Here are some problems with all of this...
1. The buildings did not look like controlled demolitions.
Yes, it did. WTC 1 and 2 substantially differed from WTC 7 so a different technique had to be used.
The assumption that rigging the building during the 55 minutes between the impact of the planes to the collapse of the buidings is a straw man. No one ever claimed that this was the time frame that all of this had to be done.
And, in fact, there were other opportunities to do this before 9/11.
Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers
five days before 9-11
The Twin Towers had been evacuated
a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
There was a
power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
And -- as an interesting coincidence --
a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.
2. The buildings met alot of resistance during collapse and did not fall in their own footprint.
WTC 1 and 2 feel in roughly 10 seconds. Even the government corroborates that. This is one second slower then freefall speed. If you look at the energy it would have taken to slow the building one second from free fall speed, it is not very much. Certainly not much when one considers the structural resistance that the supporting columns should have provided.
The fact that other buildings were damaged in the collapse indicates that the buildings were close together. The bulk of the debris fell right into a pile at the base and the damage was surely less then if the collapse had been asymetrical.
3. The squibs viewed were not the product of explosions, but were the product of air being forced out by pancaking floors.
Since even NIST has backpeddled on their Pancake Theory, this explanation has become obsolete. No pancaking = no mechanism to force air out.
4. Explosive testimony by eyewitnesses is subjective and seismic data should be used instead.
According to this reports own addendum, siesmic data from the instruments they used was unreliable at best. Further, if one takes into account the rapidity of collapse in a controlled demolition, and the synchonicity of the charges, separating the collapse vibrations from the explosive vibrations would be impossible.
5. Molten steel was not found at the base of the world trade center.
Slag salvaged from the WTC site has been tested and shown to contain high amounts of iron...exactly what one would expect if steel was molten. This corroborates eyewitness accounts of molten steel at the WTC site. The fact that some eyewitnesses claim that they did not see any molten metal is trumped by the fact that this slag was found and tested.
6. The debris was not quicly shipped away.
The official investigation into 9/11 did not begin for over a year after the event. All of the debris was moved before this investigation began. Thus, the assertion that the debris was shipped overseas before the investigation began stands. NIST was only allowed to use 0.5% of the debris in order to investigate.
7. WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, it received damage that caused it to collapse.
Not according to FEMA report which only reported damage to the south east corner. This damage was assymetrical and in no way explains the completely symetrical collapse shown above. Again, this violates the laws of physics.
8. Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11, including the collapse of three steel framed buildings due to fire and extreme physical forces.
According to NIST, FEMA, and Silversteen/Wineberg insurance reports, the fire was considered the main cause of collapse. This is due to the fact that none of the damage even came close to exceeding the structural overplanning inherit in all of the buildings.
Further, it has been shown that the fires were not hot enough, did not burn long enough, and were not widespread enough to cause the collapse of these buildings.
9. If anyone knows of any studies that show hard evidence that explosives were used, please bring it to our attention.
This study will be published in the future in the Journal of 9/11 studies and perhaps in other journals that accept it after peer review.
