I Got 100% On My 9/11 Essay!
The Science of Demolition
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” (George Orwell)
On September 11th, 2001, the three largest structural failures in architectural history occurred. In an attack of unprecedented destruction, two Boeing 747's crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, killing nearly three thousand men, women, and children. It was a day that would forever alter the American way of life, ultimately paving the road to seemingly endless wars with the Middle East. On that fateful morning, two buildings which once stood a striking 110 stories tall were reduced to smoldering rubble, burying the city in ashes and dust. Later in the evening a third building followed; World Trade Center 7. Standing at a massive height of 610 feet, it would have dwarfed all surrounding structures in an average city. Despite not being hit by a plane, this massive skyscraper fell gracefully into its own footprint at a staggering speed of 6.5 seconds. One would think that such extraordinary events would prompt extensive investigation; however, the 9/11 Commission Report cites only speculation. Naming fire as the unquestionable culprit behind the collapses, it is an encyclopedia of scientific impossibilities, backed by unsubstantiated theories which may only be imagined without the actual analysis of evidence. Moreover, the report focuses almost entirely on the motives behind the attacks; not on the attacks themselves. Scientists, architects, engineers, and others who had been waiting anxiously for an explanation were left disillusioned. For those who wished to know how it happened rather than who to blame, the only choice was to investigate on their own. Now, years after these momentous events, the aforementioned investigations have reached a startling conclusion: Controlled demolition, not fire, caused the World Trade Center to collapse.
To begin an analysis of the events, we must start with the misconception that fire is hot enough to have caused the collapses. Jet fuel does indeed burn very hot, reaching temperatures of up to 1,800 degrees fahrenheit; (Gaines) however, the melting point of steel is considerably higher. It would take a minimum of 2,400 degrees fahrenheit (WikiAnswers) to cause any structural damage, let alone pulverize an entire building. To contemplate the effects of fire on a skyscraper, history offers a few examples, most recently the Hotel Mandarin Oriental in Beijing, China. On February 9th, 2009, a firework accident set the hotel ablaze, engulfing each of its 30 floors in flames. (Blanchard) For over three hours the inferno raged out of control; a massive fireball in the night sky. When at last the flames were extinguished, the building stood charred but tall, as has been the case in all other highrise fires. Indeed, the only buildings in history to collapse from fire have been the three World Trade Center buildings. Did the laws of physics simply not apply on September 11th?
Of course, ruling out fire as the cause of collapse does leave a gaping hole in the scenario: If fire did not cause the buildings to collapse, what did? This is a question that has been widely speculated but was not definitively answered until recently. Ever since the collapses, it had been theorized that explosives or other incindiaries had been placed inside the buildings prior to the attacks, but the only evidence was the pattern of destruction. It was a gunshot wound with no gun. However, on April 3rd of 2009, the mystery was solved and the results released to the public. Danish chemist Niels Harrit, along with 8 other experts, had decided to look for clues in the dust generated by the collapses. Under a microscope, they were able to see small red/gray chips in each dust sample which did not appear naturally occurring. For 18 months, researchers studied this phenomenon. The microscopic chips were subjected to a flame ignition test, where they ejected hot particles at high speeds, suggesting that a large quantity of these chips would create tremendous force. The residue each chip left behind was an iron-rich sphere. Paint chips, when put to the same test, simply burnt to ashes. After many more tests and an in-depth analysis of the chemical composition of the chips, they were determined to be an explosive called nanothermite, which is a highly concentrated version of the more commonly used thermite. Thermite can reach temperatures of over 4,000 degrees fahrenheit. (Harrit et. al. 7-31)
Such shocking findings prompted a common question from both believers and deniers of the official story: How could this unignited, explosive material slip under the nose of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the organization in charge of assembling the 9/11 Commission Report? The answer can be found on NIST's own website, in their 9/11 Q&A section (NIST.gov). When asked if there was any evidence of thermite, NIST admits they never looked for it. In regards to the two towers, this is an arguably forgivable offense, however the case of Building 7 is very different. NIST did not mention this 47 story giant in the Commission Report; rather, they waited until 2007 to produce a report detailing its collapse, claiming a few isolated fires caused complete structural failure. By the time NIST began its report on Building 7, thermite was the main alternative theory in the scientific community. For years they had been flooded by letters, petitions, and demands for an in-depth investigation. If nothing else, shouldn't the discrepancies between fire temperatures and steel melting temperatures have prompted some amount of curious skepticism? Further into the Q&A, NIST goes on to recount that their entire report, which goes into such explicit detail as to state which beam failed at what precise moment, was based on a computer simulation; no physical evidence was inspected.
