Is there Scientific Proof that 9/11 was an inside job? 86


911-twin-towers-world-trade-center-plane-600The news that has made the 9/11 truthers almost orgasmic with joy is the claim that a credible scientific journal, Europhysics News, has published the results of a study that claims to verify that 9/11 was an inside job. As an example of the various reports, WND (the far right site known to some as WingNutDaily), has this claim …

9/11 CONSPIRACY GETS SUPPORT FROM PHYSICISTS’ STUDY

Europhysics magazine report finds Twin Towers brought down by ‘controlled demolition’

Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

First a Few actual Facts

There are two rather important points to start with …

  1. Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
  2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article

The editors did also add the following note:

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.

Incidentally, here is a link to the article in question itself.

Who Wrote it?

Four authors are listed, Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, Ted Walter are all well-known 9/11 truthers and are not exactly un-biased sources.

Steven Jones, is a retired Professor of Physics from BYU. In reality, after he started pursuing his 9/11 beliefs in 2005, the reaction of his university was to initially place him on paid leave due to the “increasingly speculative and accusatory nature” of his various claims, and then with his agreement, cut all ties and formally retired him.

He was a professor of physics, so perhaps we should not be too quick to dismiss him, after all he does have some notable career highlights. For example …

I’m not exactly convinced that this guy is the poster boy for the title “credible source”.

Robert Korol, is another retired elderly academic who perhaps quite enjoys a bit of public attention.

I have quite honestly no idea why Ted Walker is identified as an author. His only credentials consist of a Public Policy degree, he has no expertise in either engineering or physics.

Has anybody debunked this “study” yet?

Yep, it has only been a few days and already there is some reaction. Here is an extract …

In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article.  Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write:
 
2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state; 

True enough as far as it goes, but it omits one critical detail: when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading.  As a practical matter, I suspect that the sprinklers in WTC-1 and WTC-2 were already not functioning after the plane impacts, but even if they were they would have been insufficient to put out the massive fires in those two buildings.

But after that, the errors and omissions abound.  Next paragraph:

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and 

Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing.  This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s when they hit the two towers.

 It will not be the last word on it all either.

Is there any truth within any 9/11 Conspiracy Claim?

It is perhaps almost akin to a religious belief that is embraced by zealots for whom no quantity of evidence will ever convince. If faced with one of the many claims, then a great place to start is on the Debunking 9/11 website.

For a quick understanding of the entire 9/11 Truther landscape the Wikipedia article sums it up quite well …

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories.[13][14] The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[15][16] This also was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, chaired by Governor Thomas Kean.

Why do such ideas become popular and what can we actually do?

The observation that many people take this all seriously and truly believe is itself quite interesting. There are a couple of important points to remember when encountering people who embrace conspiracy ideas …

  • They are quite sincere in their beliefs.
  • The degree of human intelligence plays no part, there is no correlation between the belief and how smart they are. The smarter somebody is, the better they are at dreaming up rationalizations for utterly absurd notions.
  • It is not specific to a particular demography, they are not all white nerdy guys living in their moms basement.
  • It is not about a lack of some information and misinformation. Generally no quantity of rebuttal to the justifications for the conspiracy belief changes the minds true believers.
  • Not everybody who articulates a conspiracy idea is actually buying into the conspiracy belief, instead there are some who are simply carried by the tide of popularity for an idea. If presented with a well-reasoned fact-based verifiable arguments, then they tend to be persuaded. Others however, when faced with such arguments, do tend to demonstrate an immunity to any rebuttal.

It has perhaps always been like this with humans. What is different about 9/11, and other more recent conspiracy ideas, is that since about the mid 2000’s the Internet has acted like an amplifier for such beliefs.

So why do such beliefs take root and flourish within human minds?

University of Miami political scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent looked into what really explains this. They noted that in laboratory experiments …

“researchers have found that inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see nonexistent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations” and that in the real world “there is evidence that disasters (e.g., earthquakes) and other high-stress situations (e.g., job uncertainty) prompt people to concoct, embrace, and repeat conspiracy theories.”

In other words, when faced with a high-stress event such as 9/11, people embrace beliefs, perhaps religious or perhaps simply a conspiracy, as an attempt to explain it, and so gain some degree of control over the emotional trauma. Because it is embraced at an emotional level, any debunking of the idea will be ineffective.

It is perhaps part of our humanity that we are like this. The pattern seeking engine between our ears jumps to rapid conclusions as an attempt to explain what we encounter and we grasp that emotionally. Being able to do that gave us as a species a distinct survival advantage, hence it has been naturally selected. If we are really going to address it and overcome it, especially now in an age when the flow of information has been greatly increased, then we need to teach people to start thinking things through, not at an emotional level which leads to incorrect conclusions, but to also think things through rationally, and so empower them to work it out for themselves.

We can’t tell people what is and is not actually true, but if we equip them with richer set of cognitive tools, then there is a good probability that they will be able to rise to the challenge of this new age of myth-information and work out what is really true.


Leave a Reply

86 thoughts on “Is there Scientific Proof that 9/11 was an inside job?

  • Etb Etb

    The laws of physics are the bedrock to our understanding of the terrestrial world. Those laws applied to the most basic of observations of 9/11, the motions of the disintegration of WTC1,2 & partial free-fall collapse of WTC7 disprove the physics free official conspiracy theory & require engineering to have occurred. https://youtu.be/NiHeCjZlkr8

  • Vlado

    So does the author believes NIST’s ” study” that allegedly shows that one failing intersection , out of over 4, 000 intersections, caused the global collapse of WTC 7?! What does the author think about NIST refusing to release their computer models thstbremarkablynshow a single intersection failing caused a global collapse?! How does the author explain the building being in freefall for 80 to. 100 feet , which requires an 80 foot high section of the entire structure to be somehow removed BEFORE the top section begins to descend ?! Best source: youtube “experts speak out / the final cut !”

  • Sorgfelt

    I and many others with physics or engineering degrees know very well that those buildings could not have come down in the manner that they did without the assistance of explosives, which were quite obvious to any who have actually looked and listened to videos of the collapses. The so-called debunkers have repeatedly ignored or denied evidence, used the wrong figures, and did not follow through on their calculations.

  • Mike

    Every person on here didn’t even consider that the terrorists did both the bombs and the planes so that we would blame our own government? Jesus, what does it take for people to think critically?

  • Rory

    Conspiracy theories are nothing more than suggestions that question and point out gaps in the official narrative of events. In this case, it is the narrative of a government who are well known for manufacturing reasons to persuade the American public to go to war. The arguments presented here demonstrate a strawman technique mixed with logical fallacy. True skeptics question everything and in this case the author has chosen discrediting and misdirection, along with an article that fails to address any of the real points of the 911 argument to make his case to other fake skeptics.

    The inconsistencies in the official narrative are too numerous to count. Articles like this rarely address them and this one in particularly in no different.

  • ulf

    Anyone can see that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Its obvious to the naked eye. To belive otherwise you have to be blind or perhaps american. I travel a lot and whenever i meet americans i discuss 9/11 and it seems most of them have a kind of blind spot here.
    I Think it might be too hard to take in that your goverment kills its own people in order to invade other countries. But to the rest of the world this comes as no surprise.

    • Stephen Demetriou

      It is a terrible thing to come to a conclusion that some in the Bush admin would resort to murder to advance their visions of Pax Americana. One has to keep in mind that these are folks that designed and executed an official state policy of torture which in its execution has made a mockery of the rule of law, both international and domestic. Some of the very same people flouted Congressional mandates and sold weapons to Iran in the 80’s to fund death squads and monsters in Central America fighting a political war in Nicaragua. Innocent blood wasn’t part of the calculus used in determining those actions either. Your comment is a disturbing but true commentary on how many in the world view my country.

    • James Oeming

      Answer these questions:

      1) Why blow up three buildings, when two would do, to get the “false flag” job done?

      2) If “inside jobbers” wanted to hide their tracks, why would they blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane (WTC 7)? Wouldn’t that look “fishy”?

      3) And, why would they delay blowing up WTC 7? Wouldn’t that cast suspicion obmn the “terrorists-did-it” narrative?

