factbat.com

When analyzing the American experiment, and piercing its sociological realms, one cannot help but focus, at times, on the events of September 11, 2001.

There is an incredible array of evidentiary occurrences, tangible facts and suppository edifications to be investigated, and few of them truly exfoliate a conclusion that the acts were perpetrated solely by 19 foreign individuals who displayed few proficiencies, including a lack of ability to satisfactorily fly an airplane.

Even if military tribunals or civilian courts presume to prove, or merely contend undisputed, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the extremely complex orchestration of the many 9/11 events, the cold hard facts do not support this peroration.

In assessing the second conspiracy theory that “the United States Government perpetrated 9/11” in the series of debunking Newsweek writer David Graham's contention that it is without merit, this article will mainly address the issue of the alleged collapse of building 7 in the World Trade Center (WTC) group, and the fact that it does not take much of a stretch for one to consider that the evidence points toward the event being the result of a cooperative effort between some rather powerful people in and around the United States Government.

First and foremost is extricating the unknown from the known, and thus indemnifying the process as an investigation rather than an indictment.

This article is not a provocative itinerary of accusations through predisposed assumptions, but rather an exploratory journey of discovery through objective analysis.

WTC 7 was a 47 story building primarily utilized for the purpose of maintaining continuity in leadership in the event of a disaster, and thus was supported by an extremely resilient and well crafted steel skeleton, and fortified inner bunker. This bunker housed the headquarters for the CIA, FBI, NSA and SEC for that region, and thus was the location of thousands of documents and files concerning a great deal of this country’s law enforcement agencies’ ongoing investigations into fraud, insider trading, espionage, foreign and domestic criminal activities, and government corruption.

The structure consisted mainly of huge, steel I-Beams that possess the ability to withstand both fire and shock damage while retaining their tinsel strength (a from of rigid flexibility). Furthermore, much of the load bearing steel was typically encased in no less than 4 inches of concrete.

When the NIST report claims that the I-Beams of the WTC group became flexible to the point of collapse due to fires in the buildings causing thermal breakdown, this highly unlikely event still does not explain the symmetrical destruction of a building. The main gravitational load, with regard to weight distribution of the structure, is not confined to spatial expanse, but rather distributed among focused pressure points which are engineered into the skeleton to naturally reduce downward kinetic energy in the event of structural failure, and thus prevent a complete collapse.

Fire is not, in and of itself, a destructive force. The nature of heat and its relation to the release of inert gases during accelerated decomposition of organic elements, is the critical analysis necessary for determining the destructive effects of thermal radiation. And the study of this phenomena plays the major role in fire science as regards prevention and investigation.

A specific gradient of heat, relative to the atomic composition of the specified element, must be maintained in order to increase acceleration of atomic particles to the point of destabilization or decomposition of that element and its compounds.

All conclusions or assumptions that fire was the main contributor to the collapse of any of the WTC buildings -- One, Two or Seven -- must take into account the nature of the elements, and the physical propensity of any material to release heat. While it is true that wall-board -- containing gypsum and silicon fibers -- is specifically designed to quickly absorb heat, and then slowly release it, the maximum thermal capacity of this material falls well below that of steel, and thus is not a factor.

There is, however, a physical factor known as “wicking” which is a crucial and expositive portion of the investigation concerning the building’s steel structure. Wicking is an activity which occurs in all thermal applications and is significant to the research of thermodynamics and quantum physics. It is controlled by the natural occurrence of expended energy during the production of any radiating effect. Such as a stove’s heating element which must expend (use or release) energy in order to get red hot. The element is specifically designed to release the energy through radiation -- at a predetermined threshold -- before it becomes unstable.

Basically, if a material gets hot it is only because it is experiencing radiating energy, either through convection, contact with the source, or direct induction, at levels which exceed the natural velocity of electrons in the nuclei and valence layers of the atoms which form the various combinative elements in the material.

Valence layers are the cyclonic outer regions of every atom, and are populated by orbiting electrons which allow one atom to bond with another atom if both of the their valence layers possess complimentary numbers of these electrons. Furthermore, it is the number of these electrons -- and resulting vibratory radioactive effects -- which determine the strength of the bond, and thus are the deciding factor which allows the same basic elements of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and sometimes Nitrogen, to create everything from cardboard to carbon steel.

What is significant to this information is the fact that energy always follows the path of least resistance, and thus travels away from a heat source rather than toward it. Therefore, any heat absorbed by the steel I-beams -- increasing atomic activity -- is automatically radiated throughout the entire I-beam toward areas of less activity which attract it, and thus expended at a level relative to the I-beam’s combined atomic weight.

For a structural I-beam, like those used in building WTC 7, to become so hot that it would actually bend along an expanse great enough to pull it from its terminal supports, the heat generated would have to greatly exceed that used by acetylene torches when cutting the same steel beam. Simply because the heat would dissipate along the entire beam from wherever it originated.

It must also be noted that the heat generated when burning average consumer products and common combustibles does not focus its energy as the flame of a torch does. Furthermore the amount of oxygen required to create a level of heat even remotely akin to that of an acetylene torch would not be available inside of the structure, since photographs clearly show that much of the windows, both solid and valence (edit: I write quickly and rarely proof-read...I meant to say "louvered"), were still entirely intact.

