"Lucky" Larry Silverstein

This is Larry Silverstein.  In 2001 he won the lease for the World Trade Center Complex.  Note: He has not, nor ever OWNED the complex.  The New York Port Authority does.  Conspiracy theorists often target him as someone who profited greatly from the terrorist attacks.  Personally, I think many truthers think that because he is of Jewish decent.

Now, I already addressed "pull it" in the World Trade Center 7 post, so I will not be addressing it here.

LUCKY LARRY MADE BANK WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS FELL

Outside of "pull it", the most popular/common conspiracy theory against Silverstein is that he took out a terrorism insurance policy on the Twin Towers, and went to court to get double that, as his argument was that each plane crash was a separate terrorist attack.  His initial policy was for 3.5 billion dollars, and he tried to get 7.1 billion.  According to truthers, he won his court case.

Again, as Lee Corso would say "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!"

First, let's look at the insurance itself.  Being that it was the WTC, and in 1993 the towers were bombed, of course he would take out a policy on terrorism.  But wait, he didn't willingly just do it, terrorism insurance is included in his regular insurance package for the complex.  He did, however, choose a cheaper plan. In court papers from the case of him trying to get more money from the companies, he initially tried to get a 1.5 billion dollar policy.  His lenders refused, and he ultimately went with a 3.5 billion dollar policy.

According to an article from 2008, where he was trying to sue United and American Airlines for over 12 billion dollars in damages (he lost that case), he was awarded 4.6 billion dollars from the insurance companies, or 1.1 billion more than the initial policy.  I wouldn't exactly call it winning when he got 2.5 billion dollars less than what he wanted.  So let's do some simple arithmetic on the costs of rebuilding for "lucky" Larry.

First, let's just put this out there.  In 2003 the estimates to rebuild the entire complex was at 10 billion.  Per an NYT article on the subject, that could very well rise in time too.  Already not looking good for truthers and this theory.  Then there is his lease payments.  He has to pay 120 million dollars a year to retain the rights for building improvements on the site, or if it were do happen (which unfortunately it did), a rebuild of the complex.  They still haven't finished the rebuild mind you, after 14 years.  2WTC is currently delayed.  So 120 multiplied by 14 is 1.68 billion dollars.  That leaves 2.92 billion dollars of the insurance policy he was awarded.

World Trade Center Seven cost 700 million to rebuild.  Leaving 2.22 billion dollars left. World Trade Center Four also cost 700 million dollars. That insurance payout is now down to 1.52 billion dollars.  World Trade Center Three is going to cost 2.75 billion dollars (still currently under construction).  And :POOF: all of that insurance money is gone, Larry is in the red out of his own pocket by 1.23 billion dollars.

And we didn't even get to the main event: World Trade Center One, commonly referred to as the Freedom Tower. Per the Wall Street Journal in January 2012, the cost of building 1WTC is 3.9 billion dollars.  This would make the lucky one's out of pocket cost increase to 5.13 billion dollars.

Sure, he's filfthy rich.  However, his net worth is only 3.5 billion dollars.  So what happens from here?

Here's what: Silverstein lost the rights to 1WTC, the choice of tenants that would rent space there, and any money that would be made from it.  The rights to it have gone back to the New York Port Authority.

So not only did rebuilding cost more than what Larry got from his court battles (and we don't even know how much he paid in legal fees for his attorneys, this battle lasted years), he lost the rights to the focal point of the new Manhattan skyline.  AND he still is trying to get 2WTC rebuilt (he still has the rights to that, and it will cost similar to 1WTC), which is currently on hold.  Why?  Probably because he cannot produce the funding to get it done right now.

So not only did Larry Silverstein not have enough money to cover all the costs of rebuilding the site, he lost the rights to the now most iconic building in lower Manhattan.  What a lucky guy he is.

SAUCES? SAUCES:

Larry's net worth: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/larry-silverstein-net-worth/

1WTC cost: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203920204577191371172049652

Larry losing case against airliners and NYPA developing 1WTC: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144

Estimated cost to rebuild the entire WTC complex: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/nyregion/official-puts-cost-rebuilding-world-trade-center-site-10-billion-but-that-could.html

Larry trying to cheap out on his insurance policy: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, BUT THAT DAY HE WASN'T

Truthers also go after Larry Silverstein for not being at the Twin Towers the morning of the attacks.  They state he usually has breakfast with tenants at the Windows on the World, which was on the 107th floor of the North Tower (1WTC).  Where oh where could he possibly be on that day of all days?!

