On the 11th September, 2001, three steel
framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World
Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in
controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed
skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered
total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant
damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade
Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability
given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade
Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per
On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by
Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The
leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of
retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and
Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease.
Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the
center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything
at all, are close to zero.
It should be emphasized that World Trade
Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit
by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it
was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel
framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the
WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the
collapses of WTCs One and Two.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE
IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The wingspan of a
Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel. The Boeing 767
could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is
607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main
differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the
designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they
would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not
at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate
the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x
(890)^2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a
Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x
(777)^2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force
From this, we see that under normal flying
conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10
percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is,
under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were
designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily
designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be
said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was
470 mph = 689 ft/s. The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA
Flight 11 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174 = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the
North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 =
4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a
Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused
the South tower to fall.
Overall, it comes as a great
surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many
experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the
larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger
and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl
teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should
still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing
767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both
UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when
they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or
767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was
envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were
designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise
buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin
towers on September 11, and did not collapse.
THE "TRUSS THEORY" IS
The truss theory is the absurd belief that the
only support (between the central core and the perimeter wall) for the concrete
floor slabs, was lightweight trusses. It was invented to explain away what were
obviously demolitions and has become the "official" dogma. The central core,
perimeter wall and the mythical trusses are all introduced in the next section.
There you will find out their dimensions, their numbers and their supposed
usage. After reading the rest of this article you should return to this section
and (with improved understanding) read it again.
According to the
"official" story, there is no significant lateral support for the walls (against
wind loading) between the ground and top floors. This is like a bridge with a
1,300 foot span between supports. Even though the tube structure of the
perimeter wall was designed for maximum rigidity (within the given weight
specifications) the 1,300 foot span between supporting pillars, meant that even
this very rigid design would sag in the midsection under wind loading, just like
a bridge with such a span. In a typical steel framed building the span between
pillars is only 12 feet (one floor) and such a problem does not arise.
The World Trade Center towers were like huge sails in the wind. These
sails had to be able to resist the 140 mile per hour winds of a hurricane. Such
hurricane force winds exerted a large (some 6000 tons) lateral force on the
building. This lateral force is called the wind loading (or force of the wind)
on the building. According to the "official" story, the only possible
intermediate support comes from the flimsy trusses and the lightweight concrete
floors. The WTC was designed to survive a 45 pounds per square foot, wind
loading. This translates to a 12 x 207 x 45/2000 = 56 ton force on each of the
floor segments. What this 56 ton force on each floor segment means, is that if
one was to lay the World Trade Center on its side and use the pull of gravity as
a substitute for the push of the wind, then each of the 110 floors would need to
be loaded with a 56 ton block of steel (so the entire wall would have to support
110 such blocks of steel, that is, 110 x 56 = 6160 tons in total).
fact that the tubular structure of the walls is very rigid, does not stop the
central core from needing to bend when the walls bend. This means that the walls
have to transmit the full force of the wind to the core, so that the core will
flex to the same extent as the walls (this is obvious, otherwise if the walls
flex while the core does not, the floor slabs would, by definition, be crushed).
Again, it is important to note that the rigidity of the walls does not protect
the central core from the full force of the wind, what it does, is it limits the
distance that the walls (and hence the whole structure) can bend. The more rigid
the design the less it tilts in the wind.
In strong winds the midsection
of the windward wall will be pushed several feet towards the core. In a typical
steel framed building of WTC type design, heavy steel beams transmit the wind
loading to the core, which then bends together with the walls. However, in the
WTC (as described in the "truss theory") the trusses and floor slabs are too
weak to transmit this force to the core without buckling, so the core will stay
in its original position as the wall advances to it. This will crush the trusses
and floor slabs, leading to the collapse of many floors. Since this did not
occur during the 30 years in which the buildings stood, we must assume that the
"official" story is false. To see how utterly ridiculous the "official" story
is, lets calculate the lateral loading (wind loading) that each one of these
trusses was expected to resist. Consider, a one floor segment. Here, we have 30
trusses and a slab of concrete supporting 56 tons. That is about 2 tons per
truss and piece of slab. If you balanced a 2 ton block of steel on top of one of
these flimsy 60 foot long trusses and (a 60 foot long by 6 foot 8 inches wide by
4 inches thick) slab of concrete, we all know what would happen - the truss and
slab would buckle and collapse.