In analyzing the actual structural collapse of the building itself, the speed at which the building fell (including WTC1 and WTC2) was not in any way indicative of an uncontrolled structural collapse, and certainly not one due to fire.

Simply the time it would take for the entire building to crush itself (yes, I realize that sounds absurd to the educated mind) would require that at least 2 to 3 seconds be allocated for each collapsing floor. This means that WTC1 and WTC2, according to the assertions made in the largely debunked government NIST report, should have come down in no less than 140 seconds, but up to 210 seconds, since the airliner impacts were near the 70^th floor, and the “tamper theory” is the method of choice. As is well known, building 1 and 2 completed their downward trajectory in just over 10 seconds.

As for WTC7, the reports posit a simultaneous complete failure of the entire structure (yes, I realize that also sounds absurd, and to just about anyone) and thus the timeline is not so much the significant concern; although the symmetry is. At any rate, the 8 seconds that it took for WTC7 to “implode” into its own footprint is well below the average of 45 seconds a complete collapse would require.

If the buildings had merely collapsed due to fire, then they would have been misshapen and asymmetrical in appearance, and it would have lasted for over a minute rather than mere seconds. For the entire structure to pinch in the middle -- as clearly seen, and commented on by anchorman Peter Jennings, in undisputed videos -- and come down at free-fall speed, thousands of structural “lynch-pins” must be severed simultaneously.

Again, the NIST report, proffered by government officials, claims that once the fire heated the steel to the point of structural failure, the tops of the buildings then broke loose and acted like “tampers” (the tamper theory) and crushed the entire remaining portions of the structurally sound buildings.

However, simply the laws of gravity, and relative physics, conclusively prove this to be an utterly erroneous, if not ridiculous, theory. The laws of physics and quantum mechanics show that essentially “to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” While at times the reaction to an action is anything but equal or opposite, in the area of structural engineering this law is entirely valid and irrefutable.

Regardless of the mass or velocity of the occurring energy (the downward thrust by the tops of the buildings), the at-rest structure below it is not complimentary to the trajectory, and thus causes the mass to expend energy rather than generate it.

Assuming the NIST report’s assertions -- however absurd -- were actually true, then the tops of the buildings -- bound to the laws of physics -- would have lost approximately 23 percent of their kinetic energy when crushing the first floors. This would have been an exponentially occurring phenomena which would have reduced their energy by at least another 48 percent as they pushed through the second floors, and by approximately one fifth of the way through the third floors they would have lost all downward motion, and either slid off the side and to the ground in a previously initiated trajectory relative to its contact with the asymmetrical structure below it, or remained off-kilter at the top.

Unfortunately, the majority of the evidence, if not all of it, indicates conclusively that all three buildings -- WTC 1, 2 and 7 -- were imploded with the assistance of a great deal of explosives. The concrete dust, and spheres of cooled molten steel, contained high levels of sulfur and aluminum which indicates the use of a military explosive charge known as Thermate. And this explosive is common in demolitions operations where they are employed as shape-charges which detonate at an extremely high velocity and thus can be depended on to cut steel beams at a rate of speed which guarantees symmetrical collapses of intentionally imploded buildings. This is a necessary technique utilized for reducing damage to other buildings which may be in close proximity to the projected collapse.

Now comes the point where an official rendition of one of the events which transpired the day of September 11 begins to point toward some possible collusion between powerful domestic entities; namely Larry Silverstein and others with whom he may be affiliated.

Silverstein makes a statement in a nationally televised documentary about the World Trade Center catastrophe where he is seen opining about the decision to “pull” WTC building 7. He is seen saying “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Regardless of what Silverstein was inferring, the fact is that there is little chance that he could have been speaking of anything other than intentionally demolishing the building, since the “pull it” command bears no similarity whatsoever to the much lauded explanation by officials who claim he was merely speaking of removing rescue personnel. These were trained firefighters who routinely face intense levels of danger. As well, the possible collapse of the building could not have been of significant concern since it had not sustained any structural damage, and thus the mention of “loss of life” does not compute in the equation which implies that Silverstein was consulted on such a pressing matter.

Furthermore, why would Silverstein claim it was “the smartest thing to do”? If one is truly concerned about the lives of the first responders, and assuming the fire was out of control, then what other choice could there be? From nearly any angle, the comment presents almost conclusively as one which was expected to explain why the building was imploded, without first considering the ramifications of exposing such truth.

As a former ROTC “Fire Science and Paramedics” honor graduate this author has never heard the words “pull” or “pull it” used as a term for ordering an emergency extrication of fire fighting personnel from a building. Neither did the term ever surface during the months of Fire Control training, that I excelled in, as preparation for the unique ship-board emergencies which can occur in the United States Navy. Both of these batteries of aptitude are extremely team intensive and require terminology which cannot be misinterpreted. The word “pull” does not possess the necessary parameters of explicit redundancy, and is an ambiguous term which could sound like any number of words.

