Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True
Sep 11, 2023 16:06:23 #
ziggy88
Loc: quincy illinois 62301
Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True
Researched by Pastor Gary Boyd
Written by David Ray Griffin
Sept. 11th 2023
In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.
But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.
In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.
I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.
1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.
But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories—let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design—scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.
With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.
No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST—the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)—even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.
Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.
One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300°F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.
But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).
There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88). Go to my substack for rest of article: https://substack.com/inbox/post/136950976
Researched by Pastor Gary Boyd
Written by David Ray Griffin
Sept. 11th 2023
In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.
But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.
In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.
I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.
1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.
But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories—let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design—scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.
With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.
No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST—the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)—even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.
Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.
One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300°F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.
But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).
There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88). Go to my substack for rest of article: https://substack.com/inbox/post/136950976
Sep 11, 2023 16:28:24 #
Stupidhead,
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Sep 11, 2023 17:37:19 #
ksaves wrote:
Stupidhead,
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
===============
The terrorists loaded the airplane tanks with fuel for massive impact or for a long trip to California or further.
Why was the Twin Towers targeted by the terrorists?
Because it is America's heart of its financial operations. To destroy America's financial system.
Why did they also hit Pentagon? Why will the government do this? To destroy America's Military Defense Capability.
Flight 93 that dropped in Somerset County, Virginia was turning to the DC to hit either the WH or the Capitol building. But 2 passengers took over the piloting from the hijacker, and the plane dropped. All of them died. Black box was recovered. The terrorist turned towards the DC perhaps planned to hit the WH or the Capitol building. Why will the government do this?
You are only questioning the 2 Towers. Not probable! Your theories with others do not support the rest of the other impacted locations.
There was a total of 4 planes involved during the 9/11, 2001.
Sep 11, 2023 17:38:42 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
ksaves wrote:
Stupidhead,
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Thank you! And he's not the only one!! There are few conspiracy theorists on here that believe our Government was involved with 9/11...🙄
Sep 11, 2023 17:51:03 #
The planes weren't loaded with fuel for "massive" impact. They were loaded with fuel for a "long" cross country flight! The terrorists knew this and used this to their ADVANTAGE! Period!
The planes were full of fuel for a long trip no more, no less. The terrorists had nothing to do with fuel loading EXCEPT they already knew the planes would be full of fuel for the LONG TRIP they were slated to make! Hence they took advantage of it for their "nefarious" purposes. That's it. Q.E.D.
The planes were full of fuel for a long trip no more, no less. The terrorists had nothing to do with fuel loading EXCEPT they already knew the planes would be full of fuel for the LONG TRIP they were slated to make! Hence they took advantage of it for their "nefarious" purposes. That's it. Q.E.D.
Sep 11, 2023 18:06:15 #
ziggy88 wrote:
Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True br ... (show quote)
~~~~~~~
Great post Ziggy.
Building #7 collapsed with no airplane or KEROSENE.
This was the dead giveaway.
Larry Silverstein made a killing on all 3 buildings.
Sep 11, 2023 18:38:05 #
The only thing about 9/11 that seems suspicious is the why; considering the previous attacks prior to this one, why was the government so lax with security-you can only assume the government wanted a reason to begin a new war, then the governments world wide suddenly took some action against terrorism and before you know it, terrorists were everywhere and of course the United States had to lead the charge for attacking terror wherever it was found-hence the endless war began and laughably no honorable exit strategy-just unconditional surrender with payoffs in money, arms and treachery against those who trusted America 🤠
Sep 11, 2023 19:24:24 #
okie don wrote:
~~~~~~~
Great post Ziggy.
Building #7 collapsed with no airplane or KEROSENE.
This was the dead giveaway.
Larry Silverstein made a killing on all 3 buildings.
Great post Ziggy.
Building #7 collapsed with no airplane or KEROSENE.
This was the dead giveaway.
Larry Silverstein made a killing on all 3 buildings.