According to the man himself, he was at a dermatologists appointment with his wife.  He was 70 at the time of the attacks, so it is pretty plausible that this was in fact the case.  But of course, truthers say he was lying with that and he had some sort of advanced knowledge it was going to happen.  But hey, these are the same people that think he admitted to blowing a building up on national television, soooo....

And another knock on the foreknowledge theory, is that you would think the head of the New York Port Authority would have the same advanced knowledge.  So either the whole theory is a crock, or Neil D. Levin missed the memo, because he died in the North Tower.  Where was he?  Windows on the World.

BONUS: Israeli company ZIM Shipping moved out of the WTC complex abruptly, breaking their lease, just two weeks before the attacks.

Ah, another "The j00s did it" theory.  First of all, they didn't break their lease.  It expired on September 1.  But the fact still remains, they left 10 days prior.

Not all of them, apparently.  About 10 employees of ZIM were in the North Tower finishing up their move out when AA11 hit the North Tower.  Not exactly what you would expect from an Israeli company that's supposedly knowing what is going to happen and keep their employees in there.

And what floor were they on? Oh.  The 29th floor.  They were easily able to get out regardless.  And yes, their property was destroyed in the collapse of the North Tower.  It actually still had their shipping tracking equpiment/computers in there, and when that was lost, they were shut down for a short period of time, which, like Larry, means they lost money in the attacks.

And according to then Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, ZIM made the announcement they were leaving the WTC for Virginia back in April.  So it isn't like they just "up and left suddenly".  Also of note, they were apparently one of the last steamship companies with their headquarters still in Manhattan.  They ultimately left the WTC to save on costs, and moved to Virginia, which is where most of their ships stop at Virginia since 1985, so the most makes logical and financial sense for them.

Sources:

List of tenants of the North Tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

Information on the Zim move:  http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html

United Airlines Flight 93

This one shouldn't be near as long as the others, as there is no building to talk about in this.  United Airlines Flight 93 was the fourth hijacked planed during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  It is of note that it is the only one that did not hit its target.

Again, just to show you that everyone, hijackers and the people that tried taking back the plane were on board, here is the flight manifest:

Got it?  Good.

Here is a bonus for you with hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah on tape in the cockpit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Ziad1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ziad2.ogg

Notice he says the same thing essentially as Atta.  They have a bomb on board and they're going back to the airport.  However, being that UA93 took off later than it's originally scheduled take off time, the passengers received word from family/friends on the ground that other hijacked planes that day were ran into buildings.  But did these phone calls actually take place?  Truthers beg to differ.

THEM PHONE CALLS HAPPEN, OR NO

One such phone call came from passenger CeeCee Lyles (and again, look her up on the flight manifest.  She's there):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Lyles.ogg

Phone operator Lisa Jefferson seems to think those phone calls were real.  She talked to passenger Todd Beamer:

Passenger Mark Bingham's mom seems to think she talked with her son:

Seems to me that all the ones that received phone calls from this flight feel they were indeed from their loved ones in the air.  So why do truthers think these are faked?

Their theory is that cellular telephones back then could not get a signal that high in the air.  Though this is a valid point, there is one major flaw to this argument: almost every single telephone call was made with the air phones that are on the backs of the airplane seats.  Only two or three calls were made with cell phones, and those were disconnected almost immediately.

In total, 37 phone calls were made from United Airlines Flight 93.  Of those 37 calls, 9 lasted 0 seconds, as in they either didn't connect at all, or disconnected immediately.  Another 10 lasted less than 10 seconds. So over half of the phone calls were 10 seconds or less.  And 2 of the calls that were longer than that were made by a flight attendant to United Airlines.  And all but two of these calls were made with an air phone.

There is nothing of note here that is suspicious or out of the ordinary.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLANE AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND

Truthers often make the claim that this hole in the ground:

Couldn't POSSIBLY have that of a commercial jet liner in it.  And sure, it didn't.  Debris is found in the woods not too far from the impact crater, like this bit of fuselage:

And this bit of fuselage:

Not a whole lot, yeah?  Just remember it was traveling at a high rate of speed straight into the ground.  Here is a Navy jet that suffered the same fate.  Does the impact and general area look familiar to you:

Now the dig into the ground begins.  Not too long into the dig, an engine is found:

The other engine is said to have been found in the woods past the fuselage pieces.

