Those who wanted an "ask a civil engineer" can find it here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

The intermediate and final reports do contain a lot of material intended for professional engineers and architects, but anyone who passed high school physics can understand them.

The NIST specifically built a section of WTC floor and used the giant Underwriters Laboratory burn chamber to subject it to the conditions of 9/11 ("jet fuel" and all). It behaved almost exactly as modern analytical techniques predicted, and conformed to the observed behavior during the collapse.

airliners.net also has a picture of a large Sabina maintenance facility built of structural steel that collapsed after an airplane inside caught fire, so the "steel buildings don't collapse" myth is exactly that.

I could keep going, but as Patrick pointed out debunking any aspect of a conspiracy nut's patter just incites him to dig more out of the bag and add you to the list of co-conspirators.

sPh

...that "Patrick Smith" is actually a high-ranking Pentagon disinformation officer, helping to cover up the Trilateralist/Council of Foreign Relations/Masonic conspiracy. These Jewish Illuminati CIA monsters will stop at nothing to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

have spoken true words in their posts.

I'm fully in agreement. This administration could/would fuck-up a two horse race. What makes you think they could orchestrate an elaborate "hoax" like 9/11?

And, NOBODY in this country can keep a secret. You don't think SOMEONE would be snitching on a "conspiracy", second only to the likes of Kennedy's assasination?

With Kennedy's assasination, I agree with those who say that everybody, from the CIA, the FBI, Castro, the MOB, Texas oilmen, LBJ, etc, may have WANTED Kennedy dead, but I think Oswald - alone - got off three lucky shots.

Sometimes the truth really is the simplest explanation.

As I read the article, first I was annoyed with the fatuous implication that the more ridiculous conspiracy theories discredit all the others, but then there's a partial about face, pointing out how true conspirators could hide their tracks in such 'noise'.

The infuriating belittling of those who don't believe the official conspiracy theory is bizarrely then followed by the contradictory: "Considering the extent to which we've been chicaned, shystered and condescended to these past six years, why should we trust them?"

Surely that's exactly the point - there are dozens of conspiracy theories out there, and the official line that hijackers with boxcutters taking over planes caused all the damage is just one of them. It just happens to be the conspiracy theory that our government pushes.

Many of the conspiracy theories have even more holes than the official line. However, the holes in the official story are so huge that they can only be willfully ignored, most particularly the ridiculous idea that two planes managed to take down the world trade buildings 1, 2 and 7. The vanishingly improbable collapse of building 7 in its own footprint, supposedly caused by... well, what was it supposed to be caused by - some small fires?... could only have been achieved by extremely skilled demolition work. Everyone should check out the paper by Professor Steven Jones of BYU: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

You don't have to have your own complete explanation to see the glaring flaws in another. Before other "conspiracy theories" are discounted, the official line needs to be considered on the same footing.

"Considering the extent to which we've been chicaned, shystered and condescended to these past six years, why should we trust them?"

Yes; that, coupled with the almost unimagineable failure of security and countermeasures, entirely explains the popularity of the conspiracy theories. It is not unreasonable to think that the 9/11 hijackers should never have gotten half as far as they did, let alone succeeded. In light of the fact that we've been prepared for years to defend against attacks in civil airspace (surface-to-air missiles stationed at G8 summit meetings and the rapid interception of stray civilian craft such as Payne Stewart's private jet, to list a few examples), it beggars belief that we were caught so incredibly off guard. It would be remarkable if there weren't conspiracy theories.

I appreciate and am grateful for Mr. Smith's expert debunking, but his scornful tone towards those who look to fantastic explanations for fantastic failures is, I think, unwarranted.

> The vanishingly improbable collapse of

> building 7 in its own footprint,

> supposedly caused by... well, what

> was it supposed to be caused by -

> some small fires?..

Good example here. WTC7 had **5** emergency diesel generator systems for different tenants, fed the three separate pressurized fuel systems. At least one of those fuel systems had its own battery backup for the pumps and presumably kept operating even after the electricity was cut off and the lines broken. 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel pumped at high pressure into an already damaged and burning building. But noooooo, that _can't_ have caused a building to collapse.

You are aware, I assume, that fire and construction codes are intended to (1) allow people to escape with their lives (2) if possible, give a 60 minute window for firefighers to deploy and place massive amounts of water on the fire, thus _reducing_ but not eliminating damage to the structure? And that if firefighters cannot deploy, then it is openly acknowledged that the structure will be destroyed?

The only structures I am aware of that are "fireproof" are the pyramids and the Hoover Dam, and if you look at those inner chambers of the pyramids there was a heck of a lot of oil stored there...

Sheesh, what's the use. My hat is off to you Patrick.

sPh

As someone who has lost loved ones in a plane crash, I am always troubled by these outlandish conspiracy theories which deny the cruel deaths the air passengers died on Sept. 11th. Thank you for speaking some sense.

sPh, so perhaps "small fires" was not accurate, but can you find other steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire? Any buildings that collapsed due to unplanned damage in their own footprints, as supposedly happened three times in a row by chance? Can the relatively cool aviation or diesel fuel fires fed by unforced air generate such heat that pools of molten metal are still present in the wreckage 16 days later? Why did the official report not address any of these issues?

What's the use, indeed?