Most of these are pretty easy to chip away at.
- The fireballs from the impact of the jets would have burned off most of the fuel, so there would not have been enough there to cause a large enough fire to result in such a collapse.
Aside from, of course, the giant fireballs themselves.
- The fire from the remaining fuel could not possibly have burned hot enough (even with extra fuel from office contents) to weaken the steel to the degree that it supposedly did - this is based on data from burning jet fuel in ideal conditions and the fire rating of the steel used in the towers
If jet fuel and reams of office supplies and paper are not enough to weaken the structural steel, then why bother fireproofing the steel in the first place? Also, it wasn't just "a fire in a building", it was a fucking airplane
hitting a building. How many columns do you think the impact alone took out?
- And even if it WAS hot enough to weaken the steel near the top, there is no way it should have collapsed the entire building from the top down - considering that the steel at the top of any building has far less load on it than the steel at the bottom.
For the steel columns, that's probably true. However, from what I've seen for explanations of how the buildings went down, it wasn't the columns that initially failed, it was the floor joists that spanned from the exterior curtain wall to the steel columns in the core of the building. But more on that later.
- The pulverization of all of the concrete and office contents of the buildings into a fine dust is apparently another sign that this had to be a controlled demolition. They show an interview with the Governor of New York State a week or so afterwards standing at Ground Zero where he is describing how when he first visited the site he expected to see some intact pieces of concrete but there was none to be seen, just pieces of steel and aluminum.
Other than in the parking garages, there really was no structural concrete within the WTC towers, so this is a non-issue. There was no concrete to blow up. Period. Concrete could have been used as fireproofing for the steel (there's that pesky problem again!), but they decided it was too expensive so they used gypsum sheathing instead. The same stuff protecting the structural steel in the towers is the stuff forming your walls in your home that you can easily put your fist through. If you can punch through that stuff, what do you think an airplane could do? Remeber the story about the guys that were trapped in a fire stair and basically dug their way out with a squeegee? Tough stuff, that gyp board. The governor (is Pataki a structural engineer? No? Huh.) didn't see anything but aluminum and steel because that's all there was in the first place.
- They also state that a large majority of the structural steel from the buildings after the collapse was left in roughly 30 ft lengths, which conveniently allowed for quick loading onto trucks for disposal without the need for time-consuming and bothersome cutting.
Structural steel comes in standard lengths for ease of transport and construction. How long should
the steel have been? Is the force of a 100-story building collapsing not sufficient to rip some bolts?
- And for the collapse to happen at freefall speed straight down? According to the experts - and common sense really - the only way that could happen is in a controlled demolition
Okay, back to the steel bar joists, and the basic structural concepts for the WTC. Basically, the towers consisted of an outer structural steel tube and an inner core for vertical support, with steel bar joists spanning between those two systems. Bar joists are made of relatively small pieces of steel--a couple angles at the top and bottom that may measure 3" on a side and a bar or angles separating the top and bottom pieces forming a truss structure. In the WTC, bar joists not only were the floorspan system, but they also served to connect the inner structure with the outer shell. The fires didn't need to weaken the main steel columns, they just weakened the bar joists, which caused them to collapse, thus severing the tie between the inner and outer structure. It would not take much of a fire to weaken the steel in the floor joists. Loss of this connection, plus the gaping holes left in the buildings from being hit by an airplane, caused the buildings to basically "unzip", with the floors that had already lost their connections falling onto lower floors and collapsing them as well. What I saw on TV seemed pretty consistent with that analyssi, as opposed to controlled demolition. Anyway, once the intact upper chunk of the building started falling, there really wasn't anything to stop it. And if it was a controlled demolition, how in the world would they get the explosives into the buildings without anyone noticing? And wouldn't thousands of people report hearing a loud boom just before the towers fell if that was the case? Did they set off the explosions when the planes hit, or an hour later when they fell?
- And although it is a federal crime to tamper with a crime scene prior to the completion of a full investigation, the site cleanup started almost immediately afterwards with full government support. This did not allow for any reconstructive analysis using the steel from the site to determine the actual cause - which is typically done in any major accident or catastrophe such as an airline crash. This analysis would have proven conclusively the actual cause of the collapse. They claim that this alone is clear evidence of a coverup.
What should they have done? Left it there? For how long? For what purpose? Just to prevent people from coming up with conspiracy theories? They're supposed to leave lower Manhattan shut down for....months?....just to poke around the debris? When everyone saw two hijacked planes hit the towers? What was there really
to investigate? How to prevent something similar in the future? First step--don't fly airplanes into buildings and most of your problem is solved.
- Trade Tower 7 (the 3rd building to fall at 5:30 that afternoon) fell the same as the twin towers (straight down at free fall speed) without having been hit by a plane and with fires on only 2 floors. Fires were caused by debris from the twin towers. They cited 2 recent high rise fires, 1 in Madrid and 1 in another place that I can't recall, where the fires burned much hotter than any of these fires and for much longer periods of time and neither building collapsed.
I really can't explain that one.
Anyway, the real argument against the conspiracy is just a form of Occam's razor. Why should
there be a conspiracy? What would they gain from 9/11 that was worth the lives lost and property destroyed? How is it so damn hard to believe that crashing a jetliner into a building will make it fall down that we have to come up with all these alternative explanations? If our main concern was going to be instigating a war against Iraq and Afghanistan, why were all the hijackers absolutely not from those two countries? If you were picking a bunch of patsies to make people want to attack Iraq, wouldn't you think you'd make damn sure there was an Iraqi on one of those planes? The whole conspiracy theory raises a lot more puzzling issues than it solves, at least for me.
All these structural issues are nipicky little things--step back and take a look at the big picture. This would have to be a conspiracy involving all kinds of aspects of the government, every level of the military, possibly independently hired demolitions experts, reams of organizational paperwork, etc., etc., etc. And yet, no one
has come forward in four and a half years to even put any kind of documentable evidence on the table that even points to such a thing. No one. I think the show I saw on PBS was a Nova broadcast. I think I'll stick with believing Nova.