Wed May 22 2013

Departments
Letters to the Editor/
Free Press Forum

Alexander Cockburn & 9/11 conspiracy theories
by Christopher Cuttance
September 20, 2006

Dear Mr Cockburn,

I would like to agree with you over 9/11, but there are problems. I also agree that there are more than enough wingnut theories flying around and they should be ignored. However, having studied the way the twin towers and building 7 came down, I cannot explain them without benefit of thermite. I am not a structural engineer, but I can understand the basic facts of the construction of the twin towers.

They snapped back upright after each impact, therefore the central steel structure could not have been that damaged. Also, if it had been, the upper floors would have started to sag at once, and they didn't. Kerosene burns at approximately 1000 degrees (I'm sorry, for the moment I cannot remember if that is F or C, but for the purposes of this argument, it doesn't matter) lower than the temperature at which steel starts to weaken. You only have to look at the video of that day to see that it is thick black smoke coming out of the towers, not white hot flame. Black smoke is a sign of low level combustion which shows that the fire could not possibly have been at a tenperature to melt the steel core.

Also, for the kerosene flowing down the elevator shafts and the resultant explosion that blew out the elevator doors in the lobby - how much kerosene would you need?  An enormous amount of it went up in the initial fireballs and the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed. Consequently, even considering that both planes damaged the elevator doors on the floors where they hit and sent fuel down the shafts, any burning kerosene that did go down would have used up all the air in them and gone out - put a long thin glass shaft over a burning candle, same principle. It is beyond engineering belief that jet fuel alone could have poured down all those flights and done the damage it is supposed to have done.

None of the steel core below the impact point was damaged. (This is postulated on the above argument) The buildings came down essentially in freefall. So, why didn't the floors simply strip away from the core? And how did the core disintegrate into the neat 12ft pieces it did? And, of course, the inevitable - how did building 7 come down? I have never read more pathetic explanations than the ones on this from the anti-conspiracy forces.

There are several other vital points, but I won't bore you further. You must also understand that you have taken your attack simply to the wingnut faction. If you study the scholars who question the event, you do not get that stupidity. They are simply asking questions - we cannot explain the collapse of the twin towers in terms of the official explanation. And the more I read the deniers, the more convinced I am that there are questions to answer. Applying Occam's razor to the problem, the only thing you need is that the Bush administration knew of the attacks, pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out 5 days before (nobody, to my knowledge, has explained that), sent in squads to set the explosives and waited. And that, I hope you will agree, is not so wingnut a theory. I don't know how it all happened, but I cannot, after over a year examining the problem, accept what we have been told. I am also in that group of perhaps total idiots, who believe the Bush administration capable of anything. After the election of 2004 particularly. So, to me the question is not - 'would the Bush administration have done this?' but - 'did they do it?'

I would ask you to look at the problem again and get in contact with the structural engineers and others who have investigated the entire thing. I do not want to believe the conspiracies, but, believe you me, there is as much evidence for something wrong with 9/11 as there is over the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbour.

Sent with great respect,
Christopher Cuttance