This shows how obliterated the plane got on impact, with how little pieces are visible on the ground:

More debris in the woods:

Both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were recovered.  In regards to the cockpit voice recorder, it was played during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and for the families of the victims.  I will post a transcript of what was on there, but unfortunately, the recording itself is still under seal for an unknown amount of time.

WAS IT SHOT DOWN OR DID IT CRASH

One of the more interesting contradictions by truthers is that they will say in the same breathe that Flight 93 either landed in Cleveland (something that the Cleveland news said was a false report), never existed, or was shot down.

Per the transcript of the cockpit after the hijackers took over would certainly make it seem like it was put into the ground by Jarrah to avoid the passengers taking back the plane.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf

Was there a shoot down order in place by that point?  Yes, there was.  But fighters at that time were flying over Washington D.C. and Manhattan after the attacks there.

Also, if it was indeed shot down, there would be much larger pieces of debris thrown over a much larger distance than what was already found there.  it also wouldn't make an impact crater that looks like it took a steep dive and practically went vertically into the ground.

United Airlines Flight 175 and the South Tower (2WTC)

So, the plane flown by hijacker Mohammed Atta has crashed into the North Tower.  At this time, most people think this was just some sort of aviation accident, and nothing more.  There are some that think it was done on purpose because it was clear skies that morning.  Unfortunately, however, the thoughts of an accident will be put to bed about 17 minutes after the crash of Flight 11.

And just to get it out of the way immediately, here is the flight manifest that shows all of the hijackers were indeed on board UA175:

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS PLANE WAS REALLY A PLANE, MAN

The same skepticism for AA11 arose for UA175.  However, unlike AA11, UA175 was captured on cameras, camcorders, and TV cameras for the entire world to see.

Here is a still from one of those videos, less than a second before impacting the South Tower:

Now, here is United Airlines commercial airliner take note of the paint scheme:

As a bonus for you, here is the very same UA175 pictured in 1999:

Again the paint matches the object that is a split second from crashing into the South Tower.

The colors on the wings, engines, the split on the fuselage, and the tail markings are all consistent with a united Airlines commercial jet.  Now, let's take a look at the bottom of the plane.  This picture spawned conspiracy theories about a pod being attached to the bottom of the plane, and then shot a missile into the tower a split second before impact:

Truthers jump to the conclusion that this clearly shows something on the bottom of the aircraft, as noted with the break in the white stripe going down the middle of it.  Now, here is the bottom of another United Airlines jet:

Looks fairly identical, yes?  That's because this "pod" is nothing of the sort.  What they believe to be a pod is actually a housing compartment for the middle/rear landing gears for the plane.

For the TV fakery crowd, there are simply too many videos of the plane hitting the building, at too many angles, for it to be faked.

This one caught the longest showing of UA175, from a a news camera on top of one of the buildings:

Here are more angles, some from the news, others from random people on the ground:

Notice again that the paint scheme matches United Airlines.

This is a video from pretty far away, they were just filming driving down the street at the North Tower being on fire and catch the plane on tape hitting the South Tower.  Notice the delay in the camera picking up the plane engine sounds.  This is due to the delay of sound travel to that distance, and makes it even more believable that it is authentic.

I could go on with this, possibly with hundreds of different videos showing the same thing: United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

DAMAGE AND DEBRIS

Like with AA11, UA175 had ample debris survive the crash.  Here is a rather large chunk of the fuselage, found on the rooftop of WTC5:

One of UA175's engines found at the intersection of Church and Murray Street.  

Landing gear that apparently the evil government forgot to pick up years after the attacks, wedged between two buildings:

Other engine parts:

For the damage done, it is very similar to the North Tower, since they are both plane crashes with a full tank of jet fuel and traveling an an extremely fast speed.  The primary difference here is where it was hit.  This will explain why the South Tower was the second building hit but the first to collapse.

AA11 hit the North Tower pretty much right in the middle fairly symmetrical, between the 93rd and 98th floors.  UA175 hit the South Tower between the 77th and 85 floors.  It also hit towards the right corner of the building, causing more awkward stress on the building to redistribute the weight to non severed perimeter and core columns.  There is also more weight bearing down on the impact zone, having 25 floors above it, where as the North Tower impact area had 11 floors.

