Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
6 years since the atrocity, a form of suspicion over the event is now rising. That is,
[Were the Twin Towers really destroyed by acts of terrorism?]
After the incident more people are doubting over the collapse story,
and not a few individuals now believe in a form of conspiracy.
Tonight on the topic of World Trade Center destruction,
with an appaling hypothesis as advanced in this program from America, presenting to you
9/11 Mysteries.
[Suspicion over the collapse of the Twin Towers]
6 years ago on the morning of September 11th, the World Trade Center Twin Towers were struck by 2 passenger airplanes.
Subsequently, these 110-story steel twin buildings collapsed before the viewing eyes of the world.
After the tragedy, the government official report explains:
"The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building."
During the event, almost everyone simply believed the explanation.
However, in fact there exists several questions on the story.
Moreover, experts analyzing these questions have advanced an appalling hypothesis.
That is: "The Twin Towers collapsed due to explosives".
They have claimed that the collapse was intentionally done with explosives, and not caused by the crashing planes.
What basis is there for this incredible hypothesis? Let's explore.
[Was the structure of the towers designed to withstand plane crashes?]
In the 1960's during construction period, the designers of the Twin Towers considered the possibility of plane collision.
Because, in 1945 a bomber plane struck the Empire State Building by accident.
Likewise, the Twin Towers were designed sufficiently sturdy to withstand the impact of Boeing 707, the largest plane at the time.
The structure is a steel lattice of a core of 47 aligned pillars and a perimeter of 240 columns.
On top of that, the very flexible tube-like structure is designed to withstand the windstorms in New York City.
The project manager Frank DeMartini, in his interview 8 months before the attack, made this statement:
"The building ... could sustain multiple impacts of jetliner ...
This structure is like the mosquito netting of your screen door.
... And, the jet plane is like a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
It really does nothing to the screen netting."
[Was the fire caused by kerosene really large?]
In this voice message, 13 minutes before the South Tower collapsed, from the 78th floor at where the jetliner had collided,
Battalion Chief Palmer made his radio call.
"... and Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that! 78th floor."
The voice recording shows none of the supposedly large fire at the most-damaged 78th floor
at where one of the aircrafts hit, even right before the collapse.
In fact, as seen from the video, there is more smoke than fire.
"I have not seen, until recently, a protected steel structure that has collapsed in a fire."
Indeed, that is because the melting temperature of steel is 1,500 C and above,
while a regular building fire has a temperature of about 1,000 C, which is nowhere sufficient to melt steel.
On 9/11, while the jet fuel is thought to have burned very hotly, jet fuel is in fact kerosene
which is of the same type as indoor-kitchen fuel. It cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.
On this issue, the official story states that the steel, while it did not melt, did lose its strength due to the heat, causing deformation and twisting.
Although steel indeed loses half of its strength at beyond 600 C, let's consider these points.
The WTC North Tower collapsed after burning for 1 hour 40 minutes. However,
in 1988 a bank building in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and a half, in 2004 a building in Venezuela burned for 17 hours,
and in 2005 the Windsor Tower in Madrid burned for over 20 hours, and yet the building did not collapse
while it eventually turned into a firmly standing iron skeleton.
Another inexplicable problem is the speed of collapse.