On Demolishing Walls

030-NYC14204

Almost three decades have passed since the Lockerbie disaster and we are still a long way from discovering what actually happened that dark December night, never mind who was responsible for the atrocity in the first place. Time itself is proving the greatest handicap as many of the individuals involved in the case have since died and we have to resign ourselves that we may never know the true version of events and ensure justice is carried out for the victims and their families, which will be little consolation to the likes of Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned relentlessly for a new independent investigation, but to little avail. In an interview some years ago, Dr Swire descried the “wall of silence” in the government and media whenever he tried raising the issue – a practice that has become increasingly fashionable in the intervening years.

A week after my 40th birthday I was working in St Albans for the NHS when news began to break of a tragedy in America. Two commercial airplanes had crashed into the Twin Towers in New York and hundreds of people were trapped at the top of the skyscrapers above the impact sites. At lunchtime, we were told that all clinics had been cancelled for the rest of the day and I headed back home to Birmingham and listened to the developing situation on the car radio. Like most people throughout the world I suppose, I spent the next 24 hours after I arrived, glued to the television set, not quite believing what my eyes were telling me. It seemed absolutely impossible that two enormous buildings could collapse so comprehensively when it appeared that the fires that had engulfed the skyscrapers following the impact had largely burned out. Yet collapse they did – at what seemed an incredible rate.

It is worth remembering that in 2001, the Internet was in its infancy. There was no Facebook; no YouTube and no live news sites. Although media coverage was extensive for many months afterwards, most of the focus was on the personal tragedies and the political developments as the USA geared up for retaliation. We were left in little doubt who the perpetrators were – nineteen Arab fundamentalists instructed by Osama Bin Laden – whose guilt was unquestionable following the 9/11 Commission Report a few years later. The case was simple; four planes were hijacked in mid-air, two were flown into WTC 1&2 in New York, one into the Pentagon and the other into a field near Shanksville PA, after passengers overpowered the hijackers in a courageous fight to the death.

In Manhattan, fires from the kerosene aircraft fuel weakened the steel structure of the buildings and caused the top section of the towers to fall onto the building below, where it caused a gravity-driven collapse, pulverising the entire structure into pile of dust and twisted metal with the loss of over three thousand lives. The destruction of each building took less than twelve seconds and it was the manner in which the towers fell that transfixed this individual, perhaps to the point where I failed to register anything else that day. Like the destruction of another New York skyscraper later that afternoon. At 5.20pm EDT, World Trade Center 7 also collapsed from fires caused by falling debris after the towers fell.

It seemed irrelevant at the time. No one was killed as the building had been cleared hours before. It just fitted into the pattern that day – damage from the airplane crashes caused fires, which weakened the building structures causing them to collapse. It was the only explanation offered at the time – and one that was subsequently confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) investigations some years later. It is a position that has been steadfastly adopted by every US administration and its allies ever since.

September 11th 2001 became the pretext for a “war on terror” that is still being exercised today – sixteen years later. The official explanation of what actually happened that fateful day does not, however, bear close scrutiny.

Modern hi-rise buildings don’t collapse from fires thankfully. That is not to say they are ‘safe’ places to be in an emergency – as Grenfell so tragically illustrated recently. But it is worth noting that the London building did not collapse, even after an intensive fire that raged for over 16 hours. Neither did the Torch skyscraper in Dubai, which caught fire for the second time just last week. Of course, neither building sustained an airplane crash – but then again neither did WTC 7.

NIST is the US government agency responsible for investigations following major structural failures in buildings and up until the 9/11 atrocity, enjoyed an exemplary reputation for diligence and accuracy. However its conclusions into the failures of the three Manhattan skyscrapers are incomprehensible.

On the twin towers, NIST claims that a weakening of the connecting floor trusses from the kerosene fires resulted in the top sections of both buildings becoming unstable causing them to crash down onto the top of the structure below. This gravity-driven collapse then pulverised the remaining buildings into a pile of dust to the point where only a few sections of the outer walls at concourse level remained standing – at most a couple of hundred feet.

Whilst this seemed plausible on first reading, the explanation for WTC 7 did not. NIST claimed that fires from office furniture had substantially weakened just one support column (of 58) and when this failed at 5.20pm, the entire building then collapsed. However, at a press conference following publication of their report, NIST admitted that they really weren’t quite sure how WTC 7 had collapsed in the way it did, but they were sticking to their story regardless.

In time, when the details of the Pentagon and Shankville incidents were released, even more doubts surfaced about the official explanation. We are asked to accept that both aircraft mostly vaporised after crashing with only a few fragments of fuselage recoverable from both sites. No passengers were identified at either site – not even through DNA analysis – as they too vaporised on impact.

If we are to believe the official position that a passenger aircraft can fly at 560mph a few feet above the ground whilst approaching one of the most secure buildings in the world, knock down five lamp-posts with its wings en route and can still manage to crash a neat twenty foot hole through reinforced walls, then I guess it’s fairly safe to assume than none of the passengers would survive the collision. But parts of them would – enough to conduct DNA analysis for identification – only in this instance, it appears not.

The same with Shankville, where Flight 93, immortalised by Holywood, crashed into a field before reaching its intended target. Here too, the aircraft and passengers were vaporised, leaving only a smoking crater and a handful of fuselage fragments for investigators to look at and scratch their heads.

Why is this impossible?