Again, it is a plane shaped hole, and goes inward.  I don't think it is necessary to go through this song and dance again from the North Tower.  

THERMITE THEORY

There is, however, one this I want to davel on from pictures of the South Tower burning: the thermite theory.  Truthers link to the video this still was taken from to make the conclusion that it was melted steel, and that the only way this could've occured is with thermite.

The thermite theory was created and pushed by BYU physics professor Stephen Jones.  His paper on the subject was never peer reviewed by any respected science journal, and when the BYU science department put him on paid leave so his peers could review his paper, he abruptly quit his tenured post at the university and took his paper with him. He then submitted his paper to the now infamous Bentham Science, who pretty much accepts any papers, n matter how full of jibberish and nonsense it has. There is probably good reason for this, since he most likely wasn't going to get the good marks he wanted from the process.  Probably to be expected from the man whose big claim to fame before thermite was writing a paper on how Jesus Christ visited the Americas.

Anyways, his paper's thesis is that the dust samples he collected from various points of origins(last time I read it he never established a solid chain of custody, a big nono) that are claimed to be from the WTC site from the 9/11 attacks contained traces of thermate, which is thermite with sulfur deposits and barium nitrate.  Some problems with this analysis occur.  First, with the sulfur, the WTC towers used sulfur drywall.  So of course sulfur is going to be found in any dust of the WTC.

Chemist Frank Greening argues that with the drywall and all the fires, then after the collapses and water/other chemicals brewing under the rubble, that sulfur would be abundant there.

Jones also claims to cite an EPA report by Erik Swartz that states there was a presence of 1, 3 diphenylpropane, would suggest the presence of thermite.  What Jones fails to mention, though, is that Swartz says that the reasoning for the presence of these ingredients is from the burning plastic of all the computers in the buildings.

He also cites a post-9/11 government report on dust samples in lower Manhattan, and feels it also concludes to his findings of thermite.  What he fails to mention is that the report states that the presence of manganese, aluminum, and barium are consistent with their presence in building materials.

So far his claims aren't holding much water if the levels of said items are normal for the area and what was in the buildings.  If thermite was used those levels would be much higher.  But let's put thermite to the test.  Let's look at a video or two of thermite on a steel beam, shall we?

The following two videos are by Van Romero, an explosives expert at new Mexico Tech.  In the first video is just regular thermite placed on a steel beam.  The second one is with thermite painted onto a steel beam:

Both look pretty violent, right?  But did it burn hot enough, and even more importantly, long enough, to do any real damage to the beam?  Van Romero gives his conclusion:

Short and sweet?  "Nope."

Now, maybe that just wasn't enough thermite to be able to do anything to the steel beam.

James Millette, then executive director of MVA Scientific Consultants, with a bachelors in physics and a master's and PhD in environmental science, elected to either refute or confirm Jones' findings.  The problem?  Jones and his associates refused to hand over their dust samples.  So like a boss, Millette went to NYC and got his own.

His findings are not quite as fanatical as Jones.  The red/gray chips that Jones touted as proof of thermite, Millette claims, is this: the grey side is consistent with carbon steel.  The red side contained elements for essentially primer paint.  His conclusion:

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefor the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

Link to the paper here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

So no evidence of bombs, no evidence of thermite, damage consistent with that of a plane crash and footage/photos/stills that show a consistency with a United Airlines jet.  SOunds like the official story is winning again.

AND I'M FREE, FREE FALLING (AGAIN)

Just to be absolutely sure about the lack of a controlled demolition, let's look at the time it took for the South Tower collapse.  Again, for it to be free fall, the entire building would have to collapse in less than ten seconds.

From ABC News:

Collapse starts at about 1:59.  You can see the collapse still going after 2:09 has elapsed.  The building as a whole doesn't even get all the way behind WTC7 until 2:16.  So it's at least 17 seconds.

Here's another view:

Collapse starts at :04.  By 0:14, there is still a good amount of the core and perimeter columns still collapsing.  I guestimate here that it stops at 0:26, or 22 seconds.

One more, this one has the collapse starting right at the start:

As you can see, by 11 seconds, the camera turns back and you can still see at least forty stories of the building still in tact.

So again, this building didn't fall at free fall speeds, either.  Sorry truthers.

