The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

Abstract

I argue that the official story about the collapses of the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center, according to which the collapses were caused by fire – combined, in the case of the Twin Towers, with the effects of the airplane impacts – cannot be true, for two major reasons. One reason is that fire has never, except allegedly three times on 9/11, caused the total collapse of steel-frame high-rise buildings. All (other) such collapses have been produced by the use of explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” The other major problem is that the collapses of all three buildings had at least 11 features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives had been used.

I also show the importance of the recently released of 9/11 Oral Histories recorded by the New York Fire Department. With regard to the Twin Towers, many of the firefighters and medical workers said they observed multiple explosions and other phenomena indicative of controlled demolition. With regard to building 7, many testimonies point to widespread foreknowledge that the building was going to collapse, and some of the testimonies contradict the official story that this anticipation of the building's collapse was based on objective indications. These testimonies further strengthen the already virtually conclusive case that all three buildings were brought down by explosives.

I conclude by calling on the New York Times, which got the 9/11 Oral Histories released, now to complete the task of revealing the truth about 9/11.

Citation

Griffin, D.R. (2006), "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", Zarembka, P. (Ed.) The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-7230(06)23003-7