The Falling Man Research Essay

...

But the buildings existed. The floors were obviously secure into the ground. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation theorists make in watching the collapsing towers is the massive clouds of dust and debris, such as heavy steel beams, being thrown hundreds of metres away from the falling towers. If we’re supposed to believe the “pancake” theory told to us, this amount of scattered debris and thin crushed concrete dust would clearly indicate massive resistance to the monumental vertical collapse. So there is an impossible contradiction in statements provided to us in the report.

All in all, you can either have a miraculous, and very unlikely catastrophic failure that occurs in under a second of freefell and that shoots out little dust and debris, or you have a strong, stable building that remains virtually untouched after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cardboard or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the Trade centre Towers were made of reinforced steel and hardened concrete meaning that it would act much more like a bricks than it would cardboard.

This put simply means that the floors could not have been physically pancaking as the buildings fell way too quickly for this. The floors must have all been falling at the same time to reach the ground in such a short period of time. But how?

Another part of the story that is picked apart by conspiracy theorists was the fact that the official report states that the fire weakened the buildings. The jet fuel in the plane supposedly burned to temperatures so high that it began to melt the steel columns giving support to the towers. However steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed as a result of fire in history, since they're built from extremely strong steel that has a melting point of 1510 degrees Celsius. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 816 degrees Celsius.

It's also very peculiar that building 7, which wasn't hit by anything significant, collapsed in a very similar way to trade centres 1 and 2. There wasn't even any kerosene or jet fuel burning in building 7.

The fact that steel cannot be melted by fire was known to firemen, explaining their brave and calm rush into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Despite the bravery involved with this heroic action, a concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse by to fire was involved.

Did the Federal Emergency Management Agency investigators not have the thought to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the catastrophic, and historical collapse? This would seem to be the first step in any fire related investigation. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."

In Conclusion, if all of the fairly basic science is done correctly, then we know as a fact that the floors of the three buildings were not “pancaking” but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an very bad explanation for the collapse of the buildings. With our current technology, the only way to get the sky scraper to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Centre fell on the 09/11/2001, is called control demolition, which would have destroyed the floor at the same time the floor above would have been destroyed, making the floors fall simultaneously, and in a freefall, and would have been done by bombs being placed on each floor of the trade centre.

A controlled demolition would explain the debris being shot horizontally at such a fast rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine concrete powder, unlike pancaking the floors, which would leave many chunks of concrete. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three buildings, which the planes hit only two of, collapsed in essentially the same way.

However, with theorists now establishing that the World Trade Centre towers had to have been assisted in their failures, questions such as Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Get raised. Could Muslim extremists have found the plans for the buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?

This seemed rather unlikely, and almost impossible due to the fact that the world trade centre 7 housed the CIA, the OEM and the FBI. And that raises up another question, why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Would they not want to cause more damage to the surrounding buildings and create more disturbances to the city by exploding the building outwards? And if they had planted explosives in the buildings, why would they bother hijacking planes and flying these into the trade centre? Perhaps the trade centre 7 was demolished to get rid of all of the evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, no one will know what happened on the devastating day, of September 11th 2001, but the only way to find out is to keep asking questions.