March 9, 2005
Popular Mechanics
810 Seventh Ave., 6th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Re: 9/11 Debunking the Myths
March, 2005 Magazine Issue
Dear Editor:
Even now as the puffy white smoke clouds begin to clear, exposing fraudulent
missile pods and faked aerial photographs, many mysteries still persist
regarding NORAD?s passive role in the chain of command, structural anomalies
within the towers, liquefied or missing aircraft parts, misplaced landing gear,
and strangely resilient Pentagon window panes. Perhaps a future generation of
Americans will learn that this sort of dialogue is not always healthy, wise, or
in the best interest of the country. But for those of our generation who still
thrive on disaster scenarios and conspiracy theories we have no choice but to
carry on in typical point and counterpoint fashion until all our energy runs
out or a more commanding crisis captivates our attention. We're hooked and we
can't help ourselves. And so in that sad spirit, I dutifully offer counterpoint
to your recent article, 9/11 Debunking the Myths, as published in the March
issue of your magazine.
According to the article, "Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 F, not hot enough
to melt steel (2750 F). However, experts agree that for the towers to
collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some
of their structural strength--." But how much warping, bending, or sagging
could be expected, given the size, construction, and heat tolerances of the
steel beams and the fact that the maximum achievable temperature was admittedly
about 1000 F; beneath the melting point? No attempt is made in the article to
quantify any tolerances, but Forman Williams, a structural engineer and
professor of engineering at the University of California, is quoted as saying
"that while jet fuel was a catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno
was intensified by other combustible material inside the buildings, including
rugs, curtains, furniture and paper." According to Williams, "The jet fuel was
the ignition source. It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were
still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward
that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
This is a bit much to swallow. How could rugs, curtains, or the odd sandwich
left in someone's desk drawer have burned hotter than jet fuel? Even if there
was no cooling off, how could yet higher temperatures have been achieved or
maintained once the jet fuel was no longer a factor? And even if structural
warping did occur at or above the fire levels, how could the healthy massive
steel structures below the fires have lent themselves so completely and
uniformly to rapid vertical collapse? Instead of answering these questions, the
article offers Mr. Williams' opinion, which turns out to be less substantiated
than conspiracy theories that the buildings were brought down by controlled
demolitions.
Fortunately the collapse of WTC Building 7 sheds new light on this subject.
Situated across Vesey Street and separated from the North Tower by Building 6,
which did not itself collapse, even after sustaining extensive damage from fire
and falling debris, WTC 7 showed no significant damage at all in photos taken
just before it collapsed. There were a few internal fires, but they weren't
large enough or hot enough to even break out the windows. Significantly, this
47-story monolith collapsed completely and uniformly straight down in less than
seven seconds. Totally! The whole thing was sheared to the ground! The article
states "NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far
more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated." Working
hypothesis? Is that anything like a conspiracy theory? What evidence is offered
to support this? The unavoidable facts are that an airplane did not strike WTC
7, the discreet distance separating it from the North Tower protected it from
falling debris, and there was absolutely no evidence of structural damage.
Conspicuous by its absence is any mention in the article about the stunningly
short time span of the collapse. Quite possibly the under-seven-second
swiftness was too much for even the "working hypothesis" to explain. Anyone
with basic logic skills now knows that this was, in fact, a controlled
demolition; and happily this reinforces suspicions about the towers too.
I'll leave it up to others to decide whether the 9/11 disaster constitutes
another Reichstag Fire or something even more sinister. All I know is that the
physical evidence of controlled implosions is much too strong to be debunked by
the arguments offered in your article.
Regards,
Joe Fougerousse
|