      Ulf: I have $100 waiting for you if if cleanly and these questions. I suspect my money is very safe. Also, I strongly suspect you’ll have the guts and intellectual courage to admit that you can’t answer these questions. Prove me wrong.

      • James Oeming

        The above reply was posted with writing errors. I’m unable to correct them. I’m reposting with corrections…

        Ulf: Answer these questions:

        1) Why blow up three buildings, when two would do, to get the “false flag” job done?

        2) If “inside jobbers” wanted to hide their tracks, why would they blow up a building that wasn’t hit by a plane (WTC 7)? Wouldn’t that look “fishy”? Wouldn’t that attract attention?

        3) And, why would the false flaggers delay blowing up WTC 7? Wouldn’t that cast suspicion on the “terrorists-did-it” narrative?

        Ulf: I have $100 waiting for you if you cleanly and cogently answer these questions. Seriously. I suspect my money is very safe. Also, I strongly suspect you won’t have the guts and intellectual courage to admit that you can’t answer these questions. Prove me wrong.

        • James Oeming

          Same questions are directed to you, Stephen Demetriou. 1) Why blow up three buildings when two would achieve the same false flag effect? 2) Why blow up a building (WTC 7) that wasn’t hit by a plane? That would attract attention to the false flag conspiracy.

          Here’s another question: Why even blow up the buildings? Isn’t crashing planes into them enough to create a false flag effect?

          Can you answer these questions clearly and logically?

      • Stephen Demetriou

        All of those questions relate to motive and the technical evidence that the destruction of these buildings cannot be explained by aircraft strikes, fire, and gravity is the more important question to address before establishing motives. The NIDT NCSTAR1 report says the fires could not have lasted in any given spot at temperatures sufficient to weaken massive core columns or the perimeter assemblies having burned for only about 20 minutes. NIST researchers determined this time period based on both the visual evidence and the modeling that was used to generate the simulations.

        Dave, the author of this site, is offering skewed information based on an appeal to authorities of his own choosing while ignoring both the official estimates, data, eyewitness testimony of people both inside and outside the buildings.

  • LanceThruster

    Instead of computer modeling, why not a scale model to replicate the collapse? Should be doable based on the claims of the official narrative.

  • Tony101

    Not arguing for or against conspiracy theories, just curious. If “when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading,” is the case, then what prevented the fire prevention systems from preventing the collapse of the south tower?

    • Dave Post author

      Its a good question.

      For a quick general overview, an engineering summary from back in 2001 can be found here … http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

      To specifically address the question … no designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire.

      A key to the water question is this. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a “raging inferno” in the WTC towers?

      Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

      Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel-ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

      • RALPH LOWER

        WTC 7 collapsed straight down in 7 seconds at almost the speed of gravity for an object with no resistance. Video shows no signifigant fire throughout the building to cause such a symmetrical collapse. Even if fire could have been the culprit it would have most definitely not have been a symmetrical collapse. Your explanation also ignores the fact there have been much worse fires that burned extremely hot for much longer and almost none suffered even a partial collapse and the partial collapse that did occur were not symmetrical. It also ignores that in the towers there was at least 50 floors that fires would have little if any effect on. I built and repaired railroad freight cars. I know steel. I’ve seen the size an thickness of those beams. Without explosives there would have been no less than 30 stories of steel standing and most likely more. Aside from that there’s no wreckage at the Pentagon or Shanksville. In Shanksville they expect us to believe a 757 completely buried itself in the ground with no visible obvious wreckage. You’re in denial or getting paid to cover for the government. Whose responsible shouldn’t even play into it. There’s just to many conflicting details to accept the commission report. If you want to talk science of it there’s 2500+ architects and engineers who say the collapse of all three buildings couldn’t have happened as described by NIST. These men are licensed professionals whose job is to make sure building are safe and their claim is valid that since NIST is claiming the collapses were from fire it needs further investigation from a public safety perspective but NIST refuses to share the modeling they used to draw that conclusion.

        • Dave Post author

          Hi Ralph,

          CLAIM: // WTC 7 collapsed straight down in 7 seconds at almost the speed of gravity for an object with no resistance. … Video shows no signifigant fire throughout the building to cause such a symmetrical collapse.//

          In one word … Nope, those are myths. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/

          CLAIM: // there’s 2500+ architects and engineers who say the collapse of all three buildings couldn’t have happened as described by NIST //

          Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, the American Institute of Architects, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and quite literally millions of other architects and engineers beg to differ and have not been persuaded, they are generally convinced of the credibility of the NIST report. I suspect it would be possible to find 2500+ architects and engineers named “steve” who say that the collapse of all three buildings happened as described by NIST.

        • James Oeming

          Ralph Lower. You wrote “I know steel” as a justification for your reasonings. Yet, many others know steel better than you, and don’t buy your conclusions. Are you able to acknowledge that?

    • Stephen Demetriou

      Dave’s ad hoc e plantation of 4000 sq ft being filled with a large fire within seconds is nonsense. Section 1-5 of the NIST NCSTAR1 report goes into great detail on the fire simulations they performed, while other chapters model the damage estimates from the aircraft based on speed, mass, and estimates of the distribution of the fuel. From that they try to model the behavior of the fires. Dave doesn’t appear to have much experience with any of that. If he did I believe he would accept, maybe, that the initial fireball within the building was quickly tamped down being limited by the available oxygen being consumed rapidly. The fires can be seen in video and still photos to greatly diminish immediately after the initial fuel explosions, only to pick up again as oxygen made its way back into the buildings. This behavior was different for each building because of the differences in the strike angle and the number of windows seen to be broken out.

      Reading through Dave’s reply to you it is obvious he doesn’t know what the NIST report says about their estimates and simulations of fire behavior. The report is online and can be read for yourself.

    • Stephen Demetriou

      Let me add that Dr. Legg’s description of some of the issues regarding these building failures, which I posted below is an expert analysis of problems with the official conspiracy theory Dave is, in a rather hamfisted way, is advocating for.

    • Dave Post author

      Hi Tony,

      It is perhaps worth noting a few additional points …

      1) Mr Demetriou is clearly very passionate about this, but then if you google his name you discover that he has been banging on about this since 2008. That is a lot of time invested in a conspiracy theory, so he will not really be open to any alternatives
      2) Yep, I speculated on the fly, but note that the NIST report does not actually refute the generic observation I made.
      3) I confess that I’m a tad bemused by his use of the NIST report. He generally takes the stance that it is all wrong and part of the cover-up, but will still lean upon it for support when it is useful to do so.
      4) much of what he notes is correct regarding initial fireballs and oxygen, etc… but that does not in any way refute the argument that dumping a fully fuelled aircraft on to one floor would have completely overwhelmed the sprinkler system, which if operational, could not have coped with that.
      5) I also note with further amusement that his stance is that the official highly research conclusions are a “conspiracy” and all wrong, and a conspiracy on a grand scale of a controlled demolition is supposedly the “truth”.

      For interest, here is a link to the NIST reports. https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

      • Stephen Demetriou

        You speculate on the fly in nearly everything you have said here. Your long response below doubling down on your opinion of the European Physical Society magazine is proof of that, and the “proofs” you speculate on regarding vaporized glass and silicates, molybdenum, the molten metal “flowing like lava,” “like a foundry” as fire responders described seeing is all hand waving and speculation that denies observed phenomena. I must say you have the official justifications for the cover up down pretty good. I am hearten though to see the push back you are being given in the comments. How about a scale model, eh? Should be able to model a scaled mock up. I suspect that isn’t on anyone’s agenda because of the failure encountered when mockups of the floor assembly fires didn’t produce the deflections necessary to satisfy the actual observations.

        In short, Dave, you are a fraud perpetrating the myth of the official conspiracy theory that anyone with a little bit of intellectual honesty and objectivity can see is also a fraud. The physics you resort to to prove your myth is the stuff of science fiction. No amount of hand waving can make the fiction fit what is clear with clear eyed observation.

      • Stephen Demetriou

        The distribution of the fuel into the buildings was modeled by NIST and there is every reason to believe the modeling was reasonably good. The people doing the actual work are accomplished people. The flaws come when the conclusions drawn from the fire behavior modeling don’t agree with actual observations, such as when the modeling show the areas around the core columns cooler, well within their tolerances, at the time of their supposed failure. NIST actually says “The simulations and the visible evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1000 degrees C at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min. to 20 minutes.” Sec 1-5F Chap 6.6.2 pg 109. Steel doesn’t lose a great deal of its structural strength after 15 or 20 minutes. The Eagar paper you cite was written weeks after the event and has none of the insights that came from the NIST study.

