Must Reading for Michael Moore: Popular Mechanics
Popular Mechanics Magazine debunks 16 “popular conspiracy theories” regarding Al Qaeda’s terror attacks of Sept 11, 2001. (Thanks to Tim Blair.)
The facts damn the frauds– and remember, Howard Dean verbally toyed with 9/11 conspiracy theories when he was playing primary election footsies with hard-left constituencies. Here’s a sample of PM’s clear, concise refutation of these insidious conspiracy theorist fictions:
“Melted” Steel
CLAIM: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.”FACT:Jet fuel burns at 800? to 1500?F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750?F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength–and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”
“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100?F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800? it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832?F.
“The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”
Do you think it will matter? To the conspiracist, the mere fact that this report exists will be proof that the government is covering up something.
Comment by Anthony — 2/14/2005 @ 10:45 am
The whole “the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel” claim ignores physics. And history. Smiths have been working iron for millenia, making it soft and pliable enough to shape, and all they had was charcoal, not jet fuel, for their fires. I explained this once to an engineer who was on the edge of accepting a conspiracy theory. Being an engineer, he knew at once I was right. He had a brief “do’h” moment and since then has understood these conspiracy theories to be the ignorant trash they are.
Comment by Ben — 2/14/2005 @ 12:43 pm
Well being a JFK conspiracy “nut” I understand the allure of looking for alternative explanations for massive events. But I have to say I don’t understand what is so hard to accept that buildings hit by large commercial airliners,traveling at a couple of hundred miles an hour filled to the brim with aviation fuel could NOT have brought down the WTC or took a chunk out of the Pentagon. You really have to suspend disbelief, rudimentary physics and common sense to think other wise.
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 2:06 pm
Too bad we can’t all be as smart as you guys… Of course, if you buy the official conspiracy theory, why did the second tower hit, which also had less jet fuel burning inside of it since so much was ejected in the initial building hit, fall first? And if you believe in pancaking, why did the towers fall so quickly? Wouldn’t the floors below the impact zone have provided more resistances to the upper floors collapsing? And why didn’t the central supports remain standing? Oh, we could go on and on, but we’re just suckers for “ignorant trash”…
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 2:09 pm
Mr.Monkey, did you happen to check out Nova’s “Why the towers fell?” It addresses your pancaking question quite vividly. As an architect (I play one in real life) there is nothing really mysterious as to what happened. Even in garden variety fires heat makes steel structures deflect and fail. Hence we try to shield it with “sheet rock” or spray on insulation etc. in hopes of allowing the steel to survive till firemen can either put out the fire or provide precious time for people to evacuate. This is really not a mystery unless you want to ignore basic facts.
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 2:26 pm
Oh, I definitely want to ignore basic facts. There’s no need to start a debate here on this. It’s been argued ad infinitum elsewhere. I just get sick of reading this attitude towards anyone who questions the official version and had to say something. You’re going to believe your version no matter what and I’ve seen enough evidence to not believe it and I’m not going back until I see some more evidence that convinces me otherwise. Peace
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 2:39 pm
Mr.Monkey, Well said! We can both hold to our seperate theorys that the world is flat and the oceans are teaming with sea serpents. We should never let empirical evidence or evidentiary fact get in the way of religious beliefs. Btw, do you know the best way of shielding mind control rays? My aluminum foil hat is showing it’s age.
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 2:51 pm
Okay Gavin–since you insist on being insulting, explain WTC7’s collapse which involved no jet fuel and was by all accounts an ordinary building fire? Why did it fall and fall so quickly? Before you answer, I would consider what FEMA’s own report (World Trade Center Building Performance Study) said: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse reamin unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 3:04 pm
Oops, sorry I almsot fell for troll bait. You’re right, it was an 9-11 inside job. Sorry for the offense.
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 3:17 pm
Glad you can admit it, Gavin
Lighten up–I don’t know it was an inside job. I just have some questions about the official story.
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 3:26 pm
Whats more - you may not be aware of the following tidbit - 1 liberty plaza was almost condemned - and its 2 blocks from the site, and didnt suffer any direct damage from the falling towers.
Comment by Bender — 2/14/2005 @ 3:33 pm
Well Mr.Bender that’s what “they” want you to “think” about “that”.
I like the more reasonable explanation they were brought down by explosive laden aircraft directed into the buildings by remote control by either the Mossad or Art Linkletter. That certainly makes way more sense than fuel laden,high jacked jet aircraft flying into them.
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 3:45 pm
Just for the record, I do think Bender’s arguments are a good explanation for why WTC 7 fell.
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 3:53 pm
>And why didn’t the central supports remain standing? The Twin Tower had load bearing walls. The idea was semi-revolutionary at the time, and allowed the floors to be very open. The internal supports for the most part did not hold up the building, but rather held up the floors and the elevators. And in any event, close to ground level, some of the internal supports did remain.
