Monday, January 17, 2011

The 9/11 Inside Job (part 1)

The official story of what happened on 9/11, backed by both the Bush administration and the Kean Commission’s “investigation” is as follows: On September 11th, 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, hijacked 4 commercial airliners, flew 2 into the World Trade Center towers, 1 into the Pentagon, and crashed the last in Shankesville, Pennsylvania after a passenger revolt onboard. The 2 Trade Center towers burned for 56 and 103 minutes respectively before collapsing symmetrically at near free-fall speed into their own footprint. Another building not hit by a plane, the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, also collapsed at free-fall speed many hours later allegedly due to internal fires and structural damage from falling debris. While on the surface this explanation for the 9/11 events may seem plausible, it does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

To begin with, if the official story is true, World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 all made history on 9/11 by being the first and only steel-framed buildings ever to collapse from fire or a plane crash. Steel-framed buildings have burned for up to 28 hours, gutting the entire interiors, but still not collapsed. The Empire State building was hit by a B-25 and never collapsed. Hundreds of architects and engineers at and WTC designer/architect Minoura Yamasaki himself have expressed repeatedly that the World Trade Center buildings were specifically built to withstand an airplane collision of that magnitude. There even used to be an information sign at the top assuring visitors of just that. And since the buildings stood strong for a good hour after impact, it is safe to say the collapses were not caused by the plane crashes.

The official story states that fires from burning jet fuel weakened the buildings’ steel beams until they gave way and collapsed. In the past, all over the world steel buildings have burned uncontrollably for over 20 hours, completely decimating every floor and not collapsed. Not once in history had one fallen from fire, until 9/11 when WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 supposedly all did. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) reports that the temperatures of jet fuel fires do not exceed 1800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel does not begin to melt until 2800 degrees. This means they would have us believe jet fuel fires burning 1000 degrees below steel’s melting point, for only 56 and 103 minutes, on only 8 and 5 floors respectively, was enough to bring down the twin towers. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that jet fuel fires did somehow weaken the steel frames enough to bring down the buildings how is it possible that they collapsed at the speed of gravity? The official story is that fire induced structural failure caused each floor to collapse and pancake on top of one another. This “pancake theory,” however, is seriously at odds with Newton’s gravitational theory.

"In order for a floor to fall, hundreds of joints had to break almost simultaneously on 236 exterior columns and 47 core columns … For a 1,300-foot building, ten seconds is almost free-fall speed. But if each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took a half second, the collapse of all those floors - 80 or 95 of them - would have taken 40 to 47 seconds. Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts? The problem would be even worse in relation to the North Tower, at least if Hufschmid is right to say that it fell in eight seconds, which would be exactly free-fall speed ‘How,’ he asks, ‘could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air?’” -David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center

News footage, firefighters, ground-zero workers and other witnesses reported molten metal flowing out of windows preceding the collapse, and huge pools collected in the basement area remaining in molten form for over 5 weeks. For fire to produce molten steel, it absolutely must be over 2800 degrees Fahrenheit, and jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees cooler than that. What can account for this? Professor Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU points out that thermite combustion is a process used in controlled demolitions which produces high temperature molten metal. In his paper, “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse” Jones wrote, “molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron … I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

The idea that explosive charges were placed inside the building is supported by literally hundreds of eyewitnesses, seismic recordings, video footage, and Isaac Newton. Firefighters and scores of witnesses on CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS all talked about bombs going off that day, but once Osama bin Laden had been blamed, it was never again addressed by the mainstream media or the Kean Commission. Teresa Veliz, for one, was working on the 47th floor of the North Tower when Flight 11 hit. She was quoted saying, “there were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion, and another, I didn’t know where to run.” Live on ABC as one of the towers came down, Peter Jennings commented, “Anybody who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.” After building 7 came down, Dan Rather live on CBS News said, “For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” One of the firefighters up in the second tower, Louie Cacchioli, told “People Weekly” that “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.” William Rodriguez, a janitor in Sub-level 1 of the World Trade Center testified to bombs exploding in the basement several seconds before the planes even hit the buildings! His testimony was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission report.

Also seismographic data from a nearby observatory showed two spikes of 2.1 and 2.3 Richter at the instant the collapses began. This too indicates explosive charges, because if the towers simply “pancaked” down, the seismographic spikes would happen when the massive debris hit the ground, not at the start of the collapse. In all, the number of people claiming to see, hear, detect, or suspect bombs in the buildings is staggering. Add to this the visual evidence from footage of the collapse, in which Demolitions experts have pointed out “squibs” characteristic of controlled implosions. Squibs are charges that go off early below the line of detonation as the buildings are coming down. If you play the twin towers’ collapses in slow-motion you will notice dozens of squibs blowing out the sides ahead of time.


Anonymous said...

It's baffling that people still believe the official story

Harleyman said...

anyone that wants to learn more can google loose change video and this will tell facts about what went on. It will not tell you who may have done this it just shows the facts......Eric I read your blog everyday. Thank God that you are waking people up. And your book is GREAT

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU ERIC!!! God bless you! I am 15 and have found similar information. Thank you for presenting this to the public at best you can. And to skeptics of this website, if you research, I mean ALOT of research, ALL his claims you'll find they are backed up with good information that is not well representation in the mainstream media. Some of these things were talked about and backed up with information for decades, if not hundreds of years. The story fits, if all the pieces fall into place. I don't know about the mars missions and the moon landings though. I must research more on that subject at another time.
And since the 1940s the U.S. government or the federal resserve was talking about using planes as weapons against enemies. Chaneey was in controll of all flights that day and there was never any rsponse as to why they didn't send out other jets to stop the one that hit the world trade center when one had already hit the pentagon. I actually seen one fly (very slowly, low, and as if it would fall) over Brooklyn over when I was 9 and walking to school that day. There is alot of unanswered questions about this.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the nice comments guys, much appreciated


Ben said...