        The fact that vaporized glass, lead, iron, and molybdenum were present in the dust samples examined by USGS, RJ Lee, and that vaporized steel was found by WPI and NIST structural engineers doesn’t prove controlled demolition but it is conclusive evidence of extremely high temperatures, temperatures well beyond the ability of organic fuels or kinetic energy from a gravity induced fall from 1100 ft to produce. To suggest otherwise for such a well understood phenomena as to what it takes to vaporize glass, lead, steel, or molybdenum is grand hand waving of a monumental scale. The fact that controlled demolition does repeatedly and consistently produce these types of temperatures is significant and relevant as controlled demolition better fits with the observed phenomena of sudden onset of destruction, actual and near free fall acceleration of destruction, total destruction right down to the ground.

        • Patrick Lane

          For Christ’s sake why doesn’t somebody argue the simplicity of what took place on September 11, 2001. I agree with Stephen and as for what Dave says, meh.
          There are simple logical proofs that force one to deduce that it was controlled demolition.
          All of what I’m going to state is easily found in the record so look it up for yourselves.
          The Twin Towers were built with a redundancy factor of 3-4 times. The perimeter walls took 40% of the load, principally the floor weight. Therefore *absent* the melting of the perimeter walls they could have held up the building on their own–at least for some time, minutes even hours. Did anyone see the perimeter walls melting? Furthermore after the forced release of the firefighter’s tapes we hear a firefighter reach the 78th floor of one of the towers and radio back that there were just a few spotty fires that could “easily be knocked down with a couple of lines (hoses).” Moments later the building collapsed catastrophiclly. It is beyond idiotic to say they collapsed due to fire.
          Finally, even if they could have collapsed just due to fire it would have been a slow agonizing collapse not the explosive disintegration we saw.
          This argument is so damn tiresome.

  • Dani

    I mean yeah you can argue with me until youre blue in the face but not once did I read you trying to debunk building 7. Debris from the plane two blocks away tho amirite? Despite that there was reported to be minimal structural damage not to mention the BBC announced 7’s collapse before it even happened while still standing in the background on live national television. Not to mention the pixels around the plane in the famous pictures moments before it hit. What a shit photoshop job. Just shows how ignorant ppl are. It looks like a grade schooler copy pasted a Clipart plane in there.

    • Dave Post author

      The cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is well documented and fully understood (google is your friend if interested).

      Regarding the suggestion that there were no aircraft and that the picture was faked, you need to consider that there was a city full of people who saw it happen along with the rest of the nation watching on live TV. After the first impact, all human eyes and media outlets turned their eyes that way and saw the second plane hit.

      Regarding the claim that the BBC announced 7’s collapse early. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks. Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a “very small and very honest mistake” caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.

      The fire had been raging for quite some time and all those on the ground monitoring expected it to collapse, hence the rumour that it had circulated and was reported as fact.

      I do have one prediction, none of the above fact-based and verifiable explanations will change your mind.

  • sdemetri

    NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
    Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. [email protected]
    Abstract
    An argument is presented that all theories of progressive collapse of the Twin Towers fail because the initiating event could not have occurred. The NIST report appears to be unsatisfactory in that it fails to deal with certain observations.
    The NIST report of the tragic events of 9/11 includes a study of the factors which led to the Twin Towers being ‘poised for collapse’. The report did not go on to address the mechanism of the actual collapse of the towers. Readers are left with the assumption that, from that moment, collapse was inevitable. 1 The report has been rightly criticized on the grounds that NIST, in omitting reference to the collapse mechanism, failed to perform the fundamental task it had been given. 2
    There has been much speculation about the mechanism of collapse and various hypotheses have emerged. There is the ‘pancake’ theory which has been augmented by addition of the ‘pile driver’ concept. In this theory collapse is initiated by the sudden disintegration of one storey. This allows the top of the building to fall through the gap and the resulting impact causes the storey below to collapse. The mass of this collapsed storey adds to the mass of the falling block. This then falls on the storey below, which in turn is dislodged. A chain reaction thus develops in which all lower storeys collapse and the entire building is destroyed.
    There is also the ‘global collapse’ theory. 3 This appears to be no more than a name as it lacks an explanation. It requires that heat-damaged connections and columns fail, but how this could progress from one floor to the next where there has been no fire appears to be causing a problem. NIST let a contract in 2003 to a firm of consultants seeking their explanation for the global collapse of building 7. 4 No response has yet been published. The pile driver theory at least provides a superficially plausible explanation for progress by suggesting that the mass of the falling block will be sufficient to destroy the supports in the unheated region below.
    The pile driver theory has been elaborated to include calculations involving momentum and kinetic energy. Greening has provided a paper intended to show that the collapse, once initiated, would be sustained. 5 Ross has provided calculations in refutation of this claim. His paper shows that the impact from the falling block would be absorbed by the structures above and below the impact area and would not be sufficient to result in a progressive collapse. 6 A comprehensive paper showing the falsity of the official explanation has been given by Ryan. 7
    There have been many attempts, both official and unofficial, to explain the collapses, several of which are contradictory. Wikepedia provides a convenient list. 8 The essential point to note is that all authors supporting the official view accept that the damage due to plane impact was not sufficient by itself to cause collapse and that the ultimate cause was the high temperature experienced by the steel structure due to fire, facilitated by the loss of fireproofing caused by plane impact.
    This brief paper takes a different approach from those which attack the assertion that the collapse could ‘progress’ and simply refutes all such theories on the grounds that at the moment of collapse, at least for WTC 1, the building was in fact not ‘poised for collapse’ and could not have produced the initiating event.
    The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600oC. 9 This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse. 9
    The NIST report provides diagrams depicting plane damage and data derived from their fire and temperature simulations. The report asserts that the simulations correspond to a satisfactory degree with the observed fires as recorded in videos and photographs. From these it appears that the initial collapse in WTC 1, if it had occurred, would have been at storey 95 or 96. That is the region where the building was most damaged by plane impact. There is little damage shown for storey 97. 10 There is at least one video showing collapse starting at storey 96. 11
    Study of the NIST diagrams shows that at the time of collapse the perimeter columns were not hot enough to place the building at risk. Most significantly the diagrams also show that the core areas of all storeys listed, from 92 to 99, spanning the plane damaged region, had cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30 and 45 minute readings but collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100 to 600 oC. 12 Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150 oC. Videos show that the core started to collapse before the perimeter. 13
    Bearing in mind the substantial heat sink properties of the columns there are three possibilities to consider: the temperature of the steel columns of the core at the moment of collapse might have been (a) rising toward the environment temperature, (b) steady or (c) falling. In case (a) or (b) collapse would clearly have been impossible as half the columns would be below 150oC and nearly all the rest between 150 and 600oC.
    Case (c), with column temperature falling, remains to be examined. Regardless of the final steel temperature, the core could not now collapse as it had already survived a higher temperature without collapsing and must have gained strength as it cooled.
    The NIST report states that sagging floors pulled the central portion of one wall inward, causing it to lose strength. Sagging of the core was said to transfer load to the weakened wall which then failed. This is not reasonable however because there were three remaining walls, including four undamaged corners, which provided a rigid structure holding the core vertical by means of the hat truss. Collapse, if it were to occur, must therefore have been vertical, involving all core columns and the perimeter columns simultaneously. We have already seen that the core could not have failed due to heat. Initiation of collapse was therefore impossible. In the absence of initiation there could be no progressive collapse. An alternative mechanism for the collapse is therefore required: the use of explosives in a controlled demolition fits all observations.14
    It appears reasonable to believe that the NIST report stops short of dealing with the mechanism of collapse precisely because their early modeling showed collapse due to fire and plane damage to be impossible. As the conclusion of their report is not in accord with their own data it appears that the report was written under duress. Investigation of this possibility is urgently required.
    End Notes
    1. NIST NCSTAR 1-3. Executive Summary of Mechanical and Metalurgical Analysis of Structural Steel.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
    2. NIST fails to address its basic task.
    http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
    http://www.911review.com/coverup/wtcinquiry.html
    3. Progressive Collapse – Global Collapse
    http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html
    4. NIST lets a contract for the study of global collapse of WTC 7.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm
    5. Greening, F. R., “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse.”
    http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
    6. Ross, G., “Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, (June, 2006).
    http://journalof911studies.com/
    7. Ryan, K., “What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps”. Journal of 9/11 Studies, (August, 2006). Professional knowledge of the steel used in the towers gives this paper added significance.
    http://journalof911studies.com/
    8. Wikipedia provides a convenient summary of numerous authors who have attempted to describe, or have avoided describing, the mechanism of collapse.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
    9. NIST NCSTAR 1-3. See page xli for upper temperature limit. Note that this test shows only that no steel was found which had exceeded 600 oC. The steel could have reached any temperature below this. They also state that little steel was found which had exceeded 250 oC.
    See page 111 for Temperature / Yield graph. This shows the steel at 600 oC would have been at about half of its cold strength. As the lowest reported safety factor is 2.2 this should have been strong enough, especially as at any time the columns would have been at a range of temperatures depending on the progress of the fires, some considerably colder. Also the hat truss, in conjunction with the walls, would have prevented any leaning towards the weakest portion: all columns would therefore have had to give way simultaneously, regardless of temperature.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf
    10. NIST NCSTAR 1-5. See pages 148 to 153 for structural damage.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
    11. Careful study of this video shows collapse starting at storey 96 where a line of dust is appearing. The rate of collapse of this storey however does not appear to be as fast as the downward motion of the roof, showing that at least one other storey must have started collapsing close to the same time. A clue to where this might be located is given by the appearance of another line of dust a few storeys higher. This would be an improbable coincidence, if the official theory is accepted, as it would require two initiations. This finding is much more readily explained as being due to explosives.
    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg
    12. NIST NCSTAR 1-5. See pages 112 to 127 temperature charts.
    The charts refer to “upper layer temperatures” (see sample below). This is in recognition of the fact that convection moves hotter gases upward. The model assumed that there was some obstruction preventing hot gases from escaping too easily from each storey and that a hot layer would be trapped there. Presumably this was to allow time for the hot gas to transfer some of its heat to the columns.
    13. It should have been impossible for the core and the perimeter to collapse separately due to the presence of the very strong hat truss connecting them. This video shows that the antenna, mounted over the core, started to move 0.4 seconds before the edge of the roof. In this time the core would have dropped about 2.5 feet. This suggests explosives were planted in the hat truss and were fired at the initiation of the collapse sequence. Severing of the core must have occurred at the same time or shortly before.
    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_1st24.mpg
    14. Legge, F., “9/11 – Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, (June, 2006).
    http://journalof911studies.com/
    