Agreed Okie! It boggles my mind how otherwise rational, intelligent people can look at what happened on 9-11-01, and not see how it lead to the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, the US invasions in the middle east, and everything else that brings us to where we are today.
Since this is the 22nd anniversary of 9-11, I just happened to catch the video testimony of Barry Jennings who was the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the City of NY, and entered building 7 that morning. If you listen to his testimony, and still think that the 9-11 Commission's version of events is plausible, then there is absolutely no hope left for you.
Barry Jennings WTC 7 (Explosions) Interview - building 7
https://youtu.be/3Tr0TZa3WeI
Building 7: The 9/11 Conspiracy Evidence Even Normies Can't Deny
https://jdrucker.substack.com/p/building-7-the-911-conspiracy-evidence?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=smj1n&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play
Sep 11, 2023 21:00:08 #
ACP45 wrote:
Agreed Okie! It boggles my mind how otherwise rati... (show quote)
~~~~~~~
ACP,
In my thinking, Bldg #7 was the dead giveaway as to how they were demolished.
I also recall the TV showing Bush Jr setting in a grade school classroom and when told America had been attack, he just set there doing nothing.
Seemed like he was waiting for the 2nd building to collapse or something.
Hell, when your homeland is invaded / attacked, you don't just set there reading a grade school book to kids.
Strange how he acted, in my books anyway!
Sep 12, 2023 10:13:32 #
Why were the pilots Saudis and not Iraqis? Why did we go to war with Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?
Knowing only two steel buildings were hit and yet four came down "by an unusually hot fire," what is the official explanation for the "cause" of such devastation by a "non-melting-of-steel fire" being in four buildings and not the two that were hit by the planes?
How was it that there were Israelis set up to take pictures of the event and then celebrated when they got back to Tel Aviv? Is it "fun" to take pictures of a tragic death in a real-life scenario, such as war?
Did anyone collect the insurance money on the buildings? Are there people that would stoop this low as to cash in on a tragedy? Nah, because we're all "good people."
Knowing only two steel buildings were hit and yet four came down "by an unusually hot fire," what is the official explanation for the "cause" of such devastation by a "non-melting-of-steel fire" being in four buildings and not the two that were hit by the planes?
How was it that there were Israelis set up to take pictures of the event and then celebrated when they got back to Tel Aviv? Is it "fun" to take pictures of a tragic death in a real-life scenario, such as war?
Did anyone collect the insurance money on the buildings? Are there people that would stoop this low as to cash in on a tragedy? Nah, because we're all "good people."
Sep 12, 2023 10:36:08 #
A missile hit the Pentagon. I have seen a picture of the motor. No aircraft engines baggage, passenger bodies etc laying around. We were lied to.
As for WTC buildings and Bldg#7 Larry Silverstein ( Jew) made a killing.
As for WTC buildings and Bldg#7 Larry Silverstein ( Jew) made a killing.
Sep 12, 2023 11:38:19 #
valkyrierider
Loc: "Land of Trump"
ziggy88 wrote:
Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True br ... (show quote)
An excellent article that substantiates everything that I have believed from the day that it happened.
Sep 12, 2023 11:56:32 #
currahee506 wrote:
Why were the pilots Saudis and not Iraqis? Why di... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~
I read we killed 500,000 children in Iraq, thanks to Bush " mission accomplished" looking for weapons of mass destruction.
" Well they gotta be there somewhere" when one were found...
Madeline Albright,when questioned about all the childrens deaths said it was worth it. Cluster bombs like we have Ukcraine were probably used.
Sep 12, 2023 14:27:15 #
ksaves wrote:
Stupidhead,
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
Pics show the initial point of impact. Those jets were loaded for bear with fuel for long distance trips. Fire burned hellaciously for a long time melting support beams and the weight above brought everything down. You're a troll and an idiot.
So you know more than the janitor, Willim Rodriquez. who reported explosions in the basement of the North Tower??
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.