, the North Tower created a shock of magnitude 2.3 (Figure 7-1), while the South Tower created a shock of 2.1. Their report also shows that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds and the North Tower collapsed in 8 seconds. Video images also show the towers collapsing within 8 to 10 seconds, verifying the seismic data. Figure 7-1 shows the shocks increased during the first 5 seconds (red) then dropped abruptly to a lower level for about 3 seconds (blue), and then slowly tapered off (green). The seismic data of the South Tower showed the same pattern, although the red section peaked a bit higher in the North Tower. The significance of this seismic data will he explained later. Figures 5-13 and 5-14 illustrate a flaw in all official theories of the collapse of the South Tower. Specifically, the steel beams in the overhanging section fell through the air, so they should hit the ground before the beams that had to crash through the base section. There is no possible way that a steel beam that hits dozens of steel and concrete floors will reach the ground as quickly as a beam that falls through he air. Hundreds of exterior columns from both towers should also have fallen on all four sides, but only a few are visible. The beams that fell through the air would fall at 32 feet per second, per second; the rate at which all objects fall in the earth's gravity. The towers were about 1300 feet tall. If a object is dropped from 1300 feet, it will hit the ground about 8 seconds later. Notice that the North Tower collapsed in 8 seconds. That means pieces of the North Tower fell down as fast as objects fall through air. How could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects that fall through air? The video shows that the collapse occurred at the same rate as if somebody had dropped the steel beams in air from the top of the building. It aint possible for steel beams to bust through all of those floors without slowing down! {p. 74} Were explosives detonated by a computer via radio links? One way to explain the rapid collapse of the towers and other other aspects of the collapse) is that explosives were placed in these buildings before the airplanes hit them. Explosives easily explain the dust that flew out of the towers figure 7-2). However, for those of you who are unfamiliar with computers let me begin by explaining how the explosives could be controlled. Packages of explosives could be installed on nearly every floor, in the areas used by maintenance personnel. A few packages may have been connected together with wires so that they detonate simultaneously, thereby acting as one package. Each package would have a battery powered radio link that connected it to the main computer. This master computer would be able to detonate specific packages of explosives at specific times simply by sending signals to the packages. Think of cellphones to understand this. Imagine 100 cell phones spread out on a table. You could trigger the ringer on any one of them simply by dialing the number to that particular phone. Now replace the ringer with the detonator of an explosive; you would then be able to detonate any explosive simply by dialing that phone. Now replace your manual dialing of the phone with a computer that calls the phones in a certain sequence and according to a certain time table. After determining that the airplane hit the 77th floor of the South Tower, the master computer would be set to detonate the explosives on the 77th floor, and then 250 milliseconds later the explosives on he 76th floor, and then 180 milliseconds later the explosives on the 75th floor, etc. {p. 75} The puffs and ribbons of dust Since the airplane hit the South Tower on one side, the collapse was initiated by detonating explosives near the crash zone (Figure 7-3). This caused the tower to tilt toward the crash zone, creating the illusion that the columns in the crash zone had become weak from the fire and the airplane crash. Within milliseconds other explosives along the crash zone were detonated to break all the columns along the crash zone (Figure 7-4). This instantly disconnected the top section without altering its position or orientation. (You can see this effect if you place a block of wood on top of another block, and then knock the lower block out from under it very quickly. This will cause the top block to fall down without changing its orientation. Or, if you rapidly pull a tablecloth out from underneath objects, those objects will drop vertically to the table without changing their orientation or position .) Once the top section was severed, it began to fall downward at the rate at which all objects fall due to the force of gravity. It also continued to tilt towards the crash zone as it fell (Figures 7-5 to 7-10). Photographs show ribbons of dust coming out of both towers as they collapse. Two suspicious aspects of these ribbons are: 1 ) The dust comes from a floor while that area of the tower still appears structurally intact, rather than forming at the location where the tower is in the process of crumbling. (One of these ribbons has just formed along the left side of Figure 7-2. The floors immediately above the ribbon seem intact. The area that is collapsing seems to be many floors higher up.) The dust comes out very precisely. Specifically, almost the same quantity of dust comes out of each window, and only along one floor at a time, as opposed to appearing haphazardly in different windows along different floors. (Look back at he red arrow in Figure 5-16.) {p. 76} The precision of these ribbons is most obvious in a video taken by an amateur photographer who was standing under the South Tower (Figure 7-11) I doubt such a perfectly balanced increase in pressure could be due to the random falling of debris from the floors above Rather, explosives were being set off inside the building. The ribbons are horizontal and precise because the explosives were