Comment by Anthony — 2/14/2005 @ 5:05 pm
Mr.Anthony, your original post holds, it doesn’t matter how much data or information you bring up to the conspiracy theorists. It will never be satisfied with that explanation. Not sexy enough, too mundane. Nope, sorry it had to have been rigged with explosives per Art Linkletter’s nefarious plot to rule the world. Have you ever asked yourself why 4,000 accordian players failed to show up for work at WTC?????
Comment by GAVIN KIRK — 2/14/2005 @ 5:37 pm
Monkey, the PM article references the collapse of WTC7. To summarize: It was damaged more severely than was earlier suspected, and once a fire in the building started it likely had access to a large supply of gasoline stored in the building. Putting it out simply wasn’t a priority. I think the pancaking and other questions have been decisively addressed elsewhere.
Comment by Bryan C — 2/14/2005 @ 5:41 pm
As an architect, I appreciate Gavin Kirk’s answers (LOL, Gavin, you have a great sense of humor too!). And Monkey McGee, I think telling Gavin Kirk that he is going to believe his “version no matter what” is quite revealing coming from you. Many people do that — its true — and they believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. But in this case, I think conspiricy buffs are most guilty of that. I am an architect too, and I came to the same conclusions as Gavin though I have never met him. Very heavy aircraft (1000s upon 1000s of pounds), traveling in excess of 400 MPH, pack a huge wallop. The impact knocked off lots of fire proofing and weakened nearby steel connections. The blast effect continued that process (all of this is happening in miliseconds) and the fire ball incinerated everything it touched — planes are like flying bombs, and when flying for a while, I suspect all the fumes in the partly empty tank is like a fuel-air explosive… The sprinkler system was probably shot to hell in that instant as well, since they and other building systems are not typically designed to withstand this conglomeration of unusual events and forces. And then the fire burned and burned… You say you have “seen enough evidence to not believe it [conspiracy] and I’m not going back until I see some more evidence that convinces me otherwise.” There is plenty of empirical evidence to know that two planes flown by terrorists took down thetrade center but you have to decide to accept it. Architects and engineers around the nation, glued to their TVs on that horrible day, like me, predicted the fall of the towers after the impacts. We knew the fires would finish off what the impacts and explosions had started. Our suspicions were confirmed when the forensics studies came in and PBS aired the special mentioned above. Huge impact, huge explosion, fires burning without the sprinklers operating… Steel loosing it’s strength due to the long exposure to excessive heat, and then the first structural members failing, progressing into a continuous pancaking effect. These facts are indisputable, backed by empirical evidence, the laws of physics and gravity … we could go on and on. Just accept it, dude. It is what it is.
Comment by Michael Cadrecha — 2/14/2005 @ 7:45 pm
Michael–This is the last thing I’m going to say about this, but you bring up a couple of things I want to respond to. My statement that Gavin would believe his “version no matter what” should have included “what I say” on the end of it. I don’t doubt given indisputable evidence otherwise, you all would change your opinions. You have good reasons for what you believe based on what has been said above–I’m not trying to say you are holding that opinion irrationally. I have read opinions from people with backgrounds in engineering and fire experts who’ve said exactly opposite of what you said about the WTC collapses. Namely that the fire was not sufficient to cause the buildings to fail and that the structural design of WTC 1 and 2 should have allowed it to survive the impacts that day, as massive as they were. As a layman, I cannot determine who is right between you and them. What makes me at least consider their side are witness reports (including from firefighters) of what seemed to be bombs going off before the collapse (which could have been other things, obviously), reports from firefighters who nearly reached the impact area before the collapse and said the fires had nearly stopped (this doesn’t discount the damage the fires had already done), and the fact I mentioned above, unaddressed, that the South Tower fell first despite much less jet fuel (and a less intense fire or a fire of equal intensity but of a shorter duration) entering the building on impact. Indeed, this is also not touched in the vaunted PM series on 9/11 conspiracy theories. I’ve read a few answers out there (the impact area was lower, so there was more weight above the impact zone; the angle of the hit caused more supports to be removed and more surface area to be sprayed with burning jet fuel), and they make sense. Honestly, of all the stuff that happened on 9/11, the buildings collapsing probably makes the most sense based on the official version of events. Upon reflecting upon what I’ve read and what you all have said today, I’d say that the collapses probably did occur as stated in the official reports. I appreciate that those of you with expertise in this area think all of us conspiracy freaks to be borderline mentally ill. Given all the other suspicious things that happened that day, the questions about the buildings collapsing become more significant and they take on more weight than the evidence really indicates they should. You have to admit that a lot of strange things happened that day and in the subsequent investigations into what happened. Although, as I said above, Bender’s thoughts on WTC 7 make for a good case as to why that collapsed. Obviously, other theories have been floated on that one, but I’ll concede that Bender’s theory could be exactly what happened. And just because I question some parts of the official story does not mean I am a spokesman for all the stupid theories that have been put out there. I don’t believe in the pods. I don’t believe that Mossad was involved (or Art Linkletter, for that matter). I don’t think the aircraft were remote controlled. I do think it was airplanes that hit the towers. I’m not too interested in hearing all the bizarre “alternative” theories of the events of 9/11. I just have some questions that I’d like to find answers to. And the official story does not sufficiently answer those for me. If it does for you, fine–I’m not going to argue about it. Thanks
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/14/2005 @ 9:24 pm
Monkey: Aside from the answers you have received on this string of messages, what remains for you as to the things that don’t add up in the “official story”?