    • Dave Post author

      A paper published in a journal named “Journal of 9/11 Studies” … seriously? Anybody familiar with the landscape will know that this is a crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to “just ask questions”.

      • sdemetri

        No, actually, anybody familiar with argumentation will take your ad hominem insult of the authors published at that site as evidence you don’t have an argument and must rely on demonizing the source rather than disproving the argument. That is primarily what you did above in your post, seeking to discredit EuroPhysics News rather than approaching the content of the article EuroPhysics News found worthy of publication. It is what nearly every “debunking” site relies on; discredit the ones making the argument, not the argument itself with irrefutable evidence the argument doesn’t stand up. You can’t make those types of arguments stick when what you rely on is innuendo that has no empirical support behind it. This site is called, Skeptical Science but, at least in your post, presents no science whatsoever. You posted hypotheticals, “validated” by your “resort to authority,” another logical fallacy in argumentation which doesn’t support your contention.

        The NIST study treats the supposed lack of fireproofing by testing mockup floor assemblies to approximate how much deflection could be expected under their four test conditions. Under none of those conditions does 56 minutes of fire, intense or otherwise, produce the deflection necessary to support the notion deflection of floor assemblies pulled in the perimeter column assemblies setting off local failure of the remaining columns supporting the floors above the damage site. In fact, NIST’s own estimations puts none of the perimeter columns being subjected to temperatures much beyond, as Frank Gayle, a lead NIST investigator suggests, “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C,” and which an executive with Underwriter’s Lab familiar with the ASTM E119 certification of the steel asked Gayle about. (The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.) Not only does NIST fail to provide evidence this local failure theory is valid, it does absolutely nothing to prove this local failure set off global failure of the entire, presumably intact structure below. And they admit as much…

        Yeah, I’m asking questions… based on science. You are not, and should.

        • Dave Post author

          There are a couple of points I wish to make.

          First, the issue of criticising the credibility of the authors is wholly appropriate. I did not in any way criticise EuroPhysics News as you claim, but rather explored the credibility of the authors of that one article that the editors of EuroPhysics News specifically (and correctly) label as speculation. The issue of their credibility is promoted by the article itself and attempts to utilise it as an appeal to authority.

          Secondly and finally, just a friendly bit of guidance. I would really advise on not using the term “I’m asking questions” or similar. This is so overused these days that it has become a bit of a cliche. It also a tactic that absolves you from actually formulating an actual hypothesis. For example, are you seriously promoting the idea that three buildings were rigged with explosives without anybody noticing, by who exactly, and/or that flying a fully laden aircraft into the towers played no part?

          No please don’t answer any of that, I think we are done. You have stated your position and I’ve replied. Anybody curious about such questions can google and search for impartial independent answers (or not).

          • Stephen Demetriou

            Of course I’ll respond to your deflection. Europhysics News is not peer reviewed and nobody claims it is. It is a widely respected topical magazine that is read by an informed audience. Saying it is not peer reviewed is of course an attempt to diminish it’s standing and credibility.

            The editors deemed the subject matter worthy of publication and while saying the article contaned speculation the editors did not disqualify the article on the basis of what they deemed speculative. You, in an uninformed and speculative manner, didn’t “explore” the authors of the article, you denigrated Steven Jones, dishonestly misrepresenting his cold fusion work and his religion. His muon-catalysed cold fusion research is not what Pons and Fleischmann focused on and bears no resemblance to their discredited work. What else can I say about attacking ones religion to discredit their professional work. That is bigotry writ large.

            I think we are done. You don’t have a grasp on the necessary facts or skills to approach this honestly and with objectivity. Attacking the credibility of the authors rather than the merits of the argument is, as I said, a false argument. You parrot common, unsupported nonsense from sources you consider authoritative unable to actually address point by point the arguments presented by the authors, accepted as worthy of publication by EuroPhysics News. And then in response to me you expect me to accept your call to speculate about things that have no bearing on the questions at hand: not who did what, how, and why, but why doesn’t the official investigation include explanations for molten metal. Free fall acceleration, low temp fires and the redundancy built in to the structures. You aren’t equipped to discuss any of this, that is obvious.

            • Dave Post author

              OK, let’s take this step by step then.

              // Europhysics News is not peer reviewed //
              I agree, that is my point (at least we can agree on something).

              // and nobody claims it is.//
              I quite honestly am not finding that to be the case …
              These guys do … http://www.newsbbc.net/2016/09/its-official-european-scientific.html
              and these guys refer to it as a science journal … http://nsnbc.me/2016/09/12/europhysics-news-published-report-questioning-official-911-building-collapse-narratives/
              and here … http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/
              and here … http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/europhys-news-911-saw-controlled.html
              and so on.

              In summary, while you do not, many others implicitly do with the use of the term “Science Journal”.

              // Saying it is not peer reviewed is of course an attempt to diminish it’s standing and credibility. //
              This will not exactly come as a shock to you, but I don’t agree. Pointing out that it is not is rather obviously a rebuttal to the many many 9/11 sites and articles that misrepresent it.

