World Trade Center: Alternate Collapse Theory

closeThis post was published 12 years 1 month 23 days ago. A number of changes have been made to the site since then, so please contact me if anything is broken or seems wrong.

I found a video on Google Video (originally posted on Google Video UK) through comments on another film that contradicts the currently accepted explanations for the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. What follows is an aggregation of my several comments, which had to be separated due to Google’s comment length limits.

While I applaud the uploader of this video for taking the initiative and posting the footage, this can’t possibly be true. Most of the reasons given for the impossibility of the buildings coming down as a result of the fires could indeed happen in the currently accepted version of events.

For example, this professor Griffin states that you can’t take a concrete block, drop it from the height of the towers, and watch it pulverize. He says it won’t happen. Yet the concrete in the buildings wasn’t just falling; it was falling, banging into an increasing mass of other concrete, and getting fractured on the long way down, eventually turning into dust from the constant impacts of hitting additional floors.

Next, the steel columns. He states that they “conveniently” fractured into 30-foot sections, ready to be loaded onto a truck. The beams were bolted together when the buildings were constructed, from sections that arrived [drum roll] on trucks. So when the towers collapsed, the bolts failed from the excessive stress and the steel beams broke apart into their original lengths. Nothing we have heard about the construction of the towers suggests they were welded.

Pools of molten steel would have resulted from fire, not explosives. Admittedly, the symmetrical collapse of Building 7 is a bit suspicious, but chance is chance, and ideal situations can result from random events, however improbably.

The absence of detailed reports and reconstructions could be construed as suspicious, but is likely a product of post-disaster shock; it is probable that nobody wanted to do an analysis after the event due to the emotional stress.

Most of the debunking evidence ignores the fact that the two aircraft ejected massive amounts of jet fuel into the buildings. Regardless of the validity of the “pancake theory,” the office contents were not the major heat sources in the fires.

The power-downs and evacuation drills are normal events for any large building; schools, for example, perform drills as many as two to three times per year. Powering everything down could be safety precautions for major maintenance to critical building systems.

Overall, there is a lot to think about, but not really a reason to doubt the current explanations.

dgw

I am an avid technology and software user, in addition to being reasonably well-versed in CSS, JavaScript, HTML, PHP, Python, and (though it still scares me) Perl. Aside from my technological tendencies, I am also a theatre technician, sound designer, violinist, singer, and actor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting)

Comments are subject to moderation, and are licensed for display in perpetuity once posted. Learn more.