Follow by Email

Monday, September 10, 2007

More on 9-11 Conspiracy Fallacies



The conspiracy theorists repeat like a chant that allegation that the WTC buildings "fell at near free fall speed." This is taken to provide some sort of support for their theory that it had to be a controlled demolition. Leaving aside the issue that they never provide any engineering support for why this hypothesis explains controlled demolition [a unstated ridiculous supposition that multiple charges on each floor blew out the supporting structures timed to hundreds of a second], there is absoluely no evidence that the buildings free at "free fall speed."

The numerous photographs and videos all show that debris from both WTC Towers was falling faster than the floors were collapsing. See above examples.

The "free fall fallacy" has been debunked for years. See 911 Myths; Debunking 9-11 Conspiracy Theories; and Physics of 9-11 Events.

Randy Mott

9-11 Conspiracy Theories Meet the Debunking Silver Bullet


The variety of poorly thought-out conspiracies about the September 11, 2001 attacks continues to grow with time, on this the sixth anniversary. The common element to the theories is the allegation that the aircraft that hit the buildings could not have caused their collapse. Many argue that missiles were fired that did "the real damage." Others theorize about demolition charges.

PHOTO: WTC South Tower starts to collapse at point of aircraft impact in anything but "symetrical" manner.

The FACT is that nothing in any of the theories from these fringe groups can possibly account for the explosive force of the actual aircraft involved loaded with nearly full fuel tanks.
The explosive force and kinetic energy of a loaded 757 with the fuel tanks full is more than any missile in the US arsenal, except nuclear: 43,000 liters 0r 387,000 kilograms of TNT (see below).
A cruise missile (Tomahawk) only carries 1000 pounds of explosives and has no particular capabilities to penetrate concrete. Link 1. Link 2. One comparison may be telling: the Marine barracks in Lebanon- truck bomb equivalent to 5 tons of TNT. Ref.

Jet fuel has 38 MJ per liter of energy - TNT has 4.2 MJ per kilogram. One liter of jet fuel is the equivalent of 9 kilograms of TNT. A 747 fully loaded is, for example, the equivalent of 900 tons of TNT. A 757 slightly less. Testimony of Gordon Thompson, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, Mass. before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 2002). A detonation of jet fuel can act just like a jet-air explosive, creating enormous additional energy, the equivalent of 1000 pounds per square inch of pressure. Id.

The pertinent question is with this much known and proven force applied to the attack on the buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and the Pentagon), does anyone really need to hypothesize that more explosives were involved to account for the damage done? The conclusions of
all of the professional engineering analyses argue that no more explanations are necessary. Moreover, the hypotheses that would apply additional or alternative destructive power to the attacks are themselves totally at odds with many known facts. Missiles add pretty much nothing to the force of the attack. There is no evidence supporting the additional installation of tons of explosives in the buildings in advance of the attacks. Concealment of a massive pre-wired set of explosives would be impossible. Even the thermite/thermate theory requires thousands of pounds of the active ingredients in addition to a complex set-up at each juncture to cause the burning to go horizontally into the beams on numerous locations throughout the WTC buildings, in direct contact with exposed steel beams, requiring removal of walls, wiring, and other building fixtures. Of course, none of this happened. See 911 Myths; Debunking 911; Nutty 9-11 Physics; 911 Debunker; Journal of Debunking 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

So pack up the 9-11 conspiracy files, bookmarks and newsletters, find a safe disposal option, and move on to real world problems. No other physical explanation is necessary and there is no evidence of any other physical explanation in any event.

Randy Mott