The reasoning required by emergency situations demands that common sense terminology be employed at every level since catastrophe does not wait for trained professionals to arrive on the scene, nor does it suffer illogical behaviors. If a fire, or other emergency, gets out of control then those who are trained to engage said emergency may find themselves the ones in need of rescue, and thus unproven new recruits or average citizens may be the only available people to rely upon.

Therefore, terminology such as “out now” and “no go” are imperative to the team concept, and critical for proper coordination of emergency response personnel at every level. The term “pull” or even “pull it” (the word “it” is typically avoided) can be misinterpreted to mean “pull the hose”, “pull the line” or even “pull up your pants” assuming the word is first even vocally understood in what is typically a raging inferno of deafening noise that is often compounded by the muffling operation of an SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus). Furthermore, why would a command such as “pull it” be used to facilitate the coordinated efforts of an entire team of emergency personnel? Especially when this form of command is not reserved to only those situations which occur in buildings, and can easily be a necessary command for a team engaging an exterior hazard in an open area. As stated before, phrases such as “fall back” “move out” or even the multi-syllabic word “disengage” are much more implicit and easily comprehended commands.

To employ a single-dimension, non-redundant, veritable expletive like “pull” or “pull it” in such conflagrating situations as are found in the realms of fire fighting is not in any way logical, and would put everyone’s lives at risk.

Thus the contention by Silverstein and various officials, that the words “pull it” -- a widely used term in controlled demolition -- was utilized by fire personnel on the day of September 11, 2001 as a commonly recognizable emergency response command does not satisfy the requirements which must be met in determining something to be an empirical fact, and as such is in no way complimentary to Silverstein, nor exculpatory to any claim of veracity on his part.

Furthermore, to insist that Silverstein’s comment was taken out of context, by alleged conspiracy theorists, is invalid since Silverstein -- who was not acting in any official capacity as an emergency response coordinator -- used the first-person word “we” when explaining his involvement in the hierarchy of the command, and respect to the decision making process which initiated the alleged “pull it” order.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Silverstein, his statement most clearly exhibit’s the more sober collaboration between clients and professionals, and does not bode well for his future prospects in the public eye when the inexorably portentous investigations into the shadowy figures of 9/11 eventually evolve into legal indictments.

Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) actually aired a news cast near the scene of ground zero, in which a well known news personality reports the collapse of WTC 7, but neglects to realize that the building is still standing in the background. When questioned on the matter, the BBC initially denied the allegations and claimed they had lost the tape for the segment in question. However, since it was archived and presented to them, they eventually admitted that they had the tape, but refused to proffer any explicit explanation for the gaffe.

These facts do not conclusively determine that Silverstein is lying, or that he was involved in perpetrating the events of 9/11. However, they do expose the need for a more complete and impartial investigation of every person in close proximity to the various events of that entire day, and the months -- or even years -- leading up to it.

Once again, in stark contrast to Graham’s assertions that those who question the government’s official 9/11 report are merely conspiracy theorists, they are actually a courageous group of concerned people consisting of hundreds of thousands of engineers, architects, physics professors, doctors, lawyers, elected officials, demolitions experts, commercial and military pilots, and average every day citizens -- typically called “truthers” -- who are logically engaging the many overt discrepancies concerning that day, and simply calling attention to the need for a new and impartial investigation.

Conversely, many main stream media conglomerates and officials attempt to contend, or merely take for granted, that the events of September 11, 2001 were the culmination of a major conspiracy between a microscopic 19 member cadre of men who were so profoundly powerful and well connected that they were 1. able to simultaneously command NORAD to stand down; 2. hijack 4 commercial airliners; 3. hit 75% of their targets (including the Pentagon, the most secure area on the planet); 4. for the first time in history collapse three buildings into their own footprint with fire; 5. turn concrete and steel to dust and molten spheres, with kerosene (commercial airline fuel); 6. fly planes into buildings and live to tell about it (12 of the 19 alleged terrorists have been found still living and working in the Middle East); 7. leave their passports at the scene of the crime unscathed; 8. bury an entire commercial airliner (UA flight 93) in an abandoned mine in Shanks Ville, Pennsylvania without a trace of wreckage or blood (now covered by a crescent cement slab which obscures it form exhumation and investigation); 9. make the acting commander in chief -- George W. Bush -- look like a fool and then lie saying he “saw the first plane hit the building on the televised news” (he could not have seen it as he claims because it did not air until later in the day, and nobody could mistake the first collision for the second one, for obvious reasons); 10. fly a 747 fast enough to vaporize it upon impact with the newly bomb proofed area of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of the huge 9 foot high engines or 195 foot wingspan -- need I go on?-- …all after infiltrating Wall Street and placing an inordinate number of “put options” against United Airlines stock (financial bets on a decline in its value) at over 400 times the average for that type of investment in the weeks prior to 9/11, and then not collecting on it. But then how could they…and why would they…if they were truly on a suicide mission?

Once again, Newsweek writer David Graham’s conspiracy theory which he claims will debunk the “conspiracy theorists,” has so many holes in it, it couldn’t hold crude-oil-saturated sand, let alone water.