What role did the fire play
in the collapse?

Our government insists that the towers fell down because an enormous amount of fuel was injected into the buildings, creating an incredibly hot fire. Let's take a look at some photos and see for ourselves.

A lot of fuel never went inside the North tower

What does this video show us?

The next part of the plane to hit would be the wings and engine. The engines would certainly have the strength to break the steel columns on the outside of the building, so they would also penetrate deeply into the building.

The wings are a different situation, however. The wings are composed of a relatively strong aluminum frame covered by thin (fragile) sheets of aluminum. The frame has quite a bit of strength, but it would never remain in one piece after hitting a steel and concrete building. Rather, the frame would break into pieces. And the thin sheets of aluminum that cover the frame would be shredded by the vertical steel beams along the outside of the building.

The following drawing uses the CAD drawing Boeing provides of a 767.
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/767cad.htm

I exaggerated the crumpling to help you understand it (unfortunately, the original pictures are unavailable, so the following graphics derived from the computer modeling of a Boeing 747 strike on the WTC, have been substituted (click on the graphics to read an article describing the modeling)). The nose will penetrate like a bullet, but it will slow down in the process. The back end of the plane will still be moving at full speed, so the body will begin to crumple.

The video proves that an enormous amount of fuel was squeezed out of the wings while the wings were still a significant distance away from the building. The fuel sprayed into the air, not along the outside of the building. If the fuel had splattered on the outside of the building, the outside the building would have caught on fire. But the fuel was sprayed into the air.

How much fuel was squeezed out of the wings? We can estimate it by looking at the South tower.

Hardly any fuel stayed inside the South Tower

Below is the two fireballs at the South tower. The fireball where the plane exited is at least twice the size of the fireball at the point of impact. This implies that at least 67% of the fuel penetrated the building, and up to 33% was squeezed out in front of the building.

This allows us to guess that at least 67% of the fuel entered the North tower, and up to 33% was squeezed out in front. This in turn means a tremendous amount of fuel was injected inside the North tower, but not the 100% that we were told.

Not surprisingly, photos of the North tower show incredible fires all over several floors, and people above the fire zone were jumping out of windows because there was no way to get below the fire zone. But photos of the South tower show only small fires, and only in one corner of the building. Thousands of people passed by the fire on their way out.

The North Tower suffered more, but stood longer

The plane probably passed all the way to the center of the North Tower, which is where the thick, vertical steel beams were located that held up the weight of the building. This would have caused serious damage to the North Tower. Also, the fires were intense and all over several floors. The North Tower suffered a lot of damage.

By comparison, the South tower experienced only small fires in only a small corner. Also, the plane did not hit the center of the South Tower, so you cannot claim that the plane destroyed the vertical, supporting beams. However, the South tower crumbled sooner than the North tower.

Building 7

Building #7 crumbled to the same, fine-grain powder, but it was never hit by any airplane. Supposedly one or two large tanks of diesel fuel inside the building caught on fire.

Incidently, you might wonder how the diesel tanks caught on fire. Try to devise a sensible explanation for this, or, since not many people care about Building 7, at least an amusing explanation.

For example, perhaps when the plane hit the South tower, a few office workers were sprayed with fuel, caught on fire, were blown out of the building, traveled over Building 6 and then across the road to Building 7, broke through the windows, busted through a few walls until their dead bodies reached the stairs, rolled down the stairs while still on fire, broke through a few more walls to where the tanks of diesel fuel were located, and then came to rest under the tanks where their smoldering polyester suits and nylon undergarments cooked the tanks until they burst open.

Why didn't the Pentagon crumble to powder?

Conclusion

• Both WTC towers disintegrated into identical piles of concrete powder, and all steel beams broke at their joints, but their fires were of vastly different proportions.



• A few hours later all steel beams break in Building #7 and all its concrete disintegrates into powder, producing another identical pile of rubble, but its fire was different from the towers.


• Never in history has a fire broken steel beams at their joints or caused concrete to crumble into powder, but that day a fire did to three buildings what no fire had done before, and it did exactly the same thing to all three buildings, even though the fires were different in each building.


• The Pentagon suffered from some type of fire (and supposedly was hit by a 757), but only a small amount of concrete cracked into large pieces.

How can fires of such different proportion have identical results? I say it is because the same type and levels of explosives were used to force all three World Trade Center buildings to crumble. The Pentagon did not crumble to powder simply because nobody put explosives in it. I say our government's "Theory of Total Destruction By Hot Fire" is a farce.

So many coincidences!

If a fire truly brought those buildings down, shouldn't we try to understand what was wrong with the design of the WTC? Shouldn't we wonder how many other tall buildings will crumble from a fire? Shouldn't we revise our building codes to make our buildings more able to survive fires?
I discuss that issue here:Crummy Buildings

Some firemen are complaining about this lack of an investigation. Specifically, they say our laws demand investigations for fires and other disasters in tall buildings. But the next day crews were hauling the scrap away. What a coincidence that our government decided to violate our laws at a time when a fire did what no fire had ever done before!

I also wonder if clean-up crew was already in New York City in preparation for a rapid disposal of the rubble. They appeared to be there that evening or the next day. How did they get there so quickly? Who called them in? Shouldn't the police have blocked off the area and labeled it as a "crime scene"? Does anybody even care that nothing about the WTC attack makes sense?

Will the scams never end?

By the way, after looking at the French sites about the Pentagon, I no longer believe a 757 hit the Pentagon; rather I think it was a missile. If you haven't heard about this yet, take a look:
Pentagon Plane Crash Farce

About the video

Lots of video and images at this site:
http://wtc.pkl.net/

The video clip of the first plane is referred to as "Video of 1st plane hitting WTC". Its link is:
http://wtc.pkl.net/1stplane.mpg

If you go to that site, be aware that some of his videos are mislabeled (at least as of 24 Jan 2002). Specifically, some of the videos that are labeled as collapse of the South Tower are really the collapse of the North Tower. Also, in one of those videos the CNN reporter accidently refers to the North Tower as the South Tower.

Lots of videos and images are here also:
http://media.us.ametrika.com/