American Airlines Flight 11 and the North Tower (1WTC)

September 11, 2001 was just like any other fall day in New York City.  People were driving into the city or riding the subway in for work, chatting with co-workers and friends, and just carrying on.  Then, at 8:46am, hijacker pilot Muhammed Atta would change that, along with history on board American Airlines flight 11.  Or did he?

Truther would like to convince you of otherwise.  Many of whom believe that AA11 did not hit the towers at all.  They believe this footage from the Naudet brothers documentary simply called "9/11" was fake:

Yes, there are several within the 9/11 Truth Movement that believe that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers that day, and that it was all an elaborate hoax and TV fakery.  I for one, think they give the government WAY too much credit here.  They may have an argument with AA11, if it was the only crash that day, as this and maybe one or two other videos caught the crash happen.  However, several TV cameras and personal hand helds caught United Airlines Flight 175 crash into the South Tower, in what is possibly the most recorded single event in history.  We'll talk about UA175 and the South Tower in another post.

PLANE WRECKAGE AND DAMAGE TO THE NORTH TOWER

Truthers will often make the false claim that there was no plane wreckage recovered at the World Trade Center site.  Though it is true that much of the remains of the planes perished in the ensuing fires, since the majority of them were made of aluminum, there were still pieces of fuselage, engine parts and passenger items recovered.

One such item was a passport from the hijackers.  Truthers find this to be ridiculous, and feel that the government is treating us like idiots to think a paper passport would survive a plane crash, fires, collapse (if it even stayed in the towers immediately following the crash, that is).

However, that isn;t the only artifact that survived the crash of Flight 11.  Here is passenger Waleed Iskandar's bank card:

This was returned to Waleed's parents a year after the attacks. 

Noted truther, that for some reason people take the word of, because he is a theologian by trade, David Ray Griffin makes another false claim about the hijacker passport, stating that it was found in the rubble in cleanup, so it must've survived the crash and fires, and since he deems that impossible, that it must've been planted.  It was actually found before the tower collapsed, recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin.  

Here is a picture of the passport, from AA11 hijacker Satam Al-Suqami:

No worst for the wear, right?  Well, being as the explosion from the crash could've pushed it out, just as it did with a whole lot of other paper materials from inside the towers, sure.  Passports also have a thin plastic film on the one page that matters, which is the one with the picture and personal information on it.

The cover of the passport looks a little bit more beat up, but still solid condition:

Here is a picture that shows more paper that escaped the tower from the crash, seemingly untouched.  Also, some people are examining an airplane seat that also escaped the tower after the crash:

But how can this be?  It should be impossible for something like an aircraft see and paper to escape the towers after the crash and ensuing explosion/fires!

Here is a piece of AA11's fuselage:

Part of a landing gear and wheel:

An inflatable life vest that survived the crash and explosion to be found outside of the tower on the rooftop of another building:

So there is ample evidence of a plane in fact, hitting WTC1.  But were the men who did it really there?

THEM HIJACKERS ARE ALL IN YOUR HEAD, MAN

Another common claim, which originated again from David Ray Griffin, is that there were no Arab names on any of the flight manifests of the allegedly hijacked flights.  He makes the conclusion that either this was a set up to blame al-Qaeda automatically, or those flights never existed.

This claim often irks me the most.  If these flights never existed, then where did the passengers go?  I mean, the most prominent passenger on board Flight 11 was David Angell, creator of the TV shows Frasier, Cheers and Wings.  Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, was supposed to be on that flight but missed it per a scheduling error by his assistant. Mark Wahlberg was also supposed to be on that flight but elected to go with friends to Toronto instead for a film festival.  What, did they all just buy imaginary plane tickets?

Anyways, here is a copy of the flight manifest that shows hijackers Muhammed Atta, Satam Al Saquami, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, and Abdulaziz al-Omari, along with David Agnell and his wife Lynn:

So his claim is debunked already.  And just for reference, here are the manifests for Flights 77, 175, and 93:

All of the hijackers are on those manifests.  All of them.

And if you want more proof that specifically, Atta was at the controls of Flight 11, here he is caught on tape:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-2.ogg

And here he is making his way through airport security:

NORTH TOWER DAMAGE

Now for the meat and potatoes of this thing.  The no-planers claim that no planes actually hit anywhere on 9/11.  As you will see here, and as you saw in the Pentagon post, the impacts all made holes that were very much plane shaped.  And in regards to the towers, you can see that the holes are plane shaped and also bending inwards on the edges of the holes, meaning something from the outside of the tower forced its way in and made the hole while coming to rest (mostly) inside the building:

Here you can better so how the hole goes inward, and can even see that the win tips were not strong enough to sever the columns, but managed to make an indentation:

So that rules out the theory of using explosives to form the hole, as it would then be an outward shape on the edges, and not inward.  Then, there are the special kind of crazies that think it was laser beams from outer space.

