Prelude 9/11 morning Flight 11 hijacked Flight 175 hijacked WTC 1 hit Flight 77 hijacked WTC 2 hit Flight 93 hijacked Pentagon hit WTC 2 collapses Flight 93 crashes WTC 1 collapses WTC 7 collapses Epilogue

Claim

More than 100 highrises with far more violent fires have never previously collapsed0.

Background

The claim is taken from a flyer handed out by i11time.dk, the Danish Truth Movement. It posits that it is suspicious that the World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, since it would be the first time that steel-framed highrises collapsed due to fire.

It is thus argued that a conspiracy consisting of the american government was behind the attack and not, as previously established, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the 19 terrorists.

Facts

Taken literally, the claim is correct. There are many highrises, probably more than 100, which has been hit by violent fires without collapsing, but their design and construction have all been different. None have been hit by passenger planes and/or were not allowed to burn for hours.

There are undoubtedly also steel-framed highrises and steel constructions that reasonably resemble the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 which also have had more or less violent fires without collapsing. But they were not hit by passenger planes and/or were not allowed to burn for hours.

Finally, it is correct that it is the first time that steel-framed highrises like the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 collapsed as it happened on September 11, 2001. It is as such the first time a situation like that terror attack happened.

Logic

The probability of an occurred event is always 100%. It makes no sense to argue that the event cannot happen. It would be similar to claiming that you cannot stumble over a rock, then stumble over a rock, and then claim it could not have happened. It would be pure denial of reality.

Precisely because the terror attack was a first-time event, it cannot be compared to a single of the 100 highrises that the claim refers to.

Thus, the claim cannot be used as a rational argument in favor of the collapses on September 11 being suspicious. It is quite simply pure nonsense.

A first-time occurrence is neither extraordinary or suspicious but inevitable. All events happen for the first time some time, as exemplified in the first moon landing, the wrecking of the Titanic, the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, and the extermination of Jews during the Second World War. It cannot be concluded in either case that the official account is really a conspiracy.

The claim results in a quaint contradiction: On one hand, the conspiracy theorists point to violent fires as an argument that the buildings should not have collapsed, and that it is suspicious that the fire fighters didn’t try to put out the fires. On the other hand, they categorically declare that there were no violent fires in any of the buildings, and that those fires that were there died out by themselves after a short while.

Finally, the claim leads to the question of why concrete is used to strengthen a steel-framed construction, if the construction cannot collapse due to fire anyway.

Conclusion

The claim is therefore:

  • Misleading
  • Not supported by facts
  • Self-contradicting

Sources

  1. Løbeseddel, i11time.dkDet Syvende Tårn, Niels Harrit Foredrag — Part 1, (4/7), 5:00-6:00

    Serendipity: Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings