Debunking The [Propaganda Mechanics] Debunkers

by Eric Hufschmid

In regards to the issue of NORAD, I think the best response is the public hearing in which Norman Mineta mentions that Dick Cheney and others were watching an airplane fly towards the Pentagon.

They were not describing a mysterious airplane with its transponder off. Rather, they were observing it as if they knew where it was going and had no concern :

Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

I have some specific responses below. The red color is from Popular Mechanics article.

A general remark about the Popular Mechanics article is:

There are a lot of silly remarks about 9-11 on the Internet, some from children, and some for amusement only, such as the possibility that Martians destroyed the World Trade Center towers. The article in Popular Mechanics has selected some of the sillier arguments. If they were serious researchers, they would address the issues that are brought up by Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid. Jimmy Walter is offering this information at low cost to help educate the population.

The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.

Where are these "subsequent studies"? The FEMA report about the collapse of the buidings admits that they could not figure out why Building 7 collapsed. The FEMA report is proof that there are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore, Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim that the issue has been resolved.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

What is this "rest of the stuff" that was burning? The floors were concrete, and the frame was steel, so what was burning? Carpeting, styrofoam cups, and office paper?

womaninhole.jpg, 27 kB The fire in the South Tower was so small that it did not even spread from one side of the floor to the other. This issue is covered in detail in Chapter 4 of Painful Questions. Figure 4-1 on page 27 even shows a woman standing in the hole created by the airplane. How hot could these fires have been if people are walking around in the crash zone? (click the photo for more perspective)

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

If the floors slid down like pancakes, then there should be a large pile of flooring on the ground, with office furniture, people, and carpeting squashed between the floors. Figure 5-4 is a diagram to show this dilemma. There is nothing in the rubble that suggests any floor fell down in one piece. The reports from the firemen and the photos, such as Figure 5-19, prove that every floor disintegrated into tiny pieces, and the pieces were scattered hundreds of feet.

Besides, the diagram in Figure 5-22 shows even if a floor fell down like a pancake, it would create a corresponding vacuum above it. Therefore, the air that was pushed out the windows would be sucked up through the windows above. The air would be displaced, it would not be thrown hundreds of feet out the windows at extreme velocity. The explusion of dust and the lack of a corresponding suction implies that gas was being created, such as from explosions. The floors were not simply falling down.

Another serious problem with the Pancake Theory is that photos, such as Figure 5-10, show that the top of the South Tower broke off and tipped over, and fell onto Building 4. None of the government reports mention that the top of the South Tower broke off, nor do they explain why the entire base of the South Tower would disintegrate after the top fell off.

Are the editors of Popular Mechanics getting their information from the government? If so, it is no wonder that they are naïve about the 9-11 attack. They should get the packet of books and DVDs that Jimmy Walter offers before they write any more articles.

Since nobody has explained the mysteries of the South Tower, only a fool would say that this issue has been resolved.

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.

Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.

Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7? The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because a few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They need evidence to support their beliefs.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a supply pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

Where is a photograph that shows a hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available in reports and the Internet show only small holes. What are we to believe, one person's wild speculation, or the photographs?

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings.

Nobody expects an airplane to create a cartoon-like outline of itself when it hits a building. However, if one wing hit the ground, where are the photographs of that wing? The photographs do not show anything resembling a wing.

What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.

Did the passengers and their luggage also turn into a liquid state and flow into the building? After they got into the building, did they solidify back into a solid state? What sort of physics is this? How were they able to identify human parts when metal melts at temperatures far beyond that necessary to reduce flesh to nothing buy carbon ash?

When airplanes crash in other locations, every piece of the plane can be found, even if it is in small pieces. Pieces of the passengers and their luggage can also be found. How is it that when a plane hits the Pentagon, everything suddenly changes and the plane is liquefied?

Home | About Us | Books & DVDs | Pictures and Videos | News & Events | Tell-a-Friend
Petition | Volunteer | Donate | Links | Contact Us