Ninth lie

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

The term “controlled demolition” does not appear in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Quote:

The claim inherent in the allegation is that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition.

The claim that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition is by far the most common Conspiracy Theory relating to the September 11 Attacks. While Theorists often disagree on other details of the attacks, and disagree on the method of demolition used (theories range from regular explosives through to more exotic methods such as orbiting energy weapons and nuclear explosives) almost all theorists agree that the buildings did not collapse as a result of fire and structural damage.

In previous claims we have seen the efforts by Theorists to refute the accepted explanation for the collapses. This claim is the first to address the Theorists’ counter-explanation.

In his book Omissions and Distortions, Dr Griffin defines a “controlled demolition” as:

Quote:

…explosives placed throughout a building and set to go off in a particular order. (pg.26)

Dr Griffin then proceeds to list the ten features suggestive of a controlled demolition. Dr Griffin does not, at any point, provide evidence that these are actually features present in a controlled demolition. We are expected to take his word for it. Dr Griffin is a Professor of Theology. He is not a demolition expert, in any shape or form. He provides no examples of other known controlled demolitions displaying the same characteristics, nor does he cite testimony of controlled demolition experts to support his claims.

As I investigate each of the ten characteristics, there are a number of questions to bear in mind:
1) Did the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 feature this characteristic?
2) Do explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic?
3) Is this characteristic unique to controlled demolitions?

Unless the answer to all three questions is “yes”, the point has no validity. By way of illustration:

CHARACTERISTIC: The buildings all fell downwards towards earth.
1) Yes, all three collapses on 9/11 featured this characteristic.
2) Yes, all explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic.
3) No, all buildings that collapse must fall downwards towards earth, due to gravity, regardless of what caused the collapse.

The first step is to identify known building implosions. Here is some examples:


JL Hudson Department Store. Detroit, Michigan. Oct 24, 1998. 133m. Tallest building ever imploded.



First Hawaiian Bank Building. Honolulu, Hawaii. Jan 9, 1994.



Wachovia Building. Atlanta, Georgia. Sept 30, 2006.



Park Lane. Dallas, Texas. Date unknown.



Landmark Tower. Forth Worth, Texas. Mar 18, 2006.



Logicon Building. San Pedro, California. Aug 7, 2006.



Intel Building. Austin, Texas. Feb 25, 2007.



Aladdin Hotel & Casino. Las Vegas, Nevada. Apr 27, 1998.



Tencza Terrace Apartment Building. Fort Myer, Florida. Jun 4, 2006.



Two 16-story buildings. Edinburgh, Scotland. Nov 26, 2006.



50 High St. Buffalo, New York. May 25, 2007.



CN Building. London, Ontario. Date unknown.



Now, on to the characteristics:

1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed.
Free fall is the speed an object falls at when the only force applied to the object is gravity. Free fall can only occur in a vacuum as any object falling through an atmosphere will experience friction from the atmosphere which will slow its descent.

Acceleration due to earth’s gravity is 9.8ms².

The time taken for an object to free fall a given distance can be calculated using the formula:



Where d = the distance fallen and g = acceleration due to gravity.

The height of the three buildings in question were:

WTC1 = 417m
WTC2 = 415m
WTC7 = 174m

Thus the time for free fall from the top of each building would be:

WTC1 = 9.2s
WTC2 = 9.2s
WTC7 = 5.9s

The key word in Dr Griffin’s claim is “virtually”. Because objects falling under force of gravity are in a constant state of acceleration, minor changes in time can result in significant height changes.

For example, although an object falling 415m would do so in 9.2 seconds, in 10.2 seconds – only one second longer – an object would fall 509m, almost 100m further. An object falling for 11.2 seconds – only two seconds longer – would fall 614m. The distance increases exponentially, so that by the time you double the duration of the fall – to 18.4 seconds, the object would fall 1,659m – almost four times as far! If you multiply the time by four times, the distance fallen will increase by sixteen times.

It is difficult to determine the precise time that each collapse lasted, for several reasons. Firstly, when the collapses occurred they sent up huge walls of dust and debris that covered the ground and obscured the latter stages of the collapse. Secondly, anyone close to the building during the collapse was desperately running for their lives rather than filming the event.

