Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
So, while FEMA’s truss failure theory blamed the failure of column truss supports for the collapses, NIST’s column failure<br />
theory blames their persistence, stating that they pulled the columns inward -- the first step in the contagious spread of<br />
“column instability.”<br />
Semantics aside, as will be shown here, NIST’s theory proves highly improbable, while the controlled demolition theory<br />
proves highly probable. NIST’s methods will also be addressed, coupled with the “black box” programs used to support its<br />
conclusions in what appears to be a “reverse” model, based on the circular reasoning that fire/plane damage “must” have<br />
brought the buildings down, since the use of explosives is ruled out by default - with no modeling or real investigation into<br />
issues related to evidence found that supports a controlled demolition hypohesis.<br />
(2) With regard to the buildings designed to take an airliner impact:<br />
Based on testimony from the WTC Twin Tower designers, there was no reason to assume the buildings would collapse<br />
due to plane impact or the associated jet fuel. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center,<br />
spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:<br />
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that<br />
the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your<br />
screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to<br />
the screen netting.” 1<br />
Les Robertson, the Trade Center’s structural engineer, stated: “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.” 2 He also stated in<br />
a video interview (as shown in Zeitgeist) that: “We designed the buildings to take the impact of a Boeing 707, hitting the<br />
building at any location.” 3<br />
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the<br />
Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707<br />
or Douglas DC-8:<br />
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the<br />
building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed...The building structure would still be there.” 4<br />
A White Paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600<br />
mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. “The buildings have been investigated<br />
and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.<br />
Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial<br />
damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” 5<br />
Given the above, it is clear that an airplane impact and burning fuel was taken into account- but- it refers to a 707 not a<br />
767 which is what hit the towers on 9/11. So, how different is a 767 from a 707? NIST points out that the 767 is about<br />
“20% larger than a Boeing 707”, implying the size difference would cause more damage. However, is weight the only factor<br />
which would relate to a more powerful and damaging impact? In an analysis done by scientist Jim Hoffman, taking the<br />
cruise speed into account, he states:<br />
“The Kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is...4.136 billion ft lbs force...The Kinetic<br />
energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is 3.706 billion ft lbs force. [So] under normal flying conditions,<br />
a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10% more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767.<br />
That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.” 6<br />
Further Suggested Reading: [ http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html ]<br />
1 This archived video interview was included in a film called “911 Mysteries”<br />
2 http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/<br />
3 This video interview was shown Zeitgeist: The Movie.<br />
4 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698<br />
5 City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131<br />
6 Jim Hoffman: “The World Trade Center Demolition” http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html