detonated one floor at a time. After a ribbon blows out of the building it grows into large clouds. Meanwhile a new ribbon forms underneath it. The rate of disintegration increased over time A few floors shattered during the first second, but that rate of disintegration did not hold steady. Rather, the number of floors shattering each second increased each and every second. The reason is that objects falling in gravity continually increase in speed, so the explosives were detonated at an increasingly faster rate in order to stay ahead of the falling objects. . The top section of the tower did not collide with the base; rather, the explosives shattered it just before it would have made contact. . The debris did not contact the base portion; rather, the explosives were always staying a few microseconds ahead of it. . The overhanging section cannot be seen falling down in photographs in one large chunk because it was shattered by explosives. Its debris fell down at the rate objects fall in gravity, but none of the debris can be seen in photographs because the base was destroyed at the same rate; therefore, the base was always a few microseconds ahead of that debris. The steel beams fell much faster than the dust, so the steel beams were actually passing through the clouds of dust. However, new clouds were created at the same rate at which the debris was falling. Therefore, as soon as a steel beam fell below one particular cloud, it entered a new cloud that had just been created a few microseconds earlier. By the time it fell below that cloud, another cloud had been created below it. The end result was that all of the falling objects were always hidden by clouds of dust. {p. 77} The clouds of dust expanded to perhaps two or three times the diameter of the building because the explosives created a high pressure inside the tower. The 20 million kg of debris from the overhanging section eventually hit Building 4, but we cannot see that debris as it fell because the clouds of dust were so phenomenal. The only objects that can be seen falling are some of the outer pieces of the tower that were blown off as the explosives were detonated. Figure 6-4 shows shiny objects scattered on the rooftops in he area. These objects are pieces of the aluminum coverings along the exterior columns (Figure 3-5, page 24). The explosives shredded the covers, and the gas pressure was so high that some of them were blown all over the neighboring buildings. The final explosions at the base of the tower and in the basement had to break joints on columns made from 100mm thick steel, so they were powerful explosives. The seismic data peaked when the explosives in the basement were detonated. Then the explosions stopped and the rubble continued to fall for another couple of seconds, resulting in smaller seismic tremors (the blue section of Figure 7-1 ) {p. 78} No "potential energy" needed Objects above the ground have 'potential energy" due to the force of the gravity. The experts claim that the potential energy of the towers was the source of the energy hat shattered the towers into dust. However, he only sensible explanation for the collapse is that explosives were detonated at a rate that matched the acceleration due to gravity. Each floor was shattered before the debris above it was about to make contact. The end result is that the debris never collided with the floors. Rather, all debris was in free-fall. By the time the debris hit the ground, the fastest moving debris (the debris from he top of the tower) was traveling up to 190 mph. Since none of its potential energy was used to shatter the towers, all of its energy was available to become heat. There was more than 200,000 tons of steel in these towers, and it was at an average height of 200 meters, so a lot of energy was available for heat production. The explosives added even more heat to the beams. This would explain why the rubble ended up with such a high temperature. The explosives would also explain why photos of the rubble show only dust and pieces of steel; namely, the concrete, carpeting, and office furniture were pulverized by the explosives. Only steel can survive such abuse. The seismic data of the towers shows that the South Tower required about two more seconds to collapse than the North Tower. The extra two seconds was because the South Tower started to collapse by forming a crack, and then the tower was severed into two pieces. Each of those two pieces were separate, independent demolitions, but both of them occurred at the rate an object falls in gravity. By comparison, the North Tower disintegrated in almost one, continuous motion. Have you ever tried to break concrete? I suspect that many of the people who refuse to believe explosives were used have never tried to bust a concrete slab. Most people seem to believe that concrete has about the same strength as chalk, but if concrete was as fragile as the typical person believes, it would not be safe to use it in bridges. Breaking concrete into pieces is a common procedure around the world. Pneumatic jack hammers are designed specifically for this purpose. The jack hammers do not pulverize the concrete into powder; rather, all they do is crack it into pieces. Only a small amount of powder is created in the process. In order to pulverize concrete into powder, explosives must be used. Concrete will not turn into powder simply by falling down onto another piece of concrete. Some people have made the remark that the buildings were very tall, and therefore a piece of concrete falling from such a height could easily shatter into powder. However, the concrete shattered in the air, not when it hit the ground. If a piece of concrete is 1,000 feet in the air and shatters into powder after falling to 990 feet, that means it shattered into powder after falling only 10 feet. This is exactly the same as dropping a concrete block from a height of 10 feet above the ground. Building 7 