While determining the precise duration of the collapse is difficult, it is a little easier to determine whether the collapse occurred near to free fall speed or not.

This page has a video frame analysis of the collapse of both towers:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...ne/videos.html

Note that at 16 seconds the collapse wave of WTC1 is just passing the top of WTC7, which is itself 174m high. Quite clearly WTC1 collapsed significantly slower than free fall speed.

WTC2’s collapse wave is still above WTC7 at 14 seconds, thus it too collapsed significantly slower than free fall.

In regards to WTC7, the following video is telling:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide.../wtc_7_cbs.mpg

The collapse begins with the failure of the building’s east mechanical penthouse at about 5s (you will see part of the top left of the building collapse). At 18s the building disappears from view, and has not yet reached the ground. Thus we know that WTC7 took longer than 13s to collapse – more than twice as long as at free fall speed.

It is somewhat a moot point whether imploded buildings fall near free fall speed, as clearly none of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 shared this characteristic.


2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part into its own footprint.
This is certainly a characteristic of building implosions. Indeed, it’s arguably the most important requirement of a building implosion. When demolition experts collapse buildings using explosives they have to ensure debris does not damage any surrounding structures.

But what about the buildings on 9/11?

It should be evident to anyone that neither of the towers fell even remotely into their own footprint. The entire World Trade Center site was totally destroyed by the collapse of the towers.

FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study provides a comprehensive analysis of the condition of buildings affected by the collapse of the towers and WTC7:

Chapter Three – WTC3

Chapter Four – WTC 4, 5 and 6

Chapter Five – WTC7

Chapter Six – Bankers Trust Building (Deutsche Bank)

Chapter Seven – Peripheral Buildings

On Page 3 of Chapter 7 they present a table of 56 buildings damaged in the attacks, spread across 25 city blocks as well as the entire World Trade Center site and World Financial Center complex.

Of the 56 buildings, five were totally destroyed, three suffered partial collapses that resulted in total structural instability, eleven suffered significant structural damage, and the remaining thirty-seven suffered moderate damage.


When WTC7 collapsed, it fell onto 30 West Broadway, a 17-story concrete and steel structure known as Fiterman Hall.

Damage inflicted on 30 West Broadway was severe:

Quote:

The southern half of the west façade and most of the south façade was severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC7 (Figure 7-13).

FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study
Chapter Seven – Peripheral Buildings
Pg 7-13

This image is an example of the damage inflicted on the building:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...c/fig-7-13.jpg

30 West Broadway was not immediately next to WTC7. As the following diagram shows, it was on the far side of Barclay Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Site_Plan.svg

Barclay Street is not a narrow alley, but a four lane road. Damage to 30 West Broadway was so severe that the building is being demolished, as reported by WNBC on October 30th, 2006:

Quote:

At a public hearing Monday night, the City University of New York -- the owner of Fiterman Hall, which is part of the Borough of Manhattan Community College campus -- detailed its plan to clean and then demolish the office-style building, previously used for classrooms and offices.

Source

Clearly it is incorrect to claim that WTC7 fell straight down into its own footprint.


3. Virtually all of the concrete was turned into very fine dust
This is one of the stranger assertions Dr Griffin makes. Simple logic dictates this is not true, for either 9/11 or confirmed explosive demolitions. The purpose of a building implosion is to collapse a building quickly in a contained space, so that removal of debris can be achieved quickly.

Turning all of the concrete in a building into dust does not in any way aid the demolition process. Dust is a problem for demolition companies, and during demolition debris piles are often sprayed with fire hoses in an effort to keep the level of dust to a minimum. Concrete is much easier to contain and remove when in large pieces than in dust form. Turning the concrete to dust does not assist in collapse, and an enormous amount of explosives would be required simply to achieve this, for no added benefit.

It is simply illogical to think that any building implosion would result in “virtually all of the concrete” being turned “into very fine dust”.

The question remains, was all of the concrete in the buildings turned into dust? The simple answer is no, it wasn’t.