The suggestion that Building 7 collapsed due to fire alone dates back to 2005. Originally the official account was that the building had been deliberately demolished. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder to the World Trade Center complex, had this to say about Building 7:
I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. ("America Rebuilds" PBS)
“Pull” is construction slang for “demolish.” The most prominent criticism of this statement was that one cannot make a split-second decision to pull a building which encompasses an entire city block. Controlled demolitions take weeks of preparation. Regardless, the statement was not amended until September 9th of 2005, at which time Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan declared that Mr. Silverstein had been referring to pulling firefighting operations from the building rather than pulling the building itself. However, firefighters were never in the building according to FEMA; there was no such operation to be pulled. (FEMA.gov)
Because controlled demolitions require advance planning, some amount of foreknowledge is implicit. We can see this in a 2002 CNN documentary entitled “CNN Tribute, America Remembers,” as a firefighter standing near Building 7 tells his colleague “Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon” and another says “The building is about to blow up. Move it back, guys.” Based on Silverstein's remarks and CNN's documentary, both from 2002, it appears as though no one had yet considered that citing the collapse of Building 7 as a demolition would evoke criticism.
Early projections of the collapse appeared in the media as well, with CNN's Aaron Brown announcing at 4:14pm EST, more than an hour prior to the collapse, that Building 7 “has collapsed or is collapsing.” Additionally, BBC reported its collapse at 4:54pm EST. News correspondant Jane Standley talked about the collapse in front of a live image of the New York skyline, in which the building was clearly visible behind her. She later described the report as an “honest mistake.” To imagine any news agency would be so certain of an impending collapse as to report it early, in the past tense, when no such event had ever occurred prior to that day, requires outrageous suspension of disbelief.
Those who are skeptical that there is anything more to the story than fire and gravity are quick to point out that before September 11th, jetliner impact had never been a factor in an office fire. While this is true, we must still remember that Building 7 was not hit by a plane. With the vast majority of the media's attention focused on the two towers, many people are not even aware there was a third building involved. If Building 7 was indeed brought down deliberately, there is no reason to hold the belief that the towers were not. A prior demolition setup indicates advance knowledge of the entire event. Skyscrapers do not generally stand filled with highly explosive materials, ready to crumble into a neat rubble pile at a moment's notice.
Additionally, some say the scientific article regarding nanothermite should be thrown out on the grounds that the dust samples were obtained after the fact and would therefore be inadmissable in a court of law. While this is a valid point, without access to museum-preserved dust, independent researchers had no choice but to study donated samples. The authors of the article have strongly encouraged NIST to try the same experiments with their own dust samples, but their attempts have been futile. NIST claims that doing so would indulge conspiracy theories, when in fact the opposite is true. If they genuinely have nothing to hide, cooperation could provide closure for millions of Americans.
Remembering the September 11th attacks in hindsight, the subsequent building collapses seemed imminent; a fitting end to a tragic story. It did not seem necessary to look any deeper than what was before our eyes. However, even in the most painful of situations, examination of all evidence is fundamental. In the years following the attacks, compelling new data has come to light which is too critical to ignore. In a system where murders are solved by a fingerprint or a single hair left behind, it is shameful to defensively dismiss overwhelming amounts of research. The thousands of innocent people who died that day deserve nothing less than a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding their deaths; all efforts to bring their killers to justice must be exhausted. While accepting the evidence of controlled demolition does have unspeakable implications, we must remember that science does not change to accommodate our emotions.
Works Cited:
Arnold, Gaines. “What is the Jet Fuel Smoke Point?” Airport Jet Fuel - Aviation Flying Gas Prices For Jet Turbine Airplanes. Airport Jet Fuel, n.d. Web. 11 March 2010.
Blanchard, Ben. “Fire Claims Building at CCTV Headquarters.” Reuters.com. Thomson Reuters, 9 Feb. 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
CNN Tribute: America Remembers - The Events of September 11th . Cast Larry King, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer, and Judy Woodruff. Warner Bros. 2002. Film.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “World Trade Center Building Performance Study.” FEMA.gov, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. 5.24, 04 June 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
Harrit, Niels et. al. “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Bentham Science Publishers. Vol. 2. 7-31, 09 April 2009. Web. 11 March 2010 .
National Institute of Standards and Technology. “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.” NIST.gov, 21 April 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
Silverstein, Larry. Interview. America Rebuilds: A Year At Ground Zero. Narr. Kevin Spacey. PBS. Great Projects Film Company, Inc, 10 Sept. 2002. Television.