In every other aircraft tragedy, crash investigators and recue personnel have always managed to recover substantial parts of the aircraft – and passengers. Following Lockerie, much of Pan Am 103 was recovered over a huge radius in the Scottish Borders and painstakingly reconstructed for forensic examination in an aircraft hanger in England. Part of a timer circuit in the bomb that exploded that evening was recovered on a hillside many miles from Lockerbie and became of critical in the subsequent criminal trial in Camp Zeist as the manufacturer’s name and serial number were still readable. All of the passengers on the flight were recovered, some of the bodies remarkably unmarked, despite the rapid descent in an aircraft blown up at 34,000’ whilst travelling at over 500mph. The black box was intact. Nothing vaporised.

Even Malaysian Airlines MH17, which was destroyed by Bulk surface to air missile whist flying at 33,000’ over east Ukraine in July 2014 gave up its ghosts five months later, when Dutch forensic investigators announced on 5 December they had identified 294 out of the 298 passengers and crew that were on board after a major recovery operation in an extremely hostile environment. Much of the aircraft was recovered too. Little, if anything was vaporised.

Of course, there has been no explanation as to why the 9/11 airplanes and passengers simply vaporised leaving no trace behind. There can’t be as it would be even more ridiculously implausible that the reasons offered by NIST for the WTC 1,2&7 building collapse in New York.

As tragic as all those events were on 9/11, New York remains paramount in emotive recollection – not least because of the violent deaths of over three thousand innocent victims – and it is here where demands for Pandora’s Box to be finally prised open will become irresistible. Only now, a decade and half later, are all the long-term health implications for Manhattan citizens being fully understood and realised. Many of the conditions were triggered by the inhalation of the toxic dust cloud that enveloped lower east side following the collapse of the towers. What was in the dust that proved so debilitating and fatal to those that were exposed? Could it offer any clues why the buildings collapsed in the manner they did?

If Isaac Newton had been around today, then this mystery could have been solved at the outset. All he would have done was to direct our attention to his Third Law and say “go figure”!

Of course, I have no experience of building construction and regulation and can claim no authority in that field. I’m just a simple podiatrist, but the same Newtonian principles apply in my area of expertise and I would be grateful if you can permit me an analogy.

Imagine one of the athletes competing in the long-jump in London this weekend took his final attempt, but on landing, screamed in agony and was rushed off to hospital. On admission his legs are x-rayed and the films show multiple compound fractures of all lower extremity bones – femur, tibia, fibula and all foot bones and joints completely destroyed into small fragments.

If the radiologist’s report came back diagnosing “multiple compound fractures resulting from abnormal impact stress”, then it’s a fair assumption said radiologist would be facing a Fitness to Practice hearing by my old friends at the HCPC in the near future, not that it would solve much – but that diagnosis is simply not possible, unless there was some other pathology present like osteogenisis imperfecta (brittle bone disease) or extensive bone cancer. We can calculate the forces present in our bones and we can determine how much stress can be applied to these structures before a fracture occurs – but common-sense dictates that a healthy athlete doesn’t sustain that kind of injury doing something he has does on a regular basis unless his bones were badly diseased. Newton’s Third Law is again the applicable principle; for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Just as in the example of the athlete, it is perfectly possible to calculate the forces present in the WTC building collapse when the top section of the towers fell onto the structure below and from this, an accurate model of damage could be ascertained. But simply applying the principles of Newton’s Third Law renders such calculations unnecessary.

Much argument is focussed on whether kerosene fires could actually weaken steel support columns or floor trusses to the point where they failed completely – but let’s assume for a minute that they suffered the same fate as the aircraft and passengers and simply vaporised. Ten floors of both towers vanished instantly into thin air and the top sections plummeted down 120’ on top of the building below. Applying Newtonian physics to this scenario, one would reasonably expect a fair bit of destruction to occur to the top sections and the buildings below, crushing several floors equally in the impact. But the energy expanded in crushing these floors reduces the force in the falling block decelerating its descent until the resistance from the lower section halts its progress completely. Unless the top section of the building had a mass many times greater than the lower section, the very most that could have been destroyed in the collapse is half of the top section and a corresponding number of floors in the intact building below.

For the WTC buidings to collapse within a second of freefall speed, all three must have been compromised from the basement up. That means they were subjected to controlled demolitions – which doesn’t really square with anything our governments have told us. It doesn’t suit the narrative. But whatever was used to demolish those buildings it is likely that it has contributed to the toxicity of the dust breathed by all those who were present that day and now struggling with the consequences.

I don’t normally recommend YouTube for research, but this short video is worth a watch. Peter Ketcham was a senior NIST investigator and scientist until last August 2016, when he finally concluded his organisation was covering up a major crime and decided to speak out. He is just one of many courageous individuals who have decided the wall of silence must finally be broken.

Not before time.

One comment on “On Demolishing Walls

  1. John Goss on said:

    Sound analysis Mark. I made a similar analogy when I broke my collar-bone after cycling home from the pub. I suggested if you believe 9/11 you can believe when my collar-bone broke it rapidly broke all the bigger bones below it and I ended up in a pile of dust by my shoes.

    I agree too with your other aircraft illustrations. Patrick Haseldine is convinced, and has convinced me too, that Lockerbie was an attack on Bernt Carlsson, an honest Swedish politician who was on Pan Am flight 103 and negotiating for the UN at the time on behalf of Namibia retaining their own diamond wealth. He was up against de Beers. There was hardly any mention of Carlsson being a passenger who was a likely target at the time (and very little since). That, as much as anything, is what convinced me Patrick is right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>