The only substantial use of concrete in the towers was the 4 inch layer on each floor pan, amounting to a little over 11,000m³ of concrete per tower.

Although dust covered much of lower Manhattan after the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, an analysis of the dust suggests concrete did not play a significant component.

Quote:

Microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco, BS, MS, DABC, FAAFS, FNYMS at The New York Microscopic Society lecture held at AMNH 28 May 2003

45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)

Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.

Source

The data of interest here is the 31.8% consisting of plaster and concrete products. Gypsum is a very brittle material that easily crumbles into an exceedingly fine white dust. Concrete is a hard rock-like substance that only breaks into dust under enormous forces.

Gypsum was used as drywall in the WTC in enormous quantities, especially in the building core. During the collapse this drywall would have quickly become a fine white powder.

Unfortunately the analysis of the dust does not distinguish between gypsum and concrete products by percentage, however it is logical and likely that the majority of the 31.8% cited is gypsum, and not concrete.

Finally, a close inspection of photos from Ground Zero reveals that concrete was present at the site in large quantities.

Such as the following collections:

http://911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/Wo...%20Removal.htm

http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/wtc/

Further, an estimate of debris at Ground Zero by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (the company that managed the disposal of debris from the WTC and managed the crime scene support facilities) indicates large quantities of concrete were present:

Quote:

The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 250,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork.

Source (PDF)

Clearly virtually all of the concrete in the buildings was not turned into very fine dust.


4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more.
Both the collapses on 9/11 and building implosions involve large clouds of dust travelling great distances. This should really be of no surprise. Any sort of destruction of a building will produce dust particles. Buildings contain plaster, concrete, masonry, light fittings, fibreglass, fireproofing materials, and a multitude of other things which will break into dust under significant forces. Dust is very easily blown great distances by wind, and building collapses of any kind produce wind.

The following videos all depict building collapse that are not implosions, but that produce clouds of dust that spread over large areas.













5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
This simply isn’t true, in regard to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

WTC2 Collapse video.

WTC1 Collapse video.



Both of these videos reveal large sections of the core of each building standing after the remainder of the structure has collapsed. In the case of WTC1, this section was considerably higher than WTC7, thus over 174m (570ft) high.

These sections obviously did not remain standing – the core of the buildings were never intended to stand on their own.

Other post-collapse photos such as this one:

http://www.newyorkcitycommunity.com/images/p9200005.jpg

Show sections of the exterior columns standing. The highest point of the façade in the above photo is the 18th floor – 65m (213ft) high.

WTC7 collapsed in a different way.

http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/...tc7_debris.jpg

As the above image shows, the exterior wall of WTC7 fell on top of the debris pile. This would have crushed and broken any columns still standing upright.


6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.”
Dr Griffin cites this claim as coming from an article written by Jeff King at the following website:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/collapse%20update/

Jeff King is a Conspiracy Theorist who thinks the tower collapses produced “pyroclastic flows”. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of super-heated gases as hot as 1000degreesC travelling as fast as 700km/h, and are only produced by volcanic eruptions.

Jeff King alleges:

Quote:

Instead of the kind of slow start we would expect near the beginning of a gravitational collapse we see high speed “demolition waves” coming directly toward us, with another set shooting out to the left, from the east side of the building. These are exactly the sort of confluent rows of small explosions that are so characteristic of a controlled demolition, and can be seen emerging in flat rings extending all the way around the tower and propagating rapidly downward.

However inspection of the numerous building implosions provided reveals that they do not share this characteristic. In building implosions, instead, the façade more often remains relatively intact as it collapses downwards, until it hits the ground. This is because building implosions are initiated by internal structural failures.

The “disintegration” that occurs in the WTC collapses is a direct result of the exterior columns peeling away and the floors collapsing one atop the other in succession. This is because the towers collapsed due to an external failure.

WTC7, which NIST hypothesises collapsed due to internal failure shares the relatively intact falling façade of a building implosion, and does not feature the characteristic claimed by Dr Griffin.


