WTC Controlled Demolition

Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

The primary response to this page is here:

All Mike is really doing here is attacking a straw man, no serious 9/11 researcher has suggestion that progressive collapse is impossible.
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

Oddly enough, the accusation of us addressing a straw man is, ah, a straw man. We don't say anyone has said it's impossible, however we do quote this:

You've heard that the Twin Towers pancaked, crushing themselves completely. The experts gave us a fancy-sounding term for this: progressive collapse . If you search with the phrase "progressive collapse" you will find numerous articles, most of them written since 9/11/01 about things like assessing and retrofitting existing structures against progressive collapse. It seems that the only examples of progressive collapse of buildings cited are the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html

And then we respond by saying there are other examples, and that here in the UK progressive collapse is regarded seriously enough to have resulted in modifications to our building codes. Seems reasonable to us, and certainly this isn't a "straw man".

Chris then shows pictures of buildings that bear no relation to the WTC, asking (for example) why a five-storey block didn't suffer progressive collapse in an earthquake, as "it was no where near as strong as the WTC Buildings". This of course ignores the fact that it's also supporting less weight, and no fire, and is an entirely different construction, and that it's very hard to see how any earthquake could produce similar top-down collapses to the WTC. Not the most valid of comparisons.

A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

Chris tells us:

Again Mike is distorting what serious 9/11 Researchers are claiming. We have never said that the buildings were rigged in just two days. Many 9/11 Researchers believe it took place over at least a couple of months.

Maybe they used special hi-tech explosives and so didn't require as many charges. But with no evidence to support any of that, it’s really just speculation..

How about the Molten Pools of steel in the basement of the Towers 6 weeks after the attack? (I am aware that Mike has supposedly debunked this, I will just like everything else debunk what he claims.)
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

The issues:

"serious 9/11 Researchers"

Who is a "serious" 9/11 researcher? What gives Chris the power to define that any better than we can? And why should we bow to his opinion? The reality is that we can comment on whoever we like.

"We have never said that the buildings were rigged in just two days."

So I guess the article entitled “When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9” and hosted at http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm isn’t worthy of comment, then?

And when we spotted a 9/11 fact sheet that mentioned the power down, and suggested “WTC CCTV inoperative Sept 8-9, (the w/e before 9/11) during installation work. opportunity to lay explosives?” (http://www.911truthtotnes.com/downloads/files/911_factsheet.pdf), that’s something we’re not supposed to address?

And when Webster Tarpley writes a book about 9/11, and spends more time on the Scott Forbes story in his “Opportunities for Tampering” section than anything else, we’re just supposed to ignore it? (http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf)

Uh, no -- don’t think so. Plenty of people say this. We are distorting nothing.

"Many 9/11 Researchers believe it took place over at least a couple of months."

Note that Chris supplies no references to illustrate this, but really, so what? This page is about those who think the power down provided an opportunity. That's all.

"How about the Molten Pools of steel in the basement of the Towers 6 weeks after the attack? (I am aware that Mike has supposedly debunked this, I will just like everything else debunk what he claims.)"

We'll look forward to it. However the supposed "molten steel" has nothing to do with whether the power down provided an opportunity to plant explosives.

Bomb Sniffing Dogs

As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

Chris says:

Just like many other responses Mike gives this doesn't really explain anything. The fact that bomb sniffing dogs were removed before the attack is suspicious, it is also suspicious that the person who ordered the dogs to be removed was Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother. Notice how Mike left that little detail out?
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

The issues:

"The fact that bomb sniffing dogs were removed before the attack is suspicious"

As we did explain (apparently doing a better job than Chris), there's no evidence the dogs were anything more than additional security. That is, a few weeks before the attacks, extra dogs arrived. This was perhaps connected with the August 6th Presidential Briefing, where Bush was told of potential threats to Federal buildings in New York: the WTC isn't a federal building, but as a previous target it's not inconceivable that the Port Authority wouldn't have heard about this, and decide to ramp up security for a while. Then, after a couple of weeks, they took them away again.

If this is supposed to be suspicious, and controlled by the conspirators, then you have to ask why they arranged for extra security at all. Remember, Chris told us earlier that "serious 9/11 Researchers.. never said that the buildings were rigged in just two days", so why should the disappearance of the dogs only days before 9/11 be suspect? After all, he says "Many 9/11 Researchers believe it took place over at least a couple of months", so if that was the couple of months before 9/11, then the conspirators arranged for extra security and dogs during that time. 

Oh, and:

"it is also suspicious that the person who ordered the dogs to be removed was Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother. Notice how Mike left that little detail out?"

That detail was "left out" because it isn't actually true. There's no evidence the company Bush worked for had anything to do with the dogs, and he left them in June 2000 anyway ( http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html ). As ever, the debunking is long on accusations, but woefully short on facts.

Explosive Force:

Photos of the WTC collapse clearly show steel columns cut into small pieces, ejected at great force from the building, something that could only happen through controlled demolition..
http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html

Here we're told:

This is a really poor response. First of all if you look closely you can clearly see that also large sections of the exterior columns are also being ejected. Also note the picture below:

Note the exterior columns which are sticking out of the building, like arrows out of a target. Explosive force? I think so.
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

Issues:

This is a really poor response.