No, I'm not kidding.  They believe that the Reagan Star Wars program was seen to fruition (it wasn't) and ultimately used on thee twin towers to cause collapse.  Mmhmm.  Their so called proof that this occurred?  They believe that the lasers caused all the steel to turn to dust upon collapse.

Just look at all this dustified steel:

Those little black specs in the middleish bottom of the picture?  Those are people.  First responders to help clean up the chaos after the buildings collapsed, and to hopefully find survivors.

Speaking of survivors, they were found in the rubble.  Which also contradicts the death laser theory, as well as another just as crazy one that a mini-nuke was used at the towers.

Here's some more of that dustified steel:

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAAAAAAMMMZZZ

Another common truther fallacy turned internet meme.  Not because that statement is false, it is true that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.  The part they get wrong is thinking the official account, and debunkers, say that steel melted on September 11th.  It did not.

While a temperature of 1,370 degrees Celsius is needed to melt steel, only a temperature of 538 degrees Celsius is needed to make the steel begin to soften.  So less than half the heat needed to melt it will cause it to start losing its strength.  To be specific, according to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, structural steel loses half of its strength at 593 degrees Celsius.

NIST notes that parts of the first in the towers hit as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius which would cause the steel in that are to lose more than 90% of its strength.  You can clearly see in photographs of the buildings an inward bowing on the outer structure, which means the steel trusses that helped keep the structural integrity of the buildings by connecting itself to both the perimeter columns and the steel inner core beams.

You can see here in the gif showing perfectly this bowing which ultimately led to complete structural failure:

It appears at this very moment that the sagging trusses became too great to bear on both the perimeter columns and the core, and thus the collapse begins.

Here is another photo clearly showing the inward bowing:

Steel didn't need to melt to cause the collapse of the towers.  

AND I'M FREE, FREE FALLING

Lastly I wanted to address the claim that both towers fell at free fall speeds, clearly showing it had to be a controlled demolition.  I will address the North Tower here, and the South Tower in another post.

Here is a video of the collapse of the North Tower:

The collapse begins at around 0:29 in the video.  The collapse, some would say, ends at around 0:45 making the collapse last 16 seconds.  That alone dispells the theory of free fall collapse because for that to be true it'd have to all come down in less than 10 seconds.  But in my humble opinion, it doesn't end at 0:45.  See that bit of structure still standing after the rest of the building fell?  That is either part of the outer perimeter steel columns or part of the inner steel core.  If this were a controlled demolition, those portions would have gone down with the rest of the building.  So in my opinion, the collapse ends at around 1:02, which would time it at 33 seconds.

Still need more proof it didn't fall that fast? Alright.

Look at this:

Notice how debris that is falling independently from the building is at least 20-30 stories ahead of the collapse itself.  Those portions are falling with zero resistance.  The North Tower, however, is showing plenty of resistance to the collapse.  You can also see at the top right portions of the structure just now starting to fall, so now I'd put that estimation of how far the independently falling debris is at over 40 stories.  This building came down at a much slower rate than free fall speeds.

World Trade Center Seven

One of the now several items that 9/11 Truthers proclaim as the "smoking gun" that solifies that September 11th was done by portions of the United States government is World Trade Center Seven (WTC7).

AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE

Truthers often show this specific video, created by the oft discredited group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

There is one fairly large problem with these videos:  NONE of them show the entire collapse.

You see, what truthers conveniently forget about in any collapse footage for World Trade Center Seven is many seconds before the entire building collapses, a portion of the mechanical penthouse up top collapses into the building itself.  This is the point, at the very latest, the collapse timer starts rolling.

The Penthouse collapses at about 3:41 in the video.  The rest of the building hits the floors at about 3:58.  That's about 17 seconds for the entire collapse.  Which, as you might've guessed, throws the truther theory that WTC7 fell at free fall speed, and therefor, was clearly a controlled demolition, out the window.