was a conventional demolition Videos show Building 7 collapsing in perhaps eight seconds. Building 7 was about half the height of the towers, but it collapsed in about the same amount of time. Figure 7-12 shows the seismic data of its collapse. The first thing to notice is that the vibrations are one tenth the magnitude of the North Tower. Therefore, the background noise is much more noticeable. The background noise is so significant that it is difficult to figure out exactly when the collapse began and when it finished. The next thing to notice is that there appears to be three phases to the collapse of Building 7. The first may be the building falling down (red); next is a few seconds where perhaps the rubble settled (blue), and finally the vibrations increase significantly (green). It is possible that the second and third phases (blue and green) are not even part of the collapse of Building 7. Maybe an earthquake coincidently occurred at that moment in time. The seismic sensors pick up vibrations, but they do not identify the source of those vibrations. Only a serious scientific analysis from a variety of seismic centers could pinpoint the source, but our government has not bothered with such an analysis. {p. 79} The third phase (green) is the confusing part of the graph. If those vibrations belong to Building 7 it could mean that explosives were set off after the building had collapsed. It should be noted that the "experts" claim that Building 7 collapsed in 18 seconds, which would mean all three phases of that seismic data are of the "collapse." However, the low quality video I found on the Internet shows the building collapsing in about eight seconds. Do the experts have a more accurate video? Or are they making the mistake of measuring from the start of the red phase to the end of the green phase and then assuming that entire span of time is the collapse? How could the steel corrode? Only a tiny fraction of all steel beams in the World Trade Center were inspected. A few of them were very peculiar. A New York Times article in February, 2002 described them as: Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations. ... The scientists who inspected the steel did not bother with any speculations on what could have caused the high temperatures. The FEMA report describes these odd steel beams without technical details (Figure 7-13), and in such a vague manner that you have to carefully think about what this corrosion might mean. I say the "hot corrosive environment approaching l,000°C" that FEMA refers to is evidence of explosives. The burning of office furniture, diesel fuel, or jet fuel will not create such high temperatures or such corrosive conditions. FEMA described the corrosion as "an unusual event," but perhaps it is unusual only for fires; perhaps it is a common event with explosives. Nothing happens without a reason; there is a reason the steel showed signs of high temperature corrosion. Why not look for the reason rather than terminate the issue? Or does FEMA know the reason, and are they simply avoiding it? Figure 7-13 A section of Appendix C of the FEMA WTC report 8. 2. 8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. 2. 8.1 Observations and Findings a. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. b. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel. c. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. d. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred due to copper diffusing from the high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel combining with iron and sulfur, making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries. 8. 2. 8. 2 Recommendations The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. {p. 80} Was the collapse beyond perpetual motion? Perpetual motion requires using energy without wasting any of it so that the same energy can be used over and over. Even more absurd than perpetual motion is a process which uses more energy than is available to it, which requires it to create energy. Cracking a concrete block into two pieces requires energy, and converting a concrete block into powder requires even more energy. The smaller the particles, the more energy needed. Perhaps 100,000 tons of concrete in each tower was pulverized to a powder. This required a lot of energy. The powder was ejected with a velocity so high that clouds of dust expanded to two or three times the diameter of the building This also required energy. Thousands of steel beams in the building broke at their joints, and breaking those joints required energy. Energy was also needed to shred the corrugated steel sheets that were part of every floor. The high temperature of the rubble required energy as well. Where did all this energy come from? I can think of only two ways to explain the powdering of he concrete without violating the laws of physics: 1 ) The buildings were incredibly defective. If the concrete was defective, not much energy would be needed to turn it into powder. Also, if the rivets, bolts, and welds that held the steel beams together were corroded and/or defective, not much energy would be needed to break the joints. Of course, if the towers were defective, it is amazing that they survived 30 years of storms. 2) Small packages of explosives were used. If small packages of explosives were placed at several locations on virtually every floor, they could provide the energy necessary to break the joints and shatter the concrete. Both of these theories would explain why our government wanted the rubble destroyed so quickly. Are either of these theories correct? Before we try to answer that question, consider what the rubble would be like with each of those theories: 1 ) If the buildings were incredibly defective. No additional heat would be added to the rubble. The final temperature of the rubble would be due to whatever heat was remaining from the fire, and whatever heat was created as the pieces hit the ground (which converts the remaining potential energy into heat). 