Three points, from a structural engineering perspective, that should be kept in mind on this topic:

1. Structural steel is significantly weakened by temperatures well below the actual melting point of the material. It will lose its strength and, just as importantly, become significantly more ductile. One of the theories of the WTC collapse (I forget if it's the "dominant" one) is that the steel beams sagged, pulling in on the exterior columns and causing them to buckle. Typically, the strength of a column is controlled by buckling - a slender column has a certain unbraced length which is the distance between stiff bracing elements. If the beams lose thier stiffness, as happens when they are heated and sag, the unbraced length is significantly increased and the column will buckle and fail. The same behavior will be exhibited in the other main collapse theory, which, if I recall correctly, was that the connections between the beams and the columns failed.

2. The WTC, in addition to fires, suffered significant damage from the initial collision, resulting in immediate failure of several load-bearing columns. As far as I know, this is the only incident of a plane of this size crashing into a skyscraper. Correct me if I'm wrong.

3. No building is ever specifically designed for a collision of this nature. I believe the engineer of record stated that he had "considered" the possibility, but I'm pretty sure he said it was an errant personal plane, and there was never any evidence of a detailed analysis (I'd be interested in any reference you may have had for your statement, actually). Even if he had wanted to, the amount of analysis and overdesign that would be required to make our buildings collision-proof would increase the cost of construction exponentially. It is quite simply infeasible to design buildings to such a standard, especially since this is such a staggeringly rare occurrence.

To give you a rough idea of what this would entail, consider that a plane of this size could easily take out, say, 3 columns in a row in the initial impact alone. To redistribute the loads, the floorbeams must have a carrying capacity 9 times higher than they would previously have needed (beam design is typically controlled by moment, which is a function of (span length)^2). This is neglecting any adverse effects on the beams due to intial collision or subsequent fires.

None of this disproves the idea that it was actually a controlled demolition, but implying that it's laughable that the buildings could have collapsed on their own is not correct at all.

Eric Dubay said...

For Ben:

The Madrid Windsor Tower steel framed building burned for 20 hours, decimating it entirely, but it did not collapse.

WTC 1, 2, and 7 (if you believe the pathetic official story) were the first steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fire. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, only had fires on 2 floors, and imploded symmetrically into it's own footprint at the speed of gravity. Demolitions experts and over a thousand architects and engineers at have all put their careers and credibility on the line to say that these buildings did not fall from fire/debris/planes. Even the 15 year-old commenter above you can figure this out, but you Ben, are still re-hashing the same trash the government told you on day 1.

I understand you get your shits and giggles from being "skeptical" about everything I write on this blog Ben, but why don't you try being skeptical of your lying, murdering government instead?

Ben said...

I get my shits and giggles from being skeptical of everyone. I apply the same standard to you as I do to everyone else. The 15-year-old, like you, has virtually no knowledge of fairly basic materials science and structural engineering. I am simply correcting this.

It's perfectly acceptable for you, the 15-year-old, and David Icke to not understand structural mechanics, since you are not structural engineers. You have, however, expressed an opinion which is based upon a faulty understanding of the science. Your ignorance is hampering your judgement, because you think you understand something that in reality is far more complicated than you believe.

Again, I'm not saying that I believe any particular version of events. I didn't investigate the collapse. I'm simply informing you that the structural mechanics of the situation are complicated, and for you to insist that the buildings collapsing on thier own is ludicrous is indicative of a lack of understanding of how structural engineering works. Several of your comments illustrate your ignorance, which my three points above are intended to correct.

Anonymous said...

Who side are you on Ben? I have a couple of questions for Ben,

What about the Insurance policies that covered Terrorism specifically?

What about the black boxes that were never found on the planes?

Why was there molten steel? For WEEKS, not a day or two. MOLTEN STEEL!

Last Question, if its so easy for your brilliant mind to piece this together, then why are you on here talking to us laymen? Isn't there some pro douche bag site you could be masturbating and spreading lies with your friends?

Ben said...

I am not on any side, unless you consider "truth" to be a side. I am not endorsing any official or unofficial interpretation of events. There is a significant amount of evidence that Eric has presented which is extraordinarily suspicious and lends significant credence to his position. I have not argued with any of this other evidence which I think is pretty compelling.

Some of the "evidence" he has presented here, however, betrays his lack of understanding of the situation. To an observer such as myself, who understands the situation better than he does (not because I think I am smarter, but simply because it happens to be my field of expertise), this negatively affects his argument as a whole.

Given that I know he does not understand the situation, I then have two options: either I say something, or I do not. If I do not say anything, what happens is that anyone who doesn't understand the situation on a structural engineering level reads this article and thinks "whoa, he's totally right!" for the wrong reasons, and anyone who does understand the situation reads it and thinks "this dude is an idiot," and likely discounts his entire argument.

If I do say something, then a number of beneficial outcomes are possible. Perhaps Eric will revise his argument to correct its previous inaccuracies, making it stronger as a whole (this happens to have been my hope when I initially commented). Perhaps someone will read his article, and then read my comment and realize the article's flaws, thus better informing thier thinking.

At least by saying something, there is the potential for more informed thinking, however remote. I am not, in any way, attempting to disprove the article.