Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Response to "9/11: Challenging 'Loose Change'"

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It


Mary MacElveen recently expressed her skepticism of certain theories regarding 9/11. Following is a brief letter in response.


- Advertisement -

Dear Mary,

First of all, let me say that I found the video "Loose Change" uncompelling and a poor presentation of the facts surrounding 9/11. So I will not speak with regard to the film. However, I would like to comment with regard to the facts themselves.

The point you you make in challenging the theory that WTC Building 7 was deliberately brought down is that you know someone at Controlled Demolitions Inc. who told you that WTC Building 7 was not taken down in a controlled demolition, and that you trust in his judgment. I would simply observe that this is an appeal to authority, and not an argument. This person's judgment is not an explanation of the facts.

Beyond this appeal to authority, you merely noted that the building had been damaged by falling debris from the WTC towers 1 and 2 and that there were fires in the building. Apparently, you believe that the structural damage along with the fires would be sufficient enough to explain the perfectly symetrical collapse. I disagree with you that this is sufficient. To date, no investigation into the collapse of the building has sufficiently explained what happened (and the 9/11 Commission report doesn't even relegate it to so much as a footnote).

It's all well to appeal to authority, but explanations are required, and opinions insufficient. I suggest you watch the videos of WTC 7 collapsing and have your source explain to you how it is physically possible for the limited structural damage and fires to cause the complete and simultaneous failure of all major support columns in a 47 story steel framed skyscraper. I would love to know how your expert source explains this seemingly physically impossible phenomenon.

Since you have made yourself so familiar with controlled demolitions by watching various documentaires, you must know that it is only by cutting all major load-bearing columns simultaneously that a building is able to fall into its own footprint. In fact, demolitions experts often want a building to collapse in one direction and cause it to topple over onto its side by cutting columns sequentially rather than simultaneously (that is to say, by blowing columns on one side first followed by the other side after a delay, rather than at the same time).

- Advertisement -

There are other basic things to consider, as well. The failure of load-bearing columns in one part of a building would not necessarily result in a "chain reaction" type failure of all columns. So even if one side of a building collapsed completely, another side might remain standing. This is true of reinforced concrete as well as steel-framed structures. You mentioned Oklahoma City. With regard to that, I would observe that even though one complete side of the building was blown away and collapsed completely, the building still stood. WTC buildings 4, 5, and 6 are further examples. One of the websites you referred to has a photo of the Banker's Trust building, which suffered severe damage from WTC debris (far more extensive than WTC 7). It didn't collapse (naturally; we shouldn't have expected it to).

Even if there were some sort of chain reaction resulting in a total collapse (which would have to be explained physically based on the building's design and forensic evidence), it would not be a total simultaneous failure, but a progressive one. If such was the nature of the WTC 7 collapse, if it was truly such an accidental progressive failure of the load-bearing support structure, how can your source explain the fact that the building "imploded" so perfectly. This defies common sense and requires further explanation.

It seems fairly self evident to me that it is physically impossible for every load-bearing column in WTC 7 to have failed at precisely the same time if the cause was structural and fire damage. I hope you contact your source again and inquire as to their explanation for this apparent inconsistency. I would love to learn from you what his or her answer to this mystery is.

Read Mary's article: 9/11: Challenging 'Loose Change'

- Advertisement -



Jeremy R. Hammond is the owner, editor, and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, a website dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the "war on terrorism" and events (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:


The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
13 people are discussing this page, with 20 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Where to begin? Apparently, you believe that the s... by MarkyX on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:35:58 PM
There are so many holes in your explanation it'... by Mr M on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 3:02:05 PM
MarkyX,You said the collapse was "Not exactly... by Jeremy R. Hammond on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 11:56:40 PM
ou said there was no point to bring up WTC 7 in th... by MarkyX on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 6:23:32 AM
Hey Marky all your explanations prove nothing. You... by Dom Jermano on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:14:54 AM
...just can't wrap their heads around the idea... by mike wygant on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 6:51:45 AM
The fact is that WTC 7, at least in the official v... by Jeremy R. Hammond on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 8:29:38 AM
What Loose Change did right was show clear squibs ... by johndoraemi on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 3:07:15 PM
Had there ever been a legitimate investigation of ... by Ed Encho on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 5:26:41 PM
There was a much bigger and longer burning fire, l... by meremark on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 6:57:53 PM
While Loose Change will certainly help anyone seek... by Rasoul Acheh on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 8:51:51 PM
... alcoholism. Talking with people who watch TV ... by meremark on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 12:49:54 AM
The author responded to this entry, but for whatev... by Jeremy R. Hammond on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 7:49:45 AM
Wow, is Mary writing to you privately?  I won... by BreezyinVA on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 5:57:18 PM
I e-mailed Mary to inform her I had responded to h... by Jeremy R. Hammond on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 9:07:21 PM
While I appreciate your discourse, I won't com... by Jeremy R. Hammond on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 8:00:32 AM
Isn't it remarkable that whenever anyone discu... by Han on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 9:02:21 AM
On Mary MacElveen's recent 911 post Markyx dem... by Duff on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:50:34 PM
For me, the look on President sh*t-for-Brains face... by Roger on Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 6:52:24 PM
Also Roger, had it been real the SS would have rem... by BreezyinVA on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 12:47:22 AM