2) If small packages of explosives were used. The steel directly next to explosives would be exposed to a high temperature gas, although only briefly. This could melt small, thin portions of the steel, and it would add a bit of heat to the thicker pieces of steel. The explosives would shatter the concrete and the small particles would pick up a significant amount of heat. Those hot particles would raise the temperature of the rubble significantly. The steel in the basement was very thick, so the explosives had to be powerful, which would create a lot of heat. The combination of the basement walls and the falling rubble would trap a lot of the heat inside the basement. My point is that if explosives were used, the rubble would end up with a significantly higher temperature than if the buildings had merely fallen down, and the temperature in the basement would be extremely high. Judging by the high temperature of the rubble five days after the collapse (Figure 6-5), it appears that explosives were used. A Challenge for Physics Students Can you estimate the amount of energy needed to pulverize the concrete in the towers? If you designed a building that shattered into dust, would you be able to figure out if your structure truly "fell down" or if it was blown up? With the endless fighting between nations and religions, the world needs a way to determine when a building has been secretly destroyed with explosives. So, rather than practice physics with irrelevant problems, how about looking for a way to deal with this problem? {p. 81} Could it really be a scam? The odd seating arrangements in Flight 11 The Boston Globe has a list of passengers and seat assignments for Flight 11. If their data is correct, the passengers were bunched up rather than scattered throughout the plane (Figure 8-1). Several rows were empty, while other rows were crowded with passengers. This is not the way seats are filled. Rather, airlines put a person in every row before they put strangers next to each other. The end result is that if a plane is half full of people, every row will have a person in it, and every person will have an empty seat next to him. There are two reasons the airlines do this. One is to distribute the weight evenly in the airplane. The other is that people are like birds that perch on telephone wires; we do not want to be touching strangers. Figure 8- 1 This diagram shows which seats in Flight 11 were vacant (white squares are vacant seats). Passengers were not evenly spread throughout the plane. This shows that a large number of tickets were sold. The airline had to put passengers who purchased tickets later in time next to people who purchased tickets earlier in time. But on the day of the flight, many passengers did not show up. This created this strange seating arrangement in which strangers were clumped together. Is this evidence that the people conducting this scam were trying to reduce the number of casualties by purchasing tickets to the deadly flights? . Why don't the airlines release the data for the other three flights? Why the secrecy? A scam makes more sense A summary of the main reasons why the 9-11 attack appears to be a scam: . The destruction of the rubble. The destruction proceeded at frantic rate, and most importantly, it was a violation of our laws to destroy the rubble. . An enormous amount of concrete turned to powder and flew out of the building with a very high velocity. All steel beams in the building broke, mainly at their joints and welds. I think this required an energy source, such as explosives. . The steel beams from the towers dropped at the rate objects fall in gravity. This means they did not encounter any resistance along the way, which means they never hit any of the concrete floors. This means the concrete floors shattered into powder without being touched by those beams. I think the floors were shattered by explosives, not by falling debris. . The overhanging section of the South Tower never fell out of the clouds of dust. I think explosives were destroying the floors as fast as that overhanging section fell down. . The temperature of the rubble was above the melting point of aluminum in some areas, even after it was sprayed with water. I think the explosives added a lot of heat to the rubble. . Nobody wants to investigate. President Bush and Cheney wanted to 'limit" the investigation; investigators were hampered; and the FBI, FEMA, and other agencies either refused to investigate, or they did only a minimal, pathetic investigation. Furthermore, most members of our media, who boast that they are "watchdogs," have no interest in understanding what happened, nor do they care that our government violated our laws. Instead they encourage us to hate Al-Qaeda and support President Bush. This is not because these people never support investigations; after all, many of them demanded an investigation of the Clinton /Lewinsky affair. Why would these people not want an investigation of the 9-11 attack, which is the biggest crime the USA has ever experienced? {p. 82} Explosives in Building 7 but not the towers? Some people suspect that Building 7 was destroyed by explosives, but not the towers. There are also people who believe that the decision to blow up Building 7 was made after the towers were attacked. According to that theory, somebody decided to take advantage of the chaos that day by destroying Building 7. However, anybody who suspects Building 7 was destroyed by explosives would have to come to the conclusion that explosives were used in the towers. To understand why, let's begin by considering the theory that somebody made the decision to blow up Building 7 after they saw the towers collapse. This theory requires that several people get together and very quickly agree to a serious crime. At least one of them must have experience with demolitions in