Another point to consider, is that if
the walls alone handle lateral loading, then the pressure on the windward wall
must be transmitted via the corners to the remaining walls (this transmission of
loading to the other walls is what gave the WTC its rigidity) but corners are
far too weak to handle this task alone.
Although the "truss theory" is
ludicrous, it has been pushed by many "experts". It should be noted that it is
inconceivable that these experts did not know that it was false.
WHERE IS THE
Since the trusses are incapable of resisting the
wind loading, we know that the "official" explanation of the WTC collapse is
false. If the floor joists (supports) were not the claimed trusses, then what
were they? They had to be strong enough to support the floor slab and stiff
enough to resist the wind loading. In fact, they had to be large steel beams.
This is not to say that trusses were not used at all in the construction, but
just that (contrary to the "official" line) the main floor joists were steel
beams and not trusses.
The above argument using wind loading is
certainly enough to tell one that trusses were not really used as the floor
joists, but there are also other ways to determine this. Another approach is
adopted in this section. We will:
Calculate the weight of steel theoretically used in the construction of
one of the towers assuming that the floor joists were trusses.
Compare the result of this calculation to the 96,000 tons of steel known
to have been used in the construction of each of the towers.
Note that the calculated weight of steel is only 67 percent of the
required 96,000 tons.
Conclude that the 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for, is due to the fact
the the floor joists were actually weighty steel beams and not flimsy trusses
(and thus that the official story is a lie spun to explain away what were
Calculate a rough cross-sectional area for the steel beams that did serve
as floor joists.
Since a cubic foot of steel weights 490 pounds, it is
enough to deal with volumes rather than weights. We will calculate the volume of
steel on a per floor basis.
To calculate the per floor volume of steel
used in the construction of the twin towers, we will divide the calculation into
three parts, namely, the volume of steel in the perimeter wall, the volume in
the central core and the volume used in the floor support system.
perimeter wall was comprised of box columns welded to large spandrel plates. Two
typical prefabricated sections are illustrated below. Each consists of three
spandrel plates welded to three box columns and each is three floors high.
The first figure below shows the cross section of one of the
perimeter box columns and its surrounds. The second and third figures detail the
dimensions of two actual perimeter columns that were salvaged from the rubble.
The numbers in the figure denote:
36 - the steel column
38 and 39 - fire resistant plaster
40 - aluminum facade
42 - window glass
43 - the window frame.
To obtain an estimate of the "typical"
perimeter column, the dimensions of the perimeter columns listed in the WTC
Steel Data Collection documentation were averaged. Whether this accurately
reflects the true distribution of perimeter column thickness, is unclear, but it
is all one has to go on (till those who hold the architectural details release
So, our "average" perimeter column has dimensions:
13.4, t_w = 0.48, b_f = 12.9, t_(tf) = 0.32 and t_(bf) = 0.32.
2 x (13.4 x 0.48) + (12.9 x 0.32) + (14 x 0.32) =
21.5 square inches,
For the time being we will ignore the column end plates and the
spandrel beams. Since each floor is 12 feet high, the per floor volume of steel
in an average perimeter box column is:
12 x 21.5/144 = 1.792 cubic feet.
In total there are 240 such columns, so the volume of steel so far is
240 x 1.792 = 430 cubic feet.
Now lets deal with the volume of
steel in the column end plates. Each end plate is 14 inches wide by 11.75 inches
deep and 1.375 inches thick, giving a volume of
14 x 11.75 x 1.375 =
226.2 cubic inches = 226.2/1728 = 0.130896 cubic feet.
Since, on each
floor, one third of the columns are joined, and each join involves two end
plates, the per floor volume of steel in the end plates is
2 x 0.130896
x 240/3 = 20.9433 cubic feet.
