Yesterday I wrote an article which was basically a summary of a text that I read of a web site about a so called 9/11 conspiracy rumor that is going around.

If you have not read the article ( I do recommend reading this before reading the conspiracy article ) it basically speculates on a possible US planned attack on itself for a reason to go to war with Iraq. More than just a wild theory it contains more than its fair share of justifications.

After writing the article (which I wrote at 4:00am in the morning after getting home from New Year's Eve and not being able to get any sleep) I thought about what I was trying to achieve. I am not a conspiracy theorist, though I must admit I, like a lot of other people love a good conspiracy, however I, unlike others, understand that sometimes, and not always, the government does what it has to do.

It is easy for me to say 'the American government planned this and used Arab terrorists as Guinea pigs to take the blame'. However, an important job for any one who takes any side of any argument ( not even mentioning the current one that we are discussing ) is to critically anylize and understand both sides of the argument. That way it is possible for the individual to come to his own conclusion for what he thinks is right and what he thinks is wrong, or in this case, was the 911 attacks a conspiracy or simply a well executed attack on a US landmark?

This article will argue towards the latter: that the attack was carried out by Muslim origin hi jackers who were appointed by Usama, the leader of the Al-Quada network to carry out a large scale attack against US landmarks causing civilian casualties and denting the American economy.

I will not begin by telling you the series of events that had occured on September 11th because you can view these at the previous article. What I will explain is a theory of why the steel towers collapsed which would presume that no conspiracy on the US government's behalf is present and no explosives were used.

The first point to understand is that everyone must agree that the jet fuel did not melt the steel columns withing the WTC. Even though there was a lot of jet fuel ( more than 60,000 gallons in each plane to hit ), jet fuel itself would not be enough to completely melt the steel support beams located in the middle of the tower.

However, jet fuel would be enough to :
1) Distort the middle steel beam and more notable, the support steel cables that run under each floor which are connected to the middle steel beam to allow the middle steel beam to easier withstand the wind speeds up at the height at which it stands.

2) Expand the middle steel support beam causing unstable conditions.

So, the World Trade Center did collapse as a result of the fires and not the initial impact from the plane.

As previously mentioned, the steel cables which run under each floor of the world trade center and, are obviously much weaker than the central metal support beam would have been under intense heat and would have probably distorted gradually after the plane hit. After the steel cables weakened the concrete slabs which they would have supported would have started collapsing, causing a pancake effect. Which would explain why the towers collapsed without noticable tilting. For a more detailed explanation of the pancake effect visit this web site.

Which brings us to the final point of this rather short article.

Was the World Trade Center Defectively Designed?

As any product made in our democratic society, tall buildings must meet a set of criteria before and after they are built. The World Trade Center was made quite differently from other sky scrapers, but in essence it could:

Support itself for 3 hours if a fire started and the sprinklers did not work, of course when we talk about fire we are not talking about the huge fire ball explosion that happened as a result of the World Trade Center.

Resist the force of a 225km hurricane.

Be able to remain standing even if one of its main support beams is destroyed.

The WTC performs up to all this criteria and actually exceeds it. It is a very stable building. For the engineers of the WTC to even comprehend that one day two 747's each containing more than 50 000 litres of fuel would crash into the towers is absurd. The only criticism that can be aimed at the engineers is the lack of escape routes if, theoretically a fire engulfs a whole floor, but then again even achieving this is difficult.

Summarising, there is a lesson to be learned from all this. When engineers embark on new plans to build even higher sky scrapers (and I guarantee you people, it will happen) keep in mind that there are dozens of ways to destroy something , but buildings can be rebuilt, lives can't. So , it is important to have buildings with multiple fire escapes and other means of evacuating the building as quickly as possible.

+ Check out on Band of Brothers:
9/11 conspiracy

No links as of yet, e-mail me with any questions