order figure out how many packages of explosives they needed. Then they would have to purchase the explosives, have them delivered, and install them in a 47-story building. All this would have to be accomplished within the span of a few hours. However, it was virtually impossible to drive a car into lower Manhattan after the planes hit, which means that it was virtually impossible for somebody to ask for a shipment of explosives to be delivered to the building by that afternoon. The only way they could acquire the explosives would be if there was a store within walking distance of Building 7 that sold packages of explosives for demolitions. Or, if a truck full of demolition explosives had been caught in the traffic jam near Building 7, they could steal into the truck and steal the explosives. As you can see, it is extremely unlikely that a group of people could have purchased (or stolen) enough explosives to bring down Building 7. If you respond that they could have used the diesel fuel that was already inside the building to manufacture their own bombs, that is even less likely. Making bombs with diesel fuel is not easy. More importantly, they could not use "bombs"; rather, they needed lots of small packages of explosives that could be controlled. So let's dismiss the possibility that somebody decided on September 11th to blow up Building 7. This leads us to the conclusion that they made this decision before September 11 th. They purchased the explosives, wired them in the building while people were still working inside, and then waited for the attack. This leads us to conclude that these people must have known that the attack was coming, although they may not have known which day. But how could they know the attack was coming. The only two groups of people who truly knew he attack was coming were the people involved in planning his attack, and the people who were spying on them. This leads us to he possibility that some agency, such as the CIA, discovered that this attack was coming but kept quiet about it rather than try to stop it. This now leads us to the conclusion that whoever destroyed Building 7 was either part of the group that was planning the attack, or they had acquired information that the attack was coming and decided to take advantage of it. In either case they installed explosives in Building 7 in preparation for the attack They then waited for the attack to occur. Their plan was to destroy the building and claim that the fire was the reason it fell down. The question I have for you is: what would happen if the airplanes hit the towers but the towers did not fall down? Imagine the following scenario: The airplanes crash into towers; tremendous fires burn in the towers; after a few hours the fires are extinguished by the firemen and the towers remain standing; and then Building 7 collapses into a small pile of rubble. Wouldn't it be suspicious if Building 7 crumbles from a fire if the towers survived much more severe fires? Remember, never in history has a fire caused a steel building to crumble. Therefore, if somebody blew up Building 7 with explosives and then claimed that a fire caused this collapse, the firemen would respond that fires do not cause steel buildings to collapse. To better understand this issue, imagining yourself back in time to any year prior to 2001. Next imagine that a fire breaks out in Building 7, or some other steel building. Finally, imagine that after a few hours the small fires cause the entire building to crumble into a small pile of rubble. If such an event had occurred prior to 2001, it would have been the very first time a fire caused a steel-framed building to crumble. Such an unusual event would attract the attention of the entire world. Scientists and engineers would want to analyze the steel beams to see how the fire did what no fire had done before. Universities would want information on the collapse so that they could use it in their engineering classes as an example of lousy engineering. Newspapers and television stations around the world would report it as the most bizarre fire anybody has ever seen. I also suspect that there would be thousands of lawsuits. Newspapers would be full of reports like those in Figure 8-2. The point I am making is that it would not be safe to destroy Building 7 unless the towers collapse first. After the towers collapse, the collapse of Building 7 would appear to be just another weird event of that day's bizarre disasters. Therefore, whoever destroyed Building 7 would want to guarantee that the towers collapse first. This requires that they put explosives into the towers, also. So now let's look at where we are with this scenario. A group of people have discovered that the attack is going to {p. 83} occur, so they put explosives in both towers and building 7 and then they patiently wait for the attack. This brings us to a dilemma. Putting explosives into Building 7 and both towers requires a lot of time effort and money. Furthermore they would be risking severe criminal charges. What if somebody catches them installing the explosives? What if they get caught after they blow up the buildings? Would anybody be willing to go to all this trouble and take such a risk when they have no guarantee that the attacks will even take place? What if the hijackers are caught before they get on the plane? Or what if he hijackers decide that they are not competent as pilots and switch to a simpler attack such as leaving a truck bomb in front of a government building? Or what if the hijackers decide to switch from hitting the World Trade Center to hitting the US Capitol? Or what if he hijackers turn out to be so incompetent as pilots that they crash on the way to the World Trade Center or they miss the towers and hit some other buildings? It is also possible that the hijackers would abandon the suicide mission simply because they decided they did not want to die yet. Certainly there have