“What is the Melting and Boiling Point of Steel?” Wiki.Answers.com. Answers Corp. N.D. Web. 11 March 2010.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” (George Orwell)
On September 11th, 2001, the three largest structural failures in architectural history occurred. In an attack of unprecedented destruction, two Boeing 747's crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, killing nearly three thousand men, women, and children. It was a day that would forever alter the American way of life, ultimately paving the road to seemingly endless wars with the Middle East. On that fateful morning, two buildings which once stood a striking 110 stories tall were reduced to smoldering rubble, burying the city in ashes and dust. Later in the evening a third building followed; World Trade Center 7. Standing at a massive height of 610 feet, it would have dwarfed all surrounding structures in an average city. Despite not being hit by a plane, this massive skyscraper fell gracefully into its own footprint at a staggering speed of 6.5 seconds. One would think that such extraordinary events would prompt extensive investigation; however, the 9/11 Commission Report cites only speculation. Naming fire as the unquestionable culprit behind the collapses, it is an encyclopedia of scientific impossibilities, backed by unsubstantiated theories which may only be imagined without the actual analysis of evidence. Moreover, the report focuses almost entirely on the motives behind the attacks; not on the attacks themselves. Scientists, architects, engineers, and others who had been waiting anxiously for an explanation were left disillusioned. For those who wished to know how it happened rather than who to blame, the only choice was to investigate on their own. Now, years after these momentous events, the aforementioned investigations have reached a startling conclusion: Controlled demolition, not fire, caused the World Trade Center to collapse.
To begin an analysis of the events, we must start with the misconception that fire is hot enough to have caused the collapses. Jet fuel does indeed burn very hot, reaching temperatures of up to 1,800 degrees fahrenheit; (Gaines) however, the melting point of steel is considerably higher. It would take a minimum of 2,400 degrees fahrenheit (WikiAnswers) to cause any structural damage, let alone pulverize an entire building. To contemplate the effects of fire on a skyscraper, history offers a few examples, most recently the Hotel Mandarin Oriental in Beijing, China. On February 9th, 2009, a firework accident set the hotel ablaze, engulfing each of its 30 floors in flames. (Blanchard) For over three hours the inferno raged out of control; a massive fireball in the night sky. When at last the flames were extinguished, the building stood charred but tall, as has been the case in all other highrise fires. Indeed, the only buildings in history to collapse from fire have been the three World Trade Center buildings. Did the laws of physics simply not apply on September 11th?
Of course, ruling out fire as the cause of collapse does leave a gaping hole in the scenario: If fire did not cause the buildings to collapse, what did? This is a question that has been widely speculated but was not definitively answered until recently. Ever since the collapses, it had been theorized that explosives or other incindiaries had been placed inside the buildings prior to the attacks, but the only evidence was the pattern of destruction. It was a gunshot wound with no gun. However, on April 3rd of 2009, the mystery was solved and the results released to the public. Danish chemist Niels Harrit, along with 8 other experts, had decided to look for clues in the dust generated by the collapses. Under a microscope, they were able to see small red/gray chips in each dust sample which did not appear naturally occurring. For 18 months, researchers studied this phenomenon. The microscopic chips were subjected to a flame ignition test, where they ejected hot particles at high speeds, suggesting that a large quantity of these chips would create tremendous force. The residue each chip left behind was an iron-rich sphere. Paint chips, when put to the same test, simply burnt to ashes. After many more tests and an in-depth analysis of the chemical composition of the chips, they were determined to be an explosive called nanothermite, which is a highly concentrated version of the more commonly used thermite. Thermite can reach temperatures of over 4,000 degrees fahrenheit. (Harrit et. al. 7-31)
Such shocking findings prompted a common question from both believers and deniers of the official story: How could this unignited, explosive material slip under the nose of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the organization in charge of assembling the 9/11 Commission Report? The answer can be found on NIST's own website, in their 9/11 Q&A section (NIST.gov). When asked if there was any evidence of thermite, NIST admits they never looked for it. In regards to the two towers, this is an arguably forgivable offense, however the case of Building 7 is very different. NIST did not mention this 47 story giant in the Commission Report; rather, they waited until 2007 to produce a report detailing its collapse, claiming a few isolated fires caused complete structural failure. By the time NIST began its report on Building 7, thermite was the main alternative theory in the scientific community. For years they had been flooded by letters, petitions, and demands for an in-depth investigation. If nothing else, shouldn't the discrepancies between fire temperatures and steel melting temperatures have prompted some amount of curious skepticism? Further into the Q&A, NIST goes on to recount that their entire report, which goes into such explicit detail as to state which beam failed at what precise moment, was based on a computer simulation; no physical evidence was inspected.
