... Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot ...
Note: This page assumes that an on-board hijacker was piloting the plane, but its argument concerning the cause of the collapse remains valid if the plane was actually being controlled remotely (see below).
A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. ... Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten - on one plane load of jet fuel? ... - Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
In a sequel to this article J. McMichael writes:
... the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires [in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). ... I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. - Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II
In fact all of the so-called experts who claim to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result of the plane impacts and the fires are merely guessing, due mainly to the destruction of the evidence, and are simply offering reasons (insufficient as they are) to believe the official story (as many people want to do). For some examples of these so-called experts' ignorance of what they are talking about, as well as a lack of consensus in their "explanations", see Eric Hufschmid's When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert.
The "official report" on the collapse of the Twin Towers was released in mid-2002 by a group conducting its "inquiry" under the direction of FEMA. This report is convincing only to those who wish to believe what it says, but is quite unconvincing to anyone who reads it critically. Chapter 2 of this report, along with reasoned objections, is available at The WTC Report: WTC 1 and WTC 2:
... it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ... [The] WTC fires were fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) and thus did not reach anywhere near this upper limit of 825 degrees. In fact, the WTC fires would have burnt at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires.
The official story has it that the towers collapsed because (a) the only connection between the outer perimeter wall and the central core were flimsy lightweight trusses, (b) the plane impact weakened these trusses and the heat of the fires caused them to buckle until (c) the trusses at the impact floors gave way and (d) the floors above lost their support and fell upon the lower floors causing all floors to pancake.
That this "truss theory" is false has been demonstrated in The World Trade Center Demolition.
Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.
Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.
Thirdly, there is photographic evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams.
This "truss theory" is a fabrication which has been spread about to give an appearance of plausibility to the official story as to how the towers collapsed. Its refutation is a refutation of the official "explanation" as to "how the towers fell".
Another problem with the official story is the fact that both the Twin Towers collapsed evenly and smoothly.
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over ... How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? ...
When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them. - Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
Cont ...