Look at the bottom of the page Chris is quoting and you'll see this:

"NOTE: we think this is a reasonable view of one of the “explosive force” claims, but there are others, & so this is in no sense a complete rebuttal. Further analyses are on the “to do” list".

That's because we were commenting on the claim that the objects at the far right of the collapse debris field were steel, when they could just as easily be aluminium cladding. A perfectly fair point, which we acknowledged here was only one of many.
"First of all if you look closely you can clearly see that also large sections of the exterior columns are also being ejected."

Yes, much closer to the building, which was our point.

Also note the picture below:

Note the exterior columns which are sticking out of the building, like arrows out of a target. Explosive force? I think so.

Chris is addressing an old version of the page. The current one looks at a famous example of the "600,000 steel beam", tries to figure out its speed, and reproduces a calculation from elsewhere attempting to show that there was enough energy in the collapse to throw steel that far. Not conclusive proof of anything, but a little more effort than simply saying "I think so".

Freefall

The towers fell at or near free fall speeds, only possible through controlled demolition..
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

The debunking response:

So his response is that basically the Towers did not collapse within 8 to 12 seconds like 9/11 Researchers claim. Well first off very few 9/11 Researchers have stated the Towers collapsed in free fall speeds, we have said virtual free fall speed. If the fastest time the towers could of collapsed was 9.22 seconds in a vacuum, then we know that if we were to count air resistance it would be just over 10 seconds. I also notice that he references a video which does not show the Towers collapsing at the beginning, which adds on a couple of seconds to the actual supposed collapse time.

The seismographs show the collapse time for both WTC Towers. The collapse times are between 8 and 10 seconds.

Here is a video of the South Tower collapse, which shows the South Tower collapses in just over 10 seconds:

http://rapidshare.de/files/5504434/WTC_2_Free_Fall_Collapse.wmv.html

Also consider that the explosives in the Towers sent pieces of the buildings fly upwards, which added to the collapse time of the Towers

What could possibly be causing large chunks of pulverized concrete to be sent flying upwards into the air? Fire? Arabs With Box Cutters?
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

Issues:

"Well first off very few 9/11 Researchers have stated the Towers collapsed in free fall speeds, we have said virtual free fall speed."

More distractions, an attempt to invalidate our point by saying it doesn't apply to many people. In reality we provide a number of links to people showing a range of collapse times, so it seems to us we've been very fair.

"If the fastest time the towers could of collapsed was 9.22 seconds in a vacuum, then we know that if we were to count air resistance it would be just over 10 seconds."

No calculations are provided to support this, but it's not debunking anything on the site, either.

"I also notice that he references a video which does not show the Towers collapsing at the beginning, which adds on a couple of seconds to the actual supposed collapse time."

Not quite sure what this actually means? But we use several techniques to show the likelihood that the towers collapsed in a time closer to 15 seconds than the 8.4 claimed elsewhere.

"The seismographs show the collapse time for both WTC Towers. The collapse times are between 8 and 10 seconds."

Having told us hardly anyone says the towers collapsed in freefall speed, Chris now tells us the seismic records say they collapsed in, ah, freefall speeds or even faster. And again, he just says this, no evidence is provided: we provide a more detailed reference showing they also support the 15+ plus collapse time scenario ( http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_collapse_time.html ) .

Also consider that the explosives in the Towers sent pieces of the buildings fly upwards, which added to the collapse time of the Towers

And now, after telling us the collapses were 8 and 10 seconds long, he's back trying to find excuses as to why they might be even longer. And this is a poor one: you can't prove that pieces of the building were flying upwards from a still, nor does he show it make any significant difference to our measurements even if they were.

Pulverised Concrete

The amount of energy required to pulverise the concrete in the North WTC tower, then heat up and expand the dust cloud was more than ten times that available from a gravity-driven collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

Chris tells us:

Mike doesn't seem to grasp the importance of the flow of the dust clouds. If anything the way the dust clouds formed and moved after the collapse is the greatest evidence of controlled demolition.

He then shows us pictures of "Pyroclastic flows", and tells us:

Pyroclastic flows are something that are only known to happen in either Volcanoes or in turbidity currents that occur on the edge of continental shelves.

Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTCDemo.htm

Issues:

There's nothing here that addresses the points we, or Frank Greening have made re: Hoffmans calculations. Nothing to explain how explosives the equivalent of ten times the energy available in a gravitational collapse could possibly be planted in the towers. Instead we're simply told that the dust clouds look like a pyroclastic flow, and that this is "the greatest evidence of controlled demolition", because, er, it just is. Insubstantial, to put it politely.

Giuliani and the WTC Warning

New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani had advance knowledge of the collapse. Who could have known they were coming down?
http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html

Here Chris tells us:

So we have Mayor Giuliani getting a warning, what a coincidence another warning! Why would any engineer in their right mind believe the Towers were going to collapse when the fires in both Towers were almost out.

I ask you again HOW MANY COINCIDENCES ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?

More coincidence manufacture. No attempt to refute what we said, that several people believed the towers could collapse. Here's a quote from Joseph Callan of the FDNY:

Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Callan_Joseph.txt

It's not a "coincidence" that several people thought the buildings were in trouble, then. There were signs visible to those on the ground, and it's not at all surprising if that might have filtered through to Giuliani.