been people who were angry enough to join a suicide plot but after a few months their anger diminished and they decided they would rather remain alive. An even more likely problem is that the hijackers get control of the aircraft, change course towards Manhattan and then the FAA realizes that something is seriously wrong. The FAA contacts the military and the military sends up a plane to investigate. The military would eventually realize that the plane is heading towards Manhattan office buildings at an altitude so low that it will hit one of the buildings. Even if they do not shoot the first plane down they would be likely to shoot the second plane down after they see the first one hit a building. So now let's review where this scenario has taken us. If a group of people want to destroy Building 7 they must force the towers to collapse first but they cannot collapse the towers unless the towers are hit by airplanes. Therefore this plot to destroy Building 7 depends on some terrorists learning to fly commercial aircraft getting control of those aircraft and then flying into buildings without interference by the US military. This leads us to the conclusion that if somebody wants to destroy Building 7 they must also stop the FM and military from interfering. This in turn requires at least some people in the military and FM join this conspiracy. So now this scenario has developed to the point at which a group of people are putting explosives into Building 7 and both towers and some high ranking military and FAA personnel are involved. It also has the CIA and/or FBI observing the hijackers. As you can see a lot of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy simply to destroy Building 7. And this is just beginning. Whoever wants to blow up Building 7 and the towers must also be able to stop investigations. They must have the rubble destroyed immediately. However it is {p. 84} a violation of our laws to destroy that rubble. This requires that these people have a lot of influence over our government. By the time we have taken this scenario all the way to completion, we end up with a very large conspiracy. Also, it shows that if Building 7 was destroyed with explosives, then this entire 9-11 attack was a scam of unbelievable proportions. Why would anybody go to such trouble simply to destroy Building 7? For the amount of money this scam would require, they could purchase Building 7 and then tear it down. You can't be half pregnant The point of this section is that there are some people who believe that Building 7 was destroyed by explosives, but they do not believe the towers were destroyed by explosives. What I am trying to show you is that if Building 7 was destroyed by explosives, then the entire attack was a very large scam. You can't have half a scam! It was either all scam, or no scam. Therefore, if you do not want to believe the entire attack was a scam, you need to find a sensible reason for the collapse of Building 7. However, keep in mind that never in history has a fire caused a steel building to crumble. Therefore, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find a sensible explanation for an event that never occurred before. Good luck! Were terrorists really flying those planes? The only way to guarantee that the hijackers are proficient pilots would be to replace them with suicide pilots who truly know how to fly those planes. Or it requires getting control of the aircraft. A few sites on the Internet claim those particular aircraft (the Boeing 767 and 757) are controlled by computer, and that it is possible for pilots on the ground to get control of those aircraft. Supposedly, the US government put this feature in some planes years ago to allow pilots on the ground to take control of hijacked aircraft (for the younger readers, years ago planes were hijacked on a frequent basis). This feature would also be of use during accidents, or when a pilot has a heart attack. Thierry Meyssan believes a homing signal was broadcast from the World Trade Center a few hours before the planes hit, and that the airplanes had been modified so that they would follow the homing signal. If the planes were being controlled by remote control, or if they were following a homing signal, then the hijackers could have been incompetent as pilots. Actually, the hijackers would not even have to be on the aircraft. Or, perhaps the hijackers had been provided with receivers that would pick up the homing signal. "But the collapse didn't look like a demolition!" When I first posted a document on the Internet in which I claimed that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center, a few people responded that the towers did not collapse in the manner that buildings are demolished, and therefore they could not have been destroyed by explosives. Rather than convince me that these buildings were not destroyed by explosives, they actually had the opposite effect. My reasoning was: . The people making these remarks could not believe such a naive remark. Rather, they must be trying to divert attention away from explosives. . Why would they want to divert our attention from explosives unless they knew that explosives were used? . These people are more evidence that explosives were used. Before I continue, let me explain why I consider the remark "But the collapse didn't look like a demolition!" to be a naive remark. Let's assume Joe decides to rob a bank. Joe is aware that banks have security cameras that monitor the people in the bank, so he decides to wear a hairpiece and a fake beard. He also hides his gun in a small paper sack. Joe walks into the bank in his disguise, shows the paper bag to the teller, and demands money. I then post a document on he Internet in which I suggest that Joe probably robbed the bank with his pistol. What would your reaction be if someone posts the following response to me: "Joe didn't rob the bank! First of all, the person who