              // you denigrated Steven Jones, dishonestly misrepresenting his cold fusion work and his religion.//
              Once again, I do not agree.
              – Was he suspended by his university for the “increasingly speculative and accusatory nature” of his various claims and then “retired”? I don’t need to denigrate him, his own university did that.
              – Most humans embrace specific religious beliefs for cultural reasons and tend to hold such views with varying degrees of confidence, often without really giving it much thought. The observation that Mr Jones has taken his specific belief to the rather odd extreme of striving to “prove” specific aspects of his cultural inheritance is both wholly appropriate, fact-based and not bigotry. It simply highlights his rather eccentric nature.
              – Jones himself personally claims that he invented the term “Cold Fusion”.
              – I agree he started down the track of muon-catalysed fusion, but he did abandon that, leapt on Fleischmann and Pons’s ideas and and began collaborating with the chemistry department on the same electrolytic approach to cold fusion. You can read all about that in B. V. Lewenstein and W. Baur, “A Cold Fusion Chronology,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.

              // I think we are done. //
              I agree. I did however already make that observation within a previous comment, so it would appear that we now have a second point that we both agree upon.

              // in response to me you expect me to accept your call to speculate about things //
              I specifically suggested that you should not do so, I was simply musing in print regarding what your hypothesis actually is. I suspect you most probably lean towards the idea that the Bush Administration specifically planned for it to happen.

              // molten metal. Free fall acceleration, low temp fires and the redundancy built in to the structures. You aren’t equipped to discuss any of this, that is obvious.//

              I have learned from experience that long running comment threads tend not to be a productive, they generate rather a lot of heat and very little illumination. Would discussing any of it actually change your mind?

              Let’s take the first as an example. I’m assuming that the term “Molten Steel” is essentially the following claim.

              Claim: Molten steel was discovered in the basements of the collapsed WTC. Fire couldn’t raise the temperature high enough to melt steel, but explosives, particularly thermite, could.

              Details covered here … http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html … which in essence confirms that there is no evidence for this claim. You will be familiar with that rebuttal.

              You will have rationalised it away so that the commitment to the idea can remain intact. Now please do not take that as a personal attack, it is a generic human attribute, we all do this to one degree or another.

              Each and every one of the claims you offer has a robust rebuttal, and proceeding through them one by one will not in any way shake your deeply felt emotional commitment to these ideas.

              Each of us is personally convinced that the other is wrong, and we can either come to terms with that and move on, or continue to take verbal pot-shots at each other. Personally my preference is the former. From my viewpoint, we have each said our bit, it really is time to move on.

              • sdemetri

                The European Physical Society, of which EuroPhysics News is its flagship publication, boasts as its membership 42 national physics societies. For you to diminish the significance of the journal, peer-reveiwed or not, shows that you are arguing out of ideology, not from a scientific point of view. My guess is EPNews has a very good reputation for presenting current and relevant topics in Physics, much more than your amateurish treatment, slurs, and slanders commend as your ideological motivation. What that ideology is one can only guess, but given the lack of scientific integrity in what you say, and the links you provide to substitute your argument for you, and the slander and bigotry in your attack of Jones, it is not an ideology that has a respect for civil debate around observed phenomena.

                I must say I appreciate 911Myths attempts at treating the science more than your failure to do so. Your claim that there is “in essence confirms that there is no evidence for this claim…” certainly doesn’t follow from what they present. Here, again, you fail at the science. Their mission was to muddy the waters by cherry picking facts, quotations, and presenting ambiguity as proof the claim is false, when the evidence is overwhelming.

                A US Geological Survey study released in 2005, and a study of dust samples by the firm RJ Lee in 2003 both confirmed the presence of iron-rich spheres in the samples they examined. The Lee study also discovered silicates, glass-like compounds, which had a “Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation.” The temperature required to produce spheres of silicates is roughly 1450C. The temperature needed to vaporize, or boil, a silicate is about 2760C. The Lee study also found evidence of vaporized lead. Vaporization of lead occurs at around 1740C.

                One of the more unusual finds came about through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Geological Service for data regarding the 2005 results the USGS had published. Not published with the original data are micrographs showing spheres of molybdenum, a metal with a melting temperature of 2623C, over one thousand degrees hotter than that necessary to melt iron. Finding spheres of molybdenum in the dust of the WTC collapses is evidence that temperatures, by some mechanism, may have reached at least 2623C.

                Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute also discovered evidence of extremely high temperatures completely unexplained by any of the official studies completed, or underway, to date. Prof. Jonathon Barnett found steel possessing a “Swiss cheese like appearance.” Examining structural steel from WTC 7 he wrote, “A one-inch [steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” 2.

                2. “The “Deep Mystery” of Melted Steel” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002

                http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

                A live link to the article is here:

                http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html

                Abolhassan Astaneh also found the phenomena the WPI people found in his examination of WTC7 steel. This evidence has to be denied for the fire conspiracy to hold up. What also has to be denied are the couple of hundred of people who either saw, heard, felt, were directly involved in explosions in every part of the buildings prior to their complete destruction, and that evidence is also denied. More on that later.

                So, 911Myths, and you, can obfuscate, deny, lie, slander and slur all you want, but what it amounts to is hand waving, not science.

                • Dave Post author

                  Clearly Mr Demetri, you are deeply passionate about all of this and want to carry on.

                  OK, so be it, let’s continue then.

                  // EuroPhysics News //
                  It’s not a science journal, it is not peer-reviewed, and it really is simply just a magazine.
                  – Does EuroPhysics News describe themselves as a magazine? (Hint: yes they do)
                  – Did the editors label the article in question as one that contained some “speculation”?
                  – Did the editors clearly state “the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”?
                  – Have the editors ever added such a note to any other article … ever?
                  – What exactly do you think all of the above tells their readership?

                  // Molten Steel … Your claim that there is “in essence confirms that there is no evidence for this claim…” certainly doesn’t follow from what they present. //
                  Actually yes it does. Simply claiming that it does not is just hand-waving denial.

                  It is not the only rebuttal, there are many more, but since we are discussing the 911Myths rebuttal, then …

                  Your claim that // Their mission was to muddy the waters by cherry picking facts, quotations, and presenting ambiguity as proof the claim is false, when the evidence is overwhelming. //

                  OK, let’s test this …
                  – What is your source and evidence for your claim regarding what their mission is?
                  – What is your evidence that they cherry-pick facts and quotations?
                  – Give a specific example of them presenting ambiguity as proof the claim

                  Now moving on to more specifics beyond the above, but related.

                  // iron-rich spheres //
                  No this is not evidence of thermite … metabunk covers it … https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

                  // silicates, glass-like compounds //
                  Where exactly do you think all the glass in the towers went?

                  Since you state that you appreciate 911myths, then you will of course be interested in their take on this as well … http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

                  // molybdenum //
                  Finding molybdenum is no great mystery or evidence of what you think is a conspiracy. Check the International Molybdenum Association web site. Yes it is used to strengthen construction steel and, yes it has a very high melting point, but … it is also a coating for architectural stainless steel which was the principal cladding material of the two towers.

                  Incidentally, construction steel strengthened with Molybdenum was not used in the construction of the WTC towers. No really, do check it,
                  – Tishman Realty and Construction — the company that erected the WTC in the early 70s — used ASTM A36 steel, a non-molybdenum carbon steel, for the towers’ framework.
                  – A36 has a tensile strength of about 60,000 pounds per square inch and melts at around 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.
                  – Raw Molybdenum has a tensile strength of 120,000 pounds per square inch and melts at 4700 degrees Fahrenheit.

                  If they had used an alloy with Molybdenum such as type1 316 LM (which is commonly used in construction) then even that bumps the tensile strength to 75,000 pounds per sq inch and also bumps the melt point by 300 degrees … the towers would not have fallen.

                  // Swiss cheese steel //
                  I do agree that jet fuel will not melt steel … however, you do also need to factor in the rather obvious as well. A fall of 1,000 feet with a sudden stop is rather a lot of kinetic energy that will be converted into noise and heat, Small amounts of melted steel around the base is not exactly a surprise.

                  If indeed you are rolling with the thermite claim, you do also need to factor in a few other considerations …
                  1. Controlled demolition does not cause molten steel in the rubble. In other words, traces of molten steel, if verified (I currently reject the claim that it was) does not imply controlled demolition.
                  2. Thermite is not used on vertical columns in controlled demolitions. Because the way thermite works, it is not effective in cutting a vertical load bearing column.
                  3. Thermite = iron oxide + aluminium. You would expect to find molten iron at the base of the building. Did anyone find unusually high quantities of it at WTC?