But they seem to refuse to believe this.  It just LOOKS like a controlled demolition.  Does it?  Look at the video.  Do you hear any loud bangs?  And bright flashes?  And cloud plumes from initial foundation explosions?  No, you don't.

"But it fell straight down in the path of least resistance into its own footprint."  Did it?  Let's look at a picture of an overhead shot of the remains of WTC7 after collapsing:

Notice how the remains of WTC7 have spilt into the bordering streets around it.  All of them, actually.  This is not consistent in any way with a controlled demolition.  The collapse of WTC7 also caused this to a neighboring building:

This would be Fiterman Hall, located north of WTC7 on the corner of Barclay and Greenwich.  If it was a controlled demolition, as truthers claim, and fell straight down, as truthers say, then how did it damage this building?

So it isn't looking good for controlled demolition theorists at all.  But wait, how DID it collapse then?  I mean, it wasn't hit by a plane like the Twin Towers were!  There is a very simple explanation for this:  the North Tower severely damaged World Trade Center Seven when it collapsed.

DAMAGE TO WTC 7

Just to give you an idea of how close these two buildings were:

Pretty close, yeah?  Here's a look at WTC7 when the North Tower collapsed:

Certainly looks like it's south side is getting hit there from the North Tower's collapse.  Damage?  You bet:

This looks like a pretty significant gouge was taken out of the SW corner of WTC7.  The damage here starts at the 18th floor of the building.  This was a 47 story building.  So 38% of the SW corner has been severely damaged already.  This is a pretty significant number.

Here you can see what looks like a vertical gash going up and down the entire building:

As you can compare from the picture of WTC7 in the background of the North Tower above, that large vertical black bar was not there before.  This is indicative of something happening to damage it from before the North Tower collapsing and after.  And obviously the North Tower collapse is the main culprit to be accused.  It makes little to no sense that this is caused by bombs for controlled demolition, as it is shown several hours before it collapsed.

Firefighters on the scene also said as much for how badly damaged it was.

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].  A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building.  The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10545335/wtc-this-is-their-story-part-i

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.  Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.  You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.  It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 p'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden:"No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop.  It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make and attempt to fight it.  That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.  We were concerned about the collapse of a 47 story building there.  We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of debris.  We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." 

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden

Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona:

"We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall and push the side of the World Trade Center that was still standing, and then it was going to go into 90 and I thought the scaffold was going to fall and cover the block and kill another 30 people.  As silly as it sounds now, if you were there at that moment, I wasn't the only person thinking that way."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10568000/battalion-chief-tom-vallebuona

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

"Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?  I didn't realize how much they had because my view was obstructed.  All I could see was the upper floor.  At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone.  He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there.  I thought to myself, out of where?  Frank, what do you want, Chief?  He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567999/deputy-chief-nick-visconti

There are more similar testimonies where that came from.  These are the people that were there, that were runing fire fighting and rescue operations at the WTC site.  They all say that WTC7 was heavily damaged and very much on fire, and they all expected it to collapse.

"LUCKY" LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND PULL IT

Truthers often make the claim that Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for the World Trade Center complex, admitted on national telivision that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Their "smoking gun" this time?  He said those two magical, whimsical words: pull it.  The transcript:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Now, judging from what we've read from those firefighter testimonies on WTC7 that day, they elected to stop fighting the fires there.  They then pulled out (see what I did there? that's important) of the immediate area and made a collapse radius and then just watched and waited.

Now, knowing all of that, do you think Larry  was talking about blowing the building up, or withdrawing from the area so no more lives were at risk for if/when the building collapsed?

As for the term pull it, here is a picture of WTC6 getting "pulled":

The term "pull it" in the demolition industry is not that of explosives and the bing bang boom bamboozle.  It is quite literally hooking up cables to a damaged building and pulling it down with a crane.  You can watch the short clip where they explain that process here:

http://www.911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi

From ImplosionWorld on the subject:

"There is no such phrase in explo-demo.  Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate.  Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse.  But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller.  This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Another strike out for the truthers.  No evidence of controlled demolition found on site.  Fire fighters saying they believed it was going to collapse from damage and fires.  Demolition experts saying pull it isn't an explosive demolition term.

So, whenever you hear a conspiracy theorist say these words: "Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?" or "Two planes cannot collapse three buildings!" you can say "Correct! But two planes, fire, damage from said planes, more fires, and collapse of the second of the first two buildings will cause the third building to collapse."