Comment by Michael Cadrecha — 2/15/2005 @ 10:49 am
In respect to this being Mr. Bay’s blog, I don’t want to derail this any further. You can find my email address on my website, if you’d like to take this conversation offline or you can comment there. I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
Comment by Monkey McGee — 2/15/2005 @ 11:07 am
A friend asked me a question the other day that has me baffled. He is a real hard edged kind of guy, and I need to answer this question for him. He asked what happened to the top of the towers, especially the South Tower? I told him I wasn’t sure what he was asking. So he said, “If the weight of the top of the tower — the 25-30 stories above where the plane hit — crashed through the lower floors, where did they go? What destroyed them? If something heavy destroyed the towers, shouldn’t that heavy thing have been lying around the ground?” I tried to explain that the chunk of floors probably fell apart when it it the ground, but he brushed it off. Does anyone know how I could convince him he is nuts?
Comment by Paul Crockett — 2/15/2005 @ 2:21 pm
Hello Paul, Not hard at all.. consider the process whereby that top part destroyed the lower part of the building, then extrapolate the same process, but in reverse, as the top part impacted the “solid” earth at the bottom and it’s inertia “pancaked” the remaining structure bottom to top. You will note by observing the video taken at the time that the top section had built up quite a bit of velocity by the time it reached the bottom. While the resultant destruction was pretty much concealed by the cloud of dust & smoke, it definitely happened - and in a very short period of time. If you watch some of the “building implosion” videos, they use the same process, by essentially “kicking out the props” at the bottom of the building, then allowing the remaining building to destroy itself bottom-to-top. Sometimes, details at the top survive and remain sitting atop the pile, but the energy released in the 9/11 collapse pretty much destroyed everything. Hartley
Comment by Hartley — 2/15/2005 @ 5:48 pm
Hartley, That’s pretty much what I said, but he blew it off. Your explanation was much better. Thanks for reassuring me.
Comment by Paul Crockett — 2/15/2005 @ 10:36 pm
Hi Paul, No problem - of course, physics and structural analysis are meningful to most of us, but not to those who REALLY WANT to find a “mystery”. As Austin points out in his article posted today, the PM piece won’t change to opinion of the a”nuts” - but it does make them easier to spot.. Sorta like the loonies who think we never went to the moon
Comment by Hartley — 2/16/2005 @ 9:24 am
Claims have been made that the temperature inside the WTC could not have reached higher than 800 C (or 815 C) - this supposedly being the flame temperature of aviation fuel burning in open air. This is scientific nonsense. When fuel is burned, an enormous amount of energy is released. This energy can either heat up a large amount of matter to a low temperature or a small amount of matter to a high temperature. If the fuel is burned within a confined space, the energy is largely confined, and the more confined it is, and the smaller the amount of matter (because of the confinement) that absorbs the energy, the higher the temperature becomes. This means that the temperatures inside the WTC might well have been well in excess of 800C, If so, the aluminium of which the planes was constructed would have ignited (at 800C) and burned fiercely, increasing the temperatures inside the WTC even more. No one can say with confidence that the temperature required to melt steel (around 1500 C) might not have been reached. This destroys one of the main arguments put forward by those who say that the planes themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. For reference, see the following article: http://www.cfaa.ca/journal-2003-Spring-tunnel.html Take especial note of the following paragraph taken from the article: On that date, a truck with Belgian registry carrying large quantities of flour and margarine caught fire approximately half way through the tunnel. In the confined space, the fire quickly reached temperatures exceeding 1000 º Celsius, (1800º F.). Vehicles simply melted. The heat was so intense the cement lining started to shatter and the tunnel began to collapse. The fire raged for three full days before it could be brought under control. Thirty-nine people were killed, 25 trucks including two fire engines were destroyed as were eleven cars. 1200 meters of the concrete lining was destroyed or heavily damaged. Note that temperatures reached over 1000 C and that [steel-built] vehicles melted. Avogadro
Comment by avogadro — 10/31/2005 @ 1:16 pm