                  OK, so moving on to witnesses …

                  // couple of hundred of people who either saw, heard, felt, were directly involved in explosions in every part of the buildings prior to their complete destruction //

                  Actually no, there were none at all. For example, a common claim is the supposed explosions felt and seen coming out of windows as the towers fell was actually debris being expelled as the floors pancaked on top of each other.

                  OK, that’s a tad simplistic, it is all actually a bit more complex. There was of course rather a lot of water in the towers (sinks, bathrooms, etc…) which, when rapidly heated, will expand violently and explosively.

                  … and of course the usual salutation to sign off with …

                  // you, can obfuscate, deny, lie, slander and slur all you want, but what it amounts to is hand waving //

                  [Proceeds to wave back]

                  In reply, I’d simply suggest that your deep emotional attachment to the idea blinds you to the truth of what really happened. You really should pause and seriously ponder the possibility that you just might be wrong.

                  OK, I have one further thought to toss into the mix that is perhaps a tad out of scope …

                  For the record, I am convinced that there really is indeed a conspiracy and a coverup that surrounds it all. Specifically …

                  – The Saudi money that financed what happened …

                  Saudi Arabia has spent somewhere between $100 and $200 billion of oil revenue promoting their rather extreme variation of wahhabism since the mid 70s … the birth of radical and quite extreme variations of Islamic belief is the harvest we reap from that, and 9/11 was just one manifestation of it.

                  – the cover-up by the various administrations of the Saudi link … basically because of the financial threat by the Saudi’s to withdraw billions
                  – The manner in which what happened was utilised by the Bush administration to wage wars under completely false pretences

                  etc…

                  but as for an actual controlled demolition orchestrated by the Bush administration? Nope, I’m quite honestly not finding any credible evidence for that.
                  Why do you think that might be the case?

              • Chris

                You should definitely proceed through the claims one by one. I am very curios to hear your logical rebuttal to the free fall and thermite residue. Ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority are both logical fallacies.

              • Tom

                The issue is, you’re not applying critical thinking. Seriously? The Free Thought Project? A site that likes to peddle conspiracy theories and nonsense in general? OF COURSE they’d call it a scientific journal.

                Honestly, you have a long way to go.

        • Tom

          “Journal of 9/11 Studies” is pseudoscience, not science. And which scientific body is ““Journal of 9/11 Studies” recognised by? None? I thought so.

          Tell me, which scientific journals do you read? How are you able to recognise the difference between pseudoscience, not science?
          Which architects and engineers do you pay attention to that aren’t the small number of so called “truthers” or associated with the business that is ae911truth? There’s only a TINY number of so engineers worldwide (that can’t be fully verified) who, it seems, most likely for profit (appear to) disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists, architects and engineers worldwide regarding 9/11. So much for ae911truth being a “non profit organisation as they falsely claim > https://www.metabunk.org/threads/why-dont-architects-and-engineers-for-9-11-truth-fund-research.2832/ And even IF every one of those who you advocate were fully verifiable and legit, that is such a TINY minority out of the millions worldwide, wouldn’t you say? Now, if you disagree, then going by your logic, that’d mean the tiny handful of creationist scientists are right over the overwhelming majority of evolutionist scientists who, going on evidence, understand evolution. The thing to do is, go with the evidence, not try to make the evidence fit your beliefs (which the evidence won’t). That is something that conspiracy theorists are known for doing, as psychology has shown us. These sites investigates ae911truths claims and takes a closer look… https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/truthmovement http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

          I always like to set so called “truthers” a challenge, and in order for it to meet scientific standard, it has to fit all the following criteria ….

          1) Find a single article that challenges the conclusions of the NIST reports on the collapse of the buildings and and offers an alternative hypothesis for any part of the collapse initiation or sequences.

          2) It has to be in a well respected scientific journal. That doesn’t mean an isolated “truther” site, like “Journal of 9/11 Studies”, as pseudo-scientific sites aren’t taken seriously within the scientific community and not recognised by any scientific body.

          3) It has to be peer reviewed by experts. That means names. Not amateurs. Not the so called truth movement. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded in 2006, so where’s their peer reviewed alternative hypothesis? They have nothing. As long as people like David Chandler, Steven E. Jones. Richard Gage and co can fool the uninformed, why should they care for science? No peer reviewed work in respected journals? Who cares? Pseudo-scientific nonsense? That’ll do. The uninformed won’t notice after all. It’s all about the money, like most conspiracy theories. It’s a business, after all.

          • Stephen Demetriou

            Your ad hominem insults fits the profile of someone unfamiliar and unable to address the science put forward in most of what I’ve written. You and Dave deserve each each other.

  • sdemetri

    “Is there Scientific Proof that 9/11 was an inside job?” The form of this question belies a deep misunderstanding of the questions involved. It would be better asked if the question read, “Is there Scientific Proof sufficient to dispute the official conspiracy theory, and to warrant a complete investigation that includes direct, ubiquitous observations ignored in the NIST investigation?” The answer to that question is a resounding, YES.

    The original question presumes an assignment of guilt that those calling for a new, independent investigation do not make. Those calling for a new investigation will let the facts that were ignored in the NIST investigation lead where they will lead once the threads of evidence have been thoroughly explored. Scientific method requires a thorough examination of the observable facts before concluding anything, in this case, about causation.

    Such amateurish treatments of these events by articles such as this post on Skeptical Science dishonor the thousands of people who died on that day in 2001, and distort the historical record of all that has followed as a direct result of those events.

    • Dave Post author

      // “Is there Scientific Proof that 9/11 was an inside job?” The form of this question belies a deep misunderstanding of the questions involved. //
      I’m not the one promoting that claim, I’m simply expressing skepticism when faced with that claim.

      // “Is there Scientific Proof sufficient to dispute the official conspiracy theory, and to warrant a complete investigation that includes direct, ubiquitous observations ignored in the NIST investigation?” The answer to that question is a resounding, YES.//
      You appear to have a small typo in the above, when you typed the word “NO” you accidentally typed “YES’.

      // The original question presumes an assignment of guilt that those calling for a new, independent investigation do not make. //
      That is not actually a factual claim. The core assertion is that it was a controlled demolition.

      One final observation. Using the death of thousands of innocent people as a tool to spice up a comment with a bit of emotional manipulation is quite frankly truly repugnant.

  • sdemetri

    What many credible independent researchers of the events of 9/11, including the authors of the EuroPhysics News paper, want is an unbiased, honest investigation into the gaping implausibilities commonly believed about the building failures in NYC, such as what is posted above, that fireproofing was knocked off steel floor assemblies leaving the steel vulnerable to deformation and failure implying without evidence the catastrophic failure of those three steel-framed towers. Organic fuels don’t possess the potential energy to cause this phenomenon outside of controlled conditions, and certainly not when the fire burns for less than an hour, as was the case in WTC 2. Popular Mechanics resorts to hand waving distractions claiming NIST reported pockets of fire reached 1832 degrees F. However, NIST also reported unexplained cold spots, less fire spread, and less visible evidence of fires in WTC 2 in the NCSTAR 1 report, but Popular Mechanic’s experts don’t mention that. Nor does the author of this post. The lack of credible evidence to support a lack of fireproofing is sufficient to prove largely low temperature, roving fires belching black smoke for less than an hour, and blanket statements such as “This claim has been easily refuted many many many many (did I mention many) times….” is so much hand waving which proves nothing, rests on nothing, does nothing to address the gaping inconsistencies in the narrative that fire and gravity can account for three completely unprecedented and as yet unexplained catastrophic failures of massive steel buildings, none of the fire chiefs who sent their personnel into the buildings expected to fail.

  • Huginn Muninn (@huginn_muninn3)

    At what temperature does (a) steel melt and (b) jet fuel burn?
    Assuming a jet fuel fire could melt steel, how long would it take to get hot enough?
    Would a fire of this type cause the building to collapse at freecall speed from the bottom up?

    Just exercising critical thought here (NB: not to be confused with moronic snark).

