: I think there’s a point in the video where they cite a demolition expert and call him, rather succinctly, ‘demolition expert.’
Instead of arguing about lazy citations, I guess I’ll talk about the people that are constantly championed in the 9/11 Truth movement.
- Steven E. Jones: Jones wrote a paper about how a controlled demolition brought down the towers. Jones was a professor of physics at BYU. His paper was peer-reviewed, but not by a civil engineering journal. You can see a list of responses to Jones’ paper here.
This is mentioned in the documentary, and they present Jones as a beacon for the truth, but as seen in the link, some of the people who specialize in this field disagree with the paper.
- William Rodriguez: I wrote about the documentary’s argument that because people heard an explosion, it automatically means that bombs went off in the WTC. They use janitor William Rodriguez’s claims repeatedly. Rodriguez was in the building that day, but his story keeps on changing. For instance, CNN
quoted him as saying: "’We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,’ Rodriguez said. ‘And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.’”
No claim of explosives there; but then again, Rodriguez just survived a horrific ordeal. Rodriguez typically argues that his account is ignored by those investigating the case.
Yet, in his 2004 testimony to the NIST, Rodriguez says:
|The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.
No mention of his claim that there were explosives in the basement. Here’s a fairly exhaustive run-through
of Rodriguez’s claims.
- Kevin Ryan: The ex-employee of UL Certified Steel is also mentioned in this documentary. Ryan likes to make issue that the buildings should have easily withstood the stress caused by the burning jet fire, and that UL certified the steel components of the WTC.The NIST-sponsored fire-proofing tests at UL
The only problem with Ryan’s testimony is that it’s a – how do you say – modification of the truth. First, UL doesn’t certify steel components (steel column or trusses) like Ryan says, but assemblies. UL also didn’t replicate the impact levels – they replicated a floor system with fire proofing as it would’ve been before the impact and tested it with various fireproofing thickness. The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing. Keep in mind, though, that the fire conditions in the towers were much worse. Case in point
. Also keep in mind that the official response was never that jet-fuel was the primary cause of the collapse but one of the factors.
- Scott Forbes: I’m perplexed by this testimony because there doesn’t appear to be any info from other people that reported the mysterious power-down. In this interview
, for instance, Forbes argues that many people have talked to him and that he was contacted by a journalist. Who are they? Where are they? Forbes later admits that he has no knowledge of the conditions above and below his floor about the mysterious power down. Forbes also says
that the power down condition was from 12 noon on Saturday, September 8, 2001 to approximately 2 PM on Sunday 9/9. That wouldn’t be enough time for setting up for a controlled demolition.WTC 7
: There’s a weird argument that WTC 7 didn’t sustain enough significant damage in order to fall. Therefore: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION! Since I’m lazy: Article
To argue that the contents of WTC 7 or that Silverstein had nefarious intentions is 'fine' (and even that’s a subject for debate), but they’re negligible in the study of how WTC 7 fell. They don’t automatically prove ‘demolition’.This is another good one.
And, what the hell, read the NIST findings
I think what annoys me about the documentary (and for that matter Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc.) is that it argues that the NIST report is faulty science and then proceeds to present faulty science of its own; and in our culture, where science is maligned and/or misunderstood, that's dangerous.
I agree with Seabass: the controlled demolition theory relies on facts that contradict one another. It relies on the same eyewitnesses that make up the 9/11 Truth movement. It connects loose threads and tries to pass it off as definite evidence.