Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany (Weltexpress). The collapse of the WTC towers occurred with a deviation of just a few seconds from a stone in free fall. This would only have been possible if there had been minimal resistance within the structural framework of the floors. Critics see this as evidence of controlled demolitions, whilst US government agencies offer a curious explanation.
Part 1/3 of this series concluded by noting that no evidence of controlled demolition was found in the official US government investigation reports (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission). The possibility of such a course of events was not investigated in depth. It appears that great care was taken to avoid even voicing such a suspicion and to steer public opinion in the ‘wrong’ direction.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a US federal agency within the US Department of Commerce. It was commissioned by the George W. Bush administration to produce an expert report on the collapse of the WTC towers. The institute’s premise was that, below the point where the collapse was initiated, the ‘structural integrity’ remained intact. This ruled out the possibility of the steel beams being blown up from the outset and steered the investigation in an artificial, politically narrow direction. After all, what must not be cannot be!
In its report, NIST bases its analysis on the scientifically determined free-fall velocity of sections of both towers. Under the ‘FAQ’ (Frequently Asked Questions) section on the official WTC investigation, NIST states in point 31:
“NIST estimated the times taken for the first exterior panels to reach the ground after the collapse began in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.”
In other words:
- South Tower (WTC 2): approximately 9 seconds
- North Tower (WTC 1): approximately 11 seconds
The direct web link to point 31 of the NIST FAQs is here.
According to NIST, “the figures are based on video analyses and seismic records”. NIST explains that the structure of the tower storeys below the ‘collapse initiation’ – that is, below the respective storeys where the collapse began – offered only minimal resistance, so that the upper part of the building came down ‘essentially in free fall’, as can be seen in the videos.
This means, then, that the 110-storey towers collapsed in on themselves at a rate barely slower than that of a stone in free fall! It implies that, according to NIST, the storeys resting on steel beams below offered only minimal resistance. NIST explains this rather boldly by citing the ‘overwhelming momentum of the collapsing mass’ of the towers.
However, a monumental logical flaw is glaringly obvious here. After all, the ‘overwhelming momentum of the collapsing mass’ would first have had to build up. It did not exist immediately from the outset. Especially since NIST itself assumes that the steel beams and the structure of the storeys below the area where the collapse began were largely intact.
For an ‘overwhelming momentum of the collapsing mass’ to develop under these conditions, a number of improbable conditions would have to be met:
- Firstly, the aluminium of the aeroplanes would have had to completely shatter all the solid steel beams on the floor struck upon impact, so that the floors above could have collapsed as a single, intact block immediately and uniformly onto the floor of the incident and then onto the floors below, without tilting to one side.
- Secondly, the mass of this block, comprising around ten storeys from the upper part of each of the 110-storey towers, would have had to generate, from the very first second, the ‘overwhelming momentum of the collapsing mass’ with which NIST explains the collapse.
American Airlines Flight 11 struck floors 93 to 99 of WTC 1 (the North Tower) at 8.46 am whilst at an angle. Due to this angle, several floors were struck upon impact. However, given the angle of impact, it would never have been possible to sever all the steel beams on every floor. Even if one assumes that the aeroplane, due to its high impact speed and great mass, was capable of causing massive damage to the steel structure, there must still have been structural resistance on the floors struck by the aeroplane following the impact, provided by steel columns and bracing.
One does not need to have studied quantum science to realise that this resistance on the storeys at the start of the collapse should have slowed down the collapse of the towers, especially as the damaged upper section of the towers could not, from a standing start, have developed the ‘overwhelming momentum of the collapsing mass’ invoked by NIST.
In fact, however, the images and videos of the collapse show that even the upper part of the 110-storey towers collapsed almost as if in free fall. Critics conclude from this that there could hardly have been any steel obstacles left on the floors, either because the massive steel beams had been severely weakened by the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent fires – as the official narrative states – or because they were blown up, as malicious conspiracy theorists claim.
Many non-governmental experts also believe that the kerosene in the crashed aircraft could not possibly have sparked a fire that weakened the towers’ internal steel framework to such an extent that it led to their collapse. US and international groups of architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, physicists, chemists and materials scientists, who have been examining the subject of 9/11 professionally and scientifically for 25 years, are of the opinion that the US government’s official version of events, which remains valid to this day, is a fairy tale that stands in stark contradiction to fundamental laws of science.
Notes:
A list of the most prominent internationally organised 9/11 critics and sceptics can be found in the footnote.
In Part 3/4, we learn that as early as 11 September – the day of the tragedy – there was already a now world-renowned critic of the US government’s official 9/11 narrative. At the same time, the collapse of the third tower, WTC 7, on the same day has made the official 9/11 narrative of the George W. Bush administration – which has been elevated to the status of dogma – even less credible.
Footnote: In addition to ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth), there are many similar groups – both professional associations and organisations – that form part of the broader ‘9/11 Truth movement’ and question key aspects of the official account of the attacks of 11 September 2001 – often focusing on the collapses of the World Trade Centre buildings – and are calling for new investigations.
Here are the most important publicly documented groups:
Professional or specialist groups
- ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ – Founded in 2005 by James H. Fetzer and Steven E. Jones. An association of academics and scientists from various disciplines who cast doubt on the official account.
- “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice” (STJ911) – Formed in 2007 as a splinter group from the organisation mentioned above. Focuses more heavily on scientific research and public education regarding unresolved questions surrounding 11 September.
- “Firefighters for 9/11 Truth” (FF911 Truth) – An international alliance of serving and former firefighters calling for a new investigation in accordance with national standards and demanding that evidence regarding the WTC collapses be taken into account.
- “Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry” – A group of lawyers, investigators and others pursuing legal strategies to achieve greater transparency and accountability regarding the events of 11 September.
- “Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth” – Presents statements and support from actors, artists and entertainers who question the official account.
- “Scientists for 9/11 Truth” – A network or related initiative of scientists investigating the scientific aspects of the attacks.
Broader or coordinating organisations
- “9/11 Truth” (911truth.org) – A central portal and organisation that has been coordinating information, activism and links between various 9/11 Truth groups since 2004.
- ‘Patriots Question 9/11’ – Compiles lists of individuals (military personnel, intelligence officers, law enforcement officers, government officials, engineers, pilots, professors, survivors, etc.) who have publicly questioned the official account.
- “International Centre for 9/11 Justice” – Dedicated to international research, education and awareness-raising to demand justice in relation to 11 September.
- “Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth” – Encourages religious leaders from various traditions to support calls for further investigations.
Further information
The wider “9/11 Truth Movement” comprises numerous local, national and international chapters, coalitions (such as earlier initiatives like ReThink911), as well as associated websites or smaller groups in countries such as the USA, Canada, Europe (for example, in German-speaking regions with links to AE911Truth material), Australia and elsewhere. Some are profession-specific (pilots, medical professionals, veterans, etc.), whilst others are more general activist networks.
AE911Truth remains one of the best-known and longest-standing groups, focusing specifically on architects and engineers and advocating the theory of a controlled demolition of the WTC towers. The level of activity among these organisations fluctuates over time, and many have overlapping members, research or objectives.
See the articles
in WELTEXPRESS.
