How did the World Trade Center simply disappear on 9/11?

The Independent (UK) has now published aerial photos, taken by the NYPD, of the World
Trade Center’s disappearance on 9/11–that is, those three buildings’ sudden transformation
into vast clouds of fine dust:

It’s quite a sight. Check it out, and ask yourself how a few isolated fires on certain floors
of two of those three buildings could have caused all three to vaporize like that.

Now, if you’re a conspiracy theorist, you will no doubt cling to the official view that that
catastrophe was (somehow) pulled off by the 9/11 “mastermind,” Osama bin Laden–er,
I mean Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who at some point some time ago replaced bin Laden as
the 9/11 “mastermind.” (Reportedly, Muhammad did confess to having been the “mastermind,”
after US forces waterboarded him over 180 times.)

If, on the other hand, you’re an empiricist, and therefore base your arguments on evidence
not speculation–even if that speculation has been certified repeatedly by experts like
Glenn Beck–you may want to know somewhat more about how those three buildings
came apart like that.

If so, you should spread the word about this press conference organized by Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, scheduled for Feb. 19 (this Friday)



  1. libhomo

    February 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I don’t know if our corrupt government is capable of such a thing, but an independent investigation of 911 would clear up a lot.

  2. John P. Garry

    February 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    I am disappointed that Professor Miller is aligning himself with so-called 9/11 Truth.

    “Check it out, and ask yourself how a few isolated fires on certain floors
of two of those three buildings could have caused all three to vaporize like that.”

    Why should I, when this is not what happened? You fail to mention that, in addition to fire damage, the Twin Towers were struck by airplanes, which knocked out vertical support beams of the buildings and (probably) destroyed fireproofing that protects beams from the effects of fire.

    The buildings did not “vaporize.” They collapsed into rubble and the many tons of concrete flooring shattered in the collapse became dust, which from a distance looks like vapor. The Independent’s newly released photos don’t tell us anything we don’t already know.

    Either way, videotape evidence clearly shows both buildings disintegrating at the points where they were struck by their respective planes. No evidence of controlled demolition is visible (the preferred explanation of many 9/11 Truthers). Explosions from pre-planted explosives sufficient to bring the towers down would be visible from outside the buildings, but no such explosions are visible.

    It’s difficult to see how 7 World Trade Center failed from the outside, and the official report admits that more investigation is needed, but photographic evidence shows that the building was damaged by debris from the other collapsed buildings. There were also a number of fires throughout the building. A bulging of the exterior façade, indicating shifting of interior elements, was also seen before the collapse.

    As to your Glenn Beck reference. The fact that Beck is less enamored of certain conspiracy theories than a published college professor is something for Professor Miller to be ashamed of, not me.

    John P. Garry III
    Los Angeles, CA

  3. Mark Crispin Miller

    February 16, 2010 at 9:22 am

    John, I think that, if you’re really serious about all this, you ought to take a look at some of the critiques instead of shrugging them all off as mere “conspiracy theory.” It seems that you’ve read none of them, since all you’ve given us here are just vague bits of the official story. (“Debris” brought down Building 7? Or was it a “shifting of interior elements”? And what exactly would that be? Did someone move around the furniture too roughly?)

    I’d also suggest that, if you’re serious, you should support the various calls for a new investigation. That’s all the 9/11 Truth movement wants, you know; and so the fulminations of Glenn Beck, among others, are actually intended to prevent such an inquiry.

    But if it would help settle all the questions about 9/11—and there are way more reasonable questions than the ones re: the collapse of those three buildings—why would anyone object to it? Even Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the top commissioners themselves, have complained about the many ways in which that first investigation was obstructed and misled. A new inquiry, funded properly this time, and given the requisite authority, would only help us all get at the truth, whatever it may be.

  4. John P. Garry

    February 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Professor Miller, I have looked at some of the alternative 9/11 theories and I reject them because they unpersuasive. And they are unpersuasive because they are conspiracy theories, as opposed to fact-based, historical, empirical, verifiable analyses. I don’t “shrug them off.”

    None of these theories actually make use of evidence, they misrepresent the evidence that exists or submit it to imaginative and implausible interpretations. I simply don’t believe them. I’d be interested to know what you consider the plausible theories to be.

    In your post you implied that the Twin Towers were brought down by “a few isolated fires.” The dishonesty of this statement is stupefying—how can you ignore the basic fact that the fires were caused by an airplane impacts?

    Do you think your readers have forgotten about the planes? I just don’t understand this type of statement. This is why I reject conspiracy theories: their dishonesty, their assumption that people are forgetful, uninformed or too lazy to object to obvious lies.

    To modestly claim, as you have repeatedly, that all 9/11 Truthers want is a new investigation is not reassuring—nor particularly believable. No investigation will satisfy these people.

    I don’t care if there is a new investigation or not. I don’t care what Glenn Beck’s attitude towards a new investigation is. Stop bringing Beck up, for God’s sake. I’m not that easily scared. I don’t think there should be a ne investigation to placate people who don’t understand basic physics.

    The reason people hold conspiracy theories is not because the theories are supported by facts, but because the theory tells a story that supports people’s beliefs and attitudes.

    In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, adherents (the majority of whom are on the left) get to intensify their antipathy towards George W, Bush and the national security state. Conspiracy theorists also enjoy being contrarian, exult in their dissidence, and enjoy being a member of the elect.

    What’s your excuse?

    John P. Garry III

  5. Chris Ferrall

    February 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    Mr. Garry,

    A ‘conspiracy’ is a ‘plot’ developed by two or more ‘people’, a ‘plan’, if you will. As with the word ‘liberal’, ‘conspiracy’ has been twisted away from its basic meaning into a term of derision. Without, however, changing that basic meaning. It’s a rhetorical manipulation. To call somebody a ‘conspiracy theorist’ is to be derisive, to attempt to discredit by linguistic foolery. We all know that secret ‘plans’ have been carried out across the ages, don’t we (

    The government’s 9/11 story is about a ‘conspiracy’ between Arabs, isn’t it? It was a ‘plan’ hatched by some ‘people’, no?

    Three buildings, two of them struck asymmetrically by aircraft, collapsed perfectly into their own footprints – in the first three recorded instances of steel-frame buildings being brought down by fire, ever.

    To recognize that this effect is precisely what a demolition engineer seeks to achieve when taking down a building and not to ask questions – leaving all the other photographic, spectrographic, engineer, design, testimonial, etc. evidence aside – is to defend a ‘conspiracy theory’ of questionable explicative worth.

    Rejecting something as “unpersuasive” simply because you choose to label them “conspiracy theories” is like saying, “Liberals are bad because they are liberals, and liberals are bad.” Or, like saying nothing intelligent at all.

    Chris Ferrall

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.