    • Dave Post author

      This claim has been easily refuted many many many many (did I mention many) times. If for example I google “9/11 melting steel” then the top hit is the following article from popular mechanics in 2010 …

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

      There they explain …

      Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

      “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

      But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

      • sdemetri

        Neither you nor Popular Mechanics are refuting anything. The temperatures in the twin towers were not sufficient to cause anything more than temporary heating of the steel infrastructure in localized areas as the fires moved around the floors effected by fire as the existing fuel was consumed. NIST’s analysis of likely fire movements based on photographic evidence do not support even pockets of fire at 1832 degrees F causing structural failure after 56 minutes of fire roving around effected floors consuming organic materials as fuel. Nor does NIST show that a little more than 100 minutes of roving fires were sufficient to cause deformity and failure, failure that would be sufficient to cause catastrophic failure of the remaining intact structure. The estimates of damage to core columns were not sufficient for about 56 minutes or 106 minutes of moving fires to initiate local failure of steel infrastructure that would result in nearly identical catastrophic failure in both buildings.

        Farid Alfawak-hiri does not give a time frame for his claim, cited by Popular Mechanics, and Forman Williams supports his claims by “hand waving” when saying “the resulting inferno.” Does steel lose 90% of its strength after 56 minutes of heating by roving pockets of fire migrating from fuel source to fuel source?

        While PM reports pockets of fire hitting temperatures that, with time, could diminish the strength of steel columns, NIST also reports, “As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9, the observed fire behavior in this area following the fireball and before the collapse of the tower was unusual in that very little fire was observed, and the area was close to the ambient temperature well after the aircraft impact. As a result, this area is referred to as the “cold spot”. NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation, Chapter 7, pg 115-116. This is said with respect to WTC 2 which came apart after only 56 minutes of fire.

        The Introduction to Chapter 9 reads: “This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC) 2 during the period following the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer façade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1.”

        This building failed after less than one hour of fire, with less fire spread, and less total area of the outer facade showing fires. Why don’t PM’s experts discuss this extraordinary fact instead of relying on innuendo and hand waving to “prove” fires weakened the steel columns leading to catastrophic failure of the entire structure? I believe they didn’t, nor do you, because you don’t have a leg to stand on.

        So, observed fires don’t have to reach temperatures necessary to melt steel, just weaken it (incredibly fast, it appears) to cause catastrophic failure resulting in near free fall acceleration of destruction, not just once, but thrice. What does PM say about the fact that molten iron persisted in the rubble of WTC 1, 2, and 7 for weeks? NIST’s John Gross says it didn’t; dozens of others say it did.

        “Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

        Abolhassan Astaneh, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel, remarked, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.”

        Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all sub-grade levels, stated, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

        A NYC firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you’re in a foundry… like lava… from a volcano.”

        The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

        Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue.

        “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense,” reports Alison Geyh, PhD. “In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

        “They showed us many fascinating slides” he continued, “ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.” -Dr Keith Eaton

        “Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing

        A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said “for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal – everything from molten steel beams to human remains….”

        “…the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” –William Langewiesche

        He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters

        “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

        As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”

        “…numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.” 911 Commission report Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary “deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above.” NIH

        More reports of molten metal in the rubble pile:

        http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots

        Molten metal in the quantities suggested by the duration and ubiquitous observations of it are exactly what one would expect from military grade incendiaries such as thermite or a variant known to NIST (by 20 years experience working with contractors developing the material) nano-thermite.

        You haven’t proven anything, least of all that the EuroPhysics News article is easily refuted.

        • Chris

          Assuming that lower temp fires would greatly weaken the structure, I would think it would need to take some time for the building to fall. Didn’t the building collapse right as the “plane” hit, meaning all beams would have to be severed simultaneously?

          • Dave Post author

            It did indeed take time.
            – Flight 11 hit the north tower at 08:46 … that collapsed at 10:28
            – Flight 175 hit the south tower at 09:03 … that collapsed first about an hour later at 09:59
            – Fires raged in WTC 7 for most of the day and that then finally collapsed at 17:21

            I can personally confirm this timing, I remember it well.

            In all cases the fire department and others reported and recorded symptoms of structural failure underway, for example in the South Tower, people on the 105th floor reported at 09:37 that at roughly the 90th floor there had already been a complete collapse of the floor. At 09:52 a NYPD flight flying over reported that large pieces were already falling, then total structural failure occurred at 09:59

          • Stephen Demetriou

            Official investigators have noted that the buildings performed as designed and didn’t collapse as a result of the aircraft strike. The modeling for the damage done by the aircraft on perimeter and core columns show estimates for WTC1 a bit greater given the straight on strike than for WTC2 which was hit at an oblique angle. In both cases only a few of the 47 core columns were estimated completely severed, and a few more damaged. I don’t have the figures in front of me but in neither case as I recall are more than a handful of columns estimated to be completely severed. The aircraft engines are the most damaging element as most of the aircraft is aluminum and itself disintegrates in the simulations.

            The remaining columns took up the load from the damaged columns as designed. It is claimed fire then weakened the damaged columns to the point of failure. That is highly, highly speculative but has become the orthodoxy of these collapses. The graphics from the fire simulations in all cases show the temperatures at the core columns low and well within their tolerances to sustain their integrity except for brief periods, 15 to 20 minutes. Heating was short lived and not the “raging inferno” folks like Dave and the government claims.

        • Tom

          Try this. No deflecting and avoiding okay? (as “truthers” tend to do that).

          Regarding the twin towers….

          1) How could explosives or incendiaries cause progressive sagging in the floor trusses within the impact zone?
          2) How could explosives survive the impact, jet fuel explosion and subsequent fires within these zones where the collapse was initiated?
          3) How could explosives cause inward bowing and eventual buckling of the exterior columns?

          A video to remind you of the inward bowing, there’s also photographic evidence of the inward bowing too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

          • Stephen Demetriou

            Point 1. I can take the NIST modeling of damage estimates of perimeter and columns, and floor trusses at face value, and assume sagging trusses seen in photos resulted from aircraft damage. Especially before the fires became re-oxygenated and started to build, consume available fuel before moving on as fuel diminished. That seems to be what the visual evidence suggests.

            Point 2. I don’t imagine they would nor would they have to in the immediate strike zone. And if placed in areas out of direct involvment with the strike and subsequent fires they could be considered available. As the NIST simulations estimate there are large areas that are not heated sufficiently to even weaken the remaining, fully functional core and perimeter columns.

            Point 3. The animation in that video gives the impression sagging floor trusses were the results of fires, which, of course, is the theory relied upon to support ignoring the other facts that I and many others have pointed out. I think the visual evidence of bowing is interesting but there isn’t anything conclusive showing, first, such bowing would result in completely local failure overcoming the redundancy of the intact perimeter and core columns that had held the structure stable up until the point of failure (by whatever cause.) Second, the upper mass of floors tilted severely at initiation and in the absense of a clear mechanism for failure of the intact structure below the failure zone, one can surmise that mass should have continued rolling off the intact, unheated, fully supporting perimeter and core columns in the building below it and crashed to the ground. Instead what is seen is the upper mass halting its rotation and disintegrating. It doesn’t even remain intact as a singular mass as it descends but disintegrates along with the supposedly intact structure below it. If it is disintegrating as the visuals seem to show, it’s mass would be diminishing and exerting less of a downward momentum on the intact floors below. Dr. Legg describes this “global collapse theory” well by saying it is a name with nothing else suggesting a mechanism. The best mechanism that fits the available evidence is controlled demolition. It offers explanations for all of the visual evidence seen.

            The bowing as a phenomena is significant because it was observed. Jumping to conclusions without a workable theory as to what it caused, while ignoring the many people describing at the scene having heard “three large explosions,” and these are direct quotes of people at the scene, and then the building starting to come down is not science, it is hand waving. The animation suggests a theory, and it might even have played a contributing role, but it is not as conclusive as the folks who produced your video would like it to seem.

          • Stephen Demetriou

            Let me also say, Tom, the angles at which each building was struck and the estimated damage different in each, to try to apply the same mechanism of both initiation AND global failure to each building, all three really is fantastical and nonsense. The stresses and forces at play in each of the separate conditions would not align so perfectly to give one pat answer for each of the three cases of unprecedented catastrophic failure of these massive steel-framed buildings. That fact alone calls the whole official conspiracy theory into question.