robbed that hank had different hair than Joe. Second, Joe does not have a beard. Third, the person who robbed that bank did not have a gun; rather, he had a paper hag. Certainly your reaction would be: . The person who posted that remark could not possibly believe it; rather, he must be trying to convince us that Joe did not rob the bank. But why would he try to convince us of Joe's innocence? If Joe is truly innocent he could offer evidence of his innocence. . Joe must be guilty, and Joe or one of his friends must have posted that remark in an effort to divert our attention away from Joe. Getting back to the complaint that the collapse of the towers did not look like a demolition, I was certain that the {p. 85} people making those remarks were part of the cover-up squad and were merely trying to mislead us. Why else would anybody post such remarks on the Internet and send such remarks to me? (President Bush refers to the people who attacked the World Trade Center as part of the "Axis of Evil " so for lack of a better name I will refer to the people who gave us the 9-11 scam as the "Axis of Good.") I assumed the Axis of Good was putting out as much misinformation as possible in the hope of confusing the public. I had visions of hundreds of them spending hours at their computer monitoring web sites and news groups. I imagined them spending hours each day posting a variety of idiotic messages in attempts to mislead and confuse us as well as try to divert attention away from the issue of explosives. There were a few times when I decided to respond to some of my critics. I explained to them in more detail why I believed explosives were used. I was shocked when a few of them eventually understood my reasoning and agreed with me that explosives were probably used. I now realize that some of the idiotic remarks about the World Trade Center attack are coming from ordinary citizens. Most people are lacking accurate information about the collapse; most have not bothered to spend much time analyzing the collapse; and some are so patriotic that they are resisting the possibility that the attack was a scam. My point is that we must be careful about assuming the Axis of Good is making the dumb remarks. Do the professors believe their theories? Bazant submitted his theory to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on September 13th and posted his theory at three different universities at about the same time. This means that he spent no more than two days writing his theory. Why did he spend only two days? Or if he wrote his report during the evenings in his spare time why only two evenings? How could he believe that he had enough information about such a unique collapse when the only information available at that time were the images from the Channel 4 Action Reporters? How could he consider himself knowledgeable about a subject after watching TV for a few hours? I would think a real scientist would insist on spending more than two clays just gathering information about the collapse. Furthermore Bazant did not mention Building 7. Was that because he was unaware that Building 7 collapsed? If so that would prove that he did not even bother to read the most simplistic of news reports before publishing his brilliant theory. Or, did he avoid Building 7 because he did not know how to explain its collapse? If he is incapable of explaining the collapse of Building 7, why should we believe he can explain the collapse of the towers? I would think that a professor who knows enough to explain the collapse of the towers would also know enough to explain Building 7. Do these professors believe their own theories? Or are they merely trying to find a less depressing explanation than the scam possibility? Or did somebody push or pay these professors to write about the collapse and then provide the professors with false information? Why hasn't Bazant bothered to correct the mistake about the towers falling like a stack of pancakes or at least complete his theory so that we know what Figure 5-4C (page 42) would look like? Why did he rush to publish the theory but not bother to finish it at a later date? I find it difficult to believe that a reputable professor would spend only a few days on a theory to explain something that nobody had ever seen before. I also find it difficult to believe that a professor would base his theory on a few television reports. Finally I find it difficult to believe a professor would never bother to complete his theory when documents on the Internet are making fun of his Pancake Theory. Perhaps the Pancake Theory had been prepared months before the attack. On September 11 th somebody edited the document to fit the actual events and then looked for a professor to sign his name to it. This would explain why Bazant never finished his theory; i.e., maybe it is not his theory. University professors are regarded as experts simply because they are "professors." However how can they be experts when they do not adequately explain the collapse of the towers or Building 7? How can these people be considered experts on fires when they fail to acknowledge the possibility that the soot and the lack of flames may be an indication that the fires were choking on their smoke? There are many ways to destroy a building with explosives In a conventional demolition the explosives are timed so that the bottom of the building collapses first. The reason is to make he building drop vertically rather than tip to one side. Also the people paying for the demolition want to use as few explosives as possible in order to save time and money. The small quantity of explosives results in large chunks of building remaining; i.e. the building does not turn into powder. Powder is a side effect of a demolition not the purpose. Demolition companies try to minimize the production of powder because powder creates a mess that must be cleaned up. Also if the powder travels to neighboring buildings there will be lots of angry people. The towers did not resemble a conventional demolition because they were not a conventional demolition. The explosives in the towers were trying to simulate a collapse of a building due to a fire and airplane crash. {p. 86} Extra explosives reduces side effects Another reason the collapse of the towers did not resemble a conventional demolition is that the towers seemed to have a much larger quantity of explosives than a normal demolition. I suspect that extra explosives were used o pulverize the concrete into powder. There are two main advantages to pulverizing the concrete. 