The suggestion that Building 7 collapsed due to fire alone dates back to 2005. Originally the official account was that the building had been deliberately demolished. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder to the World Trade Center complex, had this to say about Building 7:
I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. ("America Rebuilds" PBS)
“Pull” is construction slang for “demolish.” The most prominent criticism of this statement was that one cannot make a split-second decision to pull a building which encompasses an entire city block. Controlled demolitions take weeks of preparation. Regardless, the statement was not amended until September 9th of 2005, at which time Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan declared that Mr. Silverstein had been referring to pulling firefighting operations from the building rather than pulling the building itself. However, firefighters were never in the building according to FEMA; there was no such operation to be pulled. (FEMA.gov)
Because controlled demolitions require advance planning, some amount of foreknowledge is implicit. We can see this in a 2002 CNN documentary entitled “CNN Tribute, America Remembers,” as a firefighter standing near Building 7 tells his colleague “Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon” and another says “The building is about to blow up. Move it back, guys.” Based on Silverstein's remarks and CNN's documentary, both from 2002, it appears as though no one had yet considered that citing the collapse of Building 7 as a demolition would evoke criticism.
Early projections of the collapse appeared in the media as well, with CNN's Aaron Brown announcing at 4:14pm EST, more than an hour prior to the collapse, that Building 7 “has collapsed or is collapsing.” Additionally, BBC reported its collapse at 4:54pm EST. News correspondant Jane Standley talked about the collapse in front of a live image of the New York skyline, in which the building was clearly visible behind her. She later described the report as an “honest mistake.” To imagine any news agency would be so certain of an impending collapse as to report it early, in the past tense, when no such event had ever occurred prior to that day, requires outrageous suspension of disbelief.
Those who are skeptical that there is anything more to the story than fire and gravity are quick to point out that before September 11th, jetliner impact had never been a factor in an office fire. While this is true, we must still remember that Building 7 was not hit by a plane. With the vast majority of the media's attention focused on the two towers, many people are not even aware there was a third building involved. If Building 7 was indeed brought down deliberately, there is no reason to hold the belief that the towers were not. A prior demolition setup indicates advance knowledge of the entire event. Skyscrapers do not generally stand filled with highly explosive materials, ready to crumble into a neat rubble pile at a moment's notice.
Additionally, some say the scientific article regarding nanothermite should be thrown out on the grounds that the dust samples were obtained after the fact and would therefore be inadmissable in a court of law. While this is a valid point, without access to museum-preserved dust, independent researchers had no choice but to study donated samples. The authors of the article have strongly encouraged NIST to try the same experiments with their own dust samples, but their attempts have been futile. NIST claims that doing so would indulge conspiracy theories, when in fact the opposite is true. If they genuinely have nothing to hide, cooperation could provide closure for millions of Americans.
Remembering the September 11th attacks in hindsight, the subsequent building collapses seemed imminent; a fitting end to a tragic story. It did not seem necessary to look any deeper than what was before our eyes. However, even in the most painful of situations, examination of all evidence is fundamental. In the years following the attacks, compelling new data has come to light which is too critical to ignore. In a system where murders are solved by a fingerprint or a single hair left behind, it is shameful to defensively dismiss overwhelming amounts of research. The thousands of innocent people who died that day deserve nothing less than a full inquiry into the circumstances surrounding their deaths; all efforts to bring their killers to justice must be exhausted. While accepting the evidence of controlled demolition does have unspeakable implications, we must remember that science does not change to accommodate our emotions.
Works Cited:
Arnold, Gaines. “What is the Jet Fuel Smoke Point?” Airport Jet Fuel - Aviation Flying Gas Prices For Jet Turbine Airplanes. Airport Jet Fuel, n.d. Web. 11 March 2010.
Blanchard, Ben. “Fire Claims Building at CCTV Headquarters.” Reuters.com. Thomson Reuters, 9 Feb. 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
CNN Tribute: America Remembers - The Events of September 11th . Cast Larry King, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer, and Judy Woodruff. Warner Bros. 2002. Film.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “World Trade Center Building Performance Study.” FEMA.gov, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. 5.24, 04 June 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
Harrit, Niels et. al. “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Bentham Science Publishers. Vol. 2. 7-31, 09 April 2009. Web. 11 March 2010 .
National Institute of Standards and Technology. “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.” NIST.gov, 21 April 2009. Web. 11 March 2010.
Silverstein, Larry. Interview. America Rebuilds: A Year At Ground Zero. Narr. Kevin Spacey. PBS. Great Projects Film Company, Inc, 10 Sept. 2002. Television.
“What is the Melting and Boiling Point of Steel?” Wiki.Answers.com. Answers Corp. N.D. Web. 11 March 2010.