  • Barry soeTORO

    Hey Dave where’s your last name? Too much of a paid troll to let the readers know who you REALLY are?
    Stop your fucking lies you moronic sell-out. No mention of building 7 “dropped”(controlled DEMOLITION) just before 5 pm Sept 11 2001, because you are paid to continue the LIES. I hope that those that pay you will be killed and you will be sneaking around trying to disassociate yourself from the scum you have become you filthy LYING bastard!!

  • skeptical toward sketical

    1. “Skeptical science” is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a blog within billions
    2 The article does not contain any valuable information , it’s just another blogger naggering

  • David Kramer

    “Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine”

    Same article:

    “…and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims”

    Now THERE’S a peer-reviewed science journal. LOL!

  • David Kramer

    “Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine”

    Same article:

    “and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims ”

    Now THERE’S a peer-reviewed science journal. LOL!

  • Patrice Ayme

    How the towers went down is clear. The Europhysics article on the subject was idiotic, and the main character, a physics professor, believed in cold fusion and that Jesus visited America.
    The towers collapsed from poor architecture. As I said, they were steel tents. The steel was not deep within concrete, but just protected by a thick asbestos paste. That paste was stripped on impact at 260 meters per second. So steel was directly exposed to fire around 1,000 Celsius, force fed by self generated wind.
    At 500 Celsius, steel loses half its strength.

    The WTC’s architecture was unique in the world. It was made to have large floors, clear of any columns. After the impacts, the architect who conceive them, who saw the scene, was aghast: he knew that they were going to collapse.

    Architectural stupidities are nothing new. The Millennium Tower in San Francisco was build on top of a sort of raft of concrete and steel, swimming on top of sand, by the old seashore. Guess what? The raft is sinking and tilting, so is the tower (which went up after 9/11). How come? Contrarily to the WTC, actually, in the exact opposite way, the Millennium Tower is entirely built of pure concrete. Thus, whereas the WTC was all too light, the Millennium Tower is all too heavy.

    • Kevin Van Horn

      As a Mormon, Steven Jones is obligated to believe that Jesus visited America — just as any Catholic scientist is obligated to believe that a priest muttering a few words over some wafers and wine turns them into actual flesh and blood that just happens to look and taste exactly like wafers and wine. Religion causes otherwise good scientists to have some nutty beliefs; you should look into some of the crazy things Newton believed.

      • Stephanie Cholensky

        I don’t think it’s so much that he holds this belief, but that he published an article supporting it. That is, it isn’t the first time he’s argued something ridiculous by (mis)using his scientific background to do so.

        • Stephen Demetriou

          So you will, by that logic, also criticize Newton and Galileo and their contributions to our understanding of physical phenomena? One’s religious prejudices are not a sound basis for discrediting another’s scientific work. You have to discredit the science on its own merits.

      • shayneo

        In fairness to the catholic, the Jesuit order has a long history of producing fine scientists , and its those jesuits who are responsible for the fact the catholic church dont subscribe to creationist drivel.

    • Mark Wilding

      what a breathtakingly ignorant comment. Jones was extremely well funded to investigate (and gate-keep) low energy fusion, and was the leading individual behind the takedown of Fleischmann and Pons. Everything else in your comment is complete nonsense… and you know it. Architects were aghast? really? care to source that?

    • tom

      WTC towers were not unique. In Chicago here both the Willis Tower (formerly Sears) and the Aon Center are made with the same design. As far as I know, they have not been updated to compensate for the contingency that planes will magically knock them down

    • Alan Black

      How sadly ignorant. How the towers came down is clear. The same way Building 7 came down. Free fall speed doesn’t occur because of “poor construction” ma’am. No one seems to talk simple “physics” and mathematical models are strewn about the internet to show the simple fact that they buildings fell at free speed with NO resistance, meaning the ONLY explanation would be all the “secondary explosions” reported on 9/11 by practically anyone on the scene for an hour prior to the Towers collapse.

      You also stated there was no concrete columns? You obviously have never seen a video or explanation in writing in essay form, that explains how masterfully these buildings were made.

      Also, an Aluminum alloy plane traveling at 300+mph, hitting a steel structured, solid building, would never penetrate the building.

      I would love to see BOEING donate a plane, and let’s find a building that is not half as solid as the TOWERS were, that is prepped for demolition and let’s fly that plane into the building…and you’ll see clearly, and you won’t believe your eyes, but that plane would squash like a pancake on the outside of the building and fall to the ground.

      Cognitive Dissonance is the main psychological disorder associated with the truth about 9/11.

    • sdemetri

      Steven Jones has done respected research into muon-catalyzed cold fusion, not the discredited and unreproducible results by Pons and Fleischmann. Jones’ work has been reproduced but the energy signature from muon-catalyzed cold fusion is low and hasn’t gained attention as a viable alternative energy line of research. Your slur is both uninformed and unwarranted on this point.

      Your “steel tents” notion is also unsupported. You apparently know very little about the actual architecture and structure of the buildings. You also make unfounded claims about how the fires behaved. Copious amounts of black smoke indicate poor combustion conditions, not super hot conditions.

  • Yish McGrish

    Regarding the last three paragraphs: couldn’t that be applied to you as well? 9/11 was a “high-stress event” and, in your attempt to explain it and gain some control of the emotional trauma, you embraced the idea that 19 hijackers stole planes, crashed them into buildings, and those crashes caused the buildings to fall. Any debunking of the idea is ineffective, because your idea was embraced at an emotional level.

    Seriously, how do you know that you are not the one doing this? You are part of the human race, so, by your own admission, you are quite capable of doing so.

    My guess is that every major detail that you “know” about 9/11 you knew in October of 2001. You believed that story right away because, as you stated, you needed something to gain some control of the emotional trauma. Once this belief — which was embraced long before any thorough investigation was completed, or, honestly, was even begun — you had some semblance of control over your emotional trauma. From then on, any evidence that corroborated this story was accepted at face value, and any evidence that opposed it was immediately dismissed. All because you embraced this at an emotional level.

    Now I’m not offering any theories or suggestions. I simply asking you: how do you know that you are not the one doing this? Was your belief carefully formed after evaluation all possible theories? Or did you “know” all that happened by Halloween of 2001?

  • Fabio

    “The impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing.”

    Exactly which plane debris are we talking about here? WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, the official report itself states that it collapsed just because of fire alone.

    • Rataru

      Was going to mention this. I’m no conspiracy theorist, and I’m not an engineer. I have no idea what happened to the Twin Towers, however I believe myself to be a fairly logically thinking person and when I think to much about WTC7, things just don’t add up. The fire would have had to continue burning out the center of the building (unseen) for some time in order to cause a perfect uniform collapse.

      • shayneo

        If you watch the footage, a lot of the surrounding buildings where seriously damaged by very heavy debris when the two main towers came down.

      • Owen

        “The fire would have had to continue burning out the center of the building (unseen) for some time in order to cause a perfect uniform collapse.”
        Well.. that’s exactly what happened. It burned out of control on multiple floors for 6 or 7 hours. Also, debris from Tower 1 obliterated 20% of the lower floors. Not surprising at all that it collapsed.

        • Tommy Towne

          Not even the manipulated NIST model could simulate the freefall and complete collapse of building 7 and they didn’t even attempt to model the towers. Don’t you find that fishy that they omitted trusses for the simulation and it STILL DIDN’T COLLAPSE?
          I don’t see how any rational person could accept manipulated science as reality. Perhas a person needing to have an answer to attempt to control their emotions for such a tramatic event.

    • Matthías Ásgeirsson

      > “the official report itself states that it collapsed just because of fire alone”

      No, it does not. It states that it collapsed because of fires and substantial structural damage caused by debris from the falling twin towers.

      • Fabio

        > «substantial structural damage caused by debris from the falling twin towers.»

        This article stated “plane debris”, not “building debris”. Even so, how do we know the debris stripped away the fireproof cover? Do we have any evidence of that, or is it just speculation?

          • Dave Post author

            Tommy, it is easy to make such suggestions, and it is wise to cite evidence when making such claims. The reason you can’t is because you have been misled, it is just a myth that this is the case.

            here for example is an article by a fire inspector who had been examining the buildings between 1990 and 2000 on a regular basis. He also includes lots of pictures …

            http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

            It is quite a revealing read …

            I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority’s response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel

            This is solid robust empirical evidence from a highly reliable source and pre-dates most of the more modern conspiracy claims.