1) To eliminate the problem of giant chunks of the tower falling to the side. In a normal demolition the building is shattered when it is near the ground. The rubble does not fall through the air; rather, it simply collects at the ground. Since the Axis of Good was trying to simulate a building collapsing from an airplane crash, thousands of tons of rubble would be produced hundreds of feet in the air. This means that thousands of tons of rubble would have to fall hundreds of feet. If the explosives only broke the towers into pieces, large chunks of building would fall hundreds of feet. Chunks of the tower might collide with one another on the way down, which in turn could spread large pieces further out from the base of the towers. Some of those chunks might hit neighboring buildings and roads. By using enough explosives to pulverize the concrete and break every steel beam at its joint, there is no concern about large chunks of the tower falling to the ground. The concrete would fall as a powder, which would hit the ground so gently that nothing would be destroyed by it. And the steel would fall as short beams rather than as large assemblies. You might respond that the people destroying the towers would have no concern about the falling pieces of concrete, and therefore my reasoning is based on nonsensical assumptions. However, the purpose of this scam was not to kill people or destroy neighboring buildings. Rather, it appears that the Axis of Good went out of their way to reduce the number of casualties and destruction. They may be violent people, and some may suffer from serious mental problems, but they are human. 2) To simplify cleanup. Instead of having to deal with large pieces of concrete and twisted assemblies of steel, the crews only had to pick up short pieces of steel. This allows them to more rapidly destroy the rubble. Normally a demolition company is responsible for cleaning up the powder, so they do not want to produce powder. However, this 9-11 demolition was going to be blamed on Osama, so taxpayers would cover all costs for the cleanup of powder. Therefore, the Axis of Good did not have to worry about how they would clean up the mess. Rather, they were more concerned about destroying all evidence as quickly as possible. The destruction of the rubble would occur at a significantly faster pace if the cleanup crews did not have to deal with large pieces of concrete or steel assemblies. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, so there was no need to fake a complex collapse that starts high up in the building. Furthermore, this building would be demolished late in the afternoon when not many people were around to watch it, so there was less concern about simulating a believable collapse. Building 7 was demolished in a conventional manner with a smaller amount of explosives. This is why large chunks of Building 7 survived. Incidently, when a building is as tall as the World Trade Center towers, there are a lot of different ways in which to demolish it with explosives so that it does not appear to be a conventional demolition. For example, explosives could destroy the tower from both the very top and the very bottom at the same time, leaving the center to be the last section to be demolished. It would also be possible to start the explosions at three different locations in the building at once. For example, explosives at the 4Oth, 80th, and 110th floor could be detonated at the same time. The explosives could then work their way from those floors downward. This would not resemble a conventional demolition, either. It would also be possible to set the explosives off in a horizontal manner rather than a vertical manner. In other words, one side of the building would start exploding, which would explode every window on that side of the building. The explosives would then work their way over to the other side of the building. My point is that there are a variety of ways to destroy a building with explosives so that it does not resemble a conventional demolition. Why did the airplane almost miss the South Tower? An airplane hit the North Tower almost directly in the center, but the plane hit the South Tower near the edge. The common assumption is that the pilot almost missed the building. Even the people who insist that these planes were flown by remote control are under he impression that the people flying the planes almost missed the building due to the fact that these planes were not very maneuverable. {p. 87} My initial reaction was also that the pilot almost missed the South Tower. However, this attack seems to be so well-planned and everything seems to have been executed so perfectly, that this may not have been a mistake. The CoStar Group, Inc., a company that provides information on commercial real estate, put together a list of tenants of the World Trade Center to help with the identification of the missing people. While they point out that they cannot be 100% certain of the tenants on that particular day, their report shows the North Tower had most of its vacant space above the 79th floor, and half of that was above the 90th floor. The 102nd floor was half empty. Therefore, hitting the North Tower above the 90th floor would reduce casualties at the crash zone. Is it a coincidence he hijackers hit the North