7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long.
As mentioned above, WTC7 collapsed with the exterior façade relatively intact. As previously discussed this façade fell atop the debris pile. As a result it is impossible to determine what size segments the columns of WTC7 broke into.

In regards to WTC1 and WTC2 there are numerous collapse photographs and post-collapse photographs and videos of sufficient resolution to determine that the core and exterior columns fell primarily in small sections.

The reason for this is simple. That’s how long they are.

Building columns are not single enormous lengths of steel, but rather small lengths joined together. In the specific case of the WTC towers, NIST NCSTAR1-1 provides information on the length of these sections on pages 10 and 11. Diagrams on page 25 and 26 illustrate the prefabricated exterior panels.

The exterior panels consisted of three columns 11m in length joined by 1.3m wide spandrel plates at each floor level. The 3m by 11m panels were each three stories high, and spliced half way through a floor. The panels were staggered across the face of the building to improve strength.

The core columns were spliced in three story lengths as well, thus each section of core column was also 11m long.

Despite this, the steel did not break apart evenly or neatly, and ironworkers worked at Ground Zero during clean up cutting steel into lengths that could be more easily removed, as these images demonstrate:

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/0034.jpg

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...t-thermal.html


8. According to many witnesses, explosions were heard in the buildings.
The overwhelmingly most distinct characteristic of all of the implosion videos I have presented is deafening explosions prior to and sometimes during collapse. These are not minor explosions, but sounds loud enough to peak a camera microphone from a considerable distance away. They are unmistakable.

Certainly there are conflicting witness testimonies of explosions on 9/11. However, they are almost exclusively from inside the buildings, and are often taken out of context. For example the actual collapses themselves were almost universally described as a “huge explosion”.

This page has a good summary of the flaws in the “loud noise means explosives” argument.

What is most compelling is there is literally hours of footage from 9/11 taken in and around the towers prior to and at the moment of collapse. Not one video camera captured the deafening explosions that are the distinct mark of a building implosion. Yet in all of the building implosion videos I have provided, explosions are clearly captured from considerable distances away.


9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions).
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York recorded the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on their seismographs. In addition on 9/11 Protec (an explosive demolition documentation company) had a number of portable seismographs monitoring construction sites in the area that also detected the collapses.

Brent Blanchard, Director of Field Operations at Protec, wrote a paper refuting Conspiracy Theorist claims that the buildings were demolished using explosives. In the paper he addresses seismograph data:

Quote:

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

Source (PDF)

The Columbia University data is available on their website.

In their investigation of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory claims, Popular Mechanics talked to Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the observatory:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Popular Mechanics: Debunking 9/11 Myths

Applying simply logic, both towers are clearly seen collapsing from the top, and as previously discussed, the cores of each tower remained standing for some time after the initial collapse. Had the towers been destroyed due to underground explosions as Dr Griffin asserts, these observable phenomena could not have occurred.


10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.
This is perhaps the strangest of Dr Griffin’s claimed characteristics, in that, if true, it refutes the implosion theory. Explosives work by producing enormous amounts of over pressure in a very short space of time, shattering and breaking steel and concrete. Explosives do not generate significant amounts of heat, and what heat is produced is quickly dissipated.

Explosives simply cannot produce enough heat to liquefy steel, which melts at around 1,500^oC depending on the precise composition of the alloy.

On the other hand, when the towers and WTC7 collapsed they had raging infernos inside them as we previously saw. They were also full of large quantities of flammable material which was buried.

Underground fires can burn for very long periods of time, at very high temperatures:

Quote:

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales.

…

The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

…

The fire temperature [sic] reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.

Source

In their FAQ, NIST refute Dr Griffin’s interpretation of alleged molten steel:

Quote:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

NIST FAQ

In addition, although the fires at the WTC did continue to burn in the debris pile, there’s certainly doubt whether there really was molten steel. The website 911myths.com addresses the matter in depth.


Dr Griffin presents ten characteristics that he asserts (without justification) are evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As shown, the collapse of these buildings did not display many of these characteristics, others are not characteristics of any confirmed building implosions, and other characteristics are common in other building collapse situations.

The inherent claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition is rejected.