The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer [117]
Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.
Protec: No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the “where”—the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.
Claim #2: But they fell right down into their own footprints.
Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of twenty stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out, away from the building, as the falling mass encountered intact floors.
Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.
Protec: No, air and debris can be seen being violently ejected from the building—a natural and predictable effect of rapid structure collapse.
Claim #4: Witnesses heard explosions.
Protec: All seismic evidence from many independent sources on 9/11 showed none of the sudden vibration spikes that result from explosive detonations.
Claim #5: A heat-generating explosive (perhaps thermite) melted steel at Ground Zero.
Protec: To a man, demolition workers do not report encountering molten steel, cut beams, or any evidence of explosions. Claims of detected traces of thermite are at this time inconclusive.
Claim #6: Ground Zero debris—particularly the large steel columns from WTC 1 and 2—were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny.
Protec: Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at Ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.
Claim #7: WTC 7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”
Figure 10. World Trade Center Buildings Collapse
a. The circled area of one of the World Trade Center buildings shows a volume of smoke being compressed out the windows below from the compressing floors above. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that these are explosive “squibs” setting off charges to bring the buildings down through explosive devices. PHOTO COURTESY OF FEMA: www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf.
b. Contrary to what 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim, the World Trade Center buildings did not fall evenly straight from the top down, but instead began their collapse and tilted on the side of the building of the plane’s strike. PHOTO COURTESY OF FEMA: www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf.
c. The image of WTC 7 commonly presented by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as showing what appears to be only minimal damage to the building. PHOTO COURTESY OF FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema.403_ch5.pdf.
d. WTC 7 seen from the southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage. PHOTO COURTESY OF FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf.
* * *
Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personnel at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 and witnessed it from a few hundred feet away, and no one heard detonations.
Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.
Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.
Claim #9: Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.
Protec: Most of our comments apply to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they should have seen had explosives been present. The