The spandrel plates are large, being 52
inches high and 3/8 inches thick. Each floor has the equivalent of one spandrel
beam that stretches 4 x 207 = 828 feet right around the building. The volume is
easily calculated to be
828 x 12 x 52 x 3/8 = 193752 cubic inches =
193752/1728 = 112.125 cubic feet.
So the overall per floor volume of
steel in the perimeter wall is
430 + 21 + 112 = 563 cubic feet.
Now, we wish to calculate the per floor volume of steel in the core
of the building. To do this, we first need to calculate the volume
of steel in each of the core columns. This is complicated by the fact that the
dimensions of the columns reduced in size with increasing height. For example,
at the base of the WTC some of these columns were 36 inches wide by 16 inches
deep and 4 inches thick, whereas at the top, these box columns had transitioned
to H-sections (I-sections) fabricated from 3/4 inch steel (the transition to
H-sections occurred at floor 85). We will ignore the reduction in width and
breadth of the columns, and only take into account the reduction in column
thickness by assuming an average thickness of 2 inches (this roughly corresponds
to a reduction in thickness of one quarter of an inch, every seven floors, up to
floor 85). In reality, the column width and breadth decreased quite considerably
and we only make this very generous assumption as the actual reductions in the
width and breadth are unknown. So, we assume each core column has the following
The cross-sectional area is (36 + 12 + 36 + 12) x 2 = 192 square
inches = 192/144 = 1.333 square feet. Since each floor is 12 foot high, the per
floor volume of steel in one such column is 12 x 1.333 = 16 cubic feet. Reports
as to the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. Once again, we will be
generous in our assumptions and choose the higher figure of 47. Thus, the total
volume of steel (per floor) in the core columns is
47 x 16 = 752 cubic
On each floor, the core columns were bound together by a
rectangular grid of beams. As the dimensions of these beams are not known we
will assume they were, 14 inch by 14 inch box sections fabricated from 3/4 inch
steel. Again, this is a very generous assumption. The cross-sectional area of
such a box section is:
( 2 x 14 x 0.75 ) + ( 2 x 12.5 x 0.75 ) = 39.75
square inches = 39.75/144 = 0.276 square feet.
The core section is 137
feet wide x 87 feet deep. Hence, our rectangular grid comprises six 137 foot
sections and eight 87 foot sections, for a total length of 822 + 696 = 1518
feet. Additionally, the outer two 137 foot sections have to extend to the
perimeter wall (to give support for the trusses). Actually, the "official"
version has a much smaller U shaped beam, but as I have mentioned above, we are
being very generous. This adds another 140 feet to the length. The volume of the
1518 + 140 = 1658 feet of box section is:
1658 x 0.276 = 458 cubic feet.
Thus the overall volume of steel in the core section is:
752 + 458 =
1210 cubic feet.
We now turn our attention to the floor support system.
The floor slab was poured on 1.5 inch corrugated 22-gauge steel decking.
Now, 22-gauge steel is 0.0336 of an inch thick. The corrugations lead to 1.25
square feet of steel decking for every square feet of floor slab. Hence, the
volume of steel involved is
207 x 207 x 1.25 x 0.0336/12 = 150 cubic
To complete our calculations, we need to calculate the volume of
steel used in the system of trusses which supposedly supported the concrete
floor slabs. The following graphic illustrates the truss system. The double
trusses (of which, in this graphic, we only have an end view) ran perpendicular
to the transverse trusses, and were essentially two transverse trusses bound
Consider one of the 3 foot four inch (40 inch) sections illustrated
in the above graphic. The diagonal rod has a diameter of 1.09 inches (radius
0.545 inches) and a length of twice the square root of 20 squared plus 30
squared, that is, a length of
2 x srt( 20^2 + 30^2 ) = 2 x srt( 1300 ) =
Here, srt stands for the square root.
cross-sectional area of the rod is 3.14 x 0.545 x 0.545 = 0.933 square inches.
Hence the volume of rod in this segment is 72 x 0.933 = 67.2 cubic inches.
This gives a volume of 67.2 x 12/40 = 20.16 cubic inches per foot of
Pictured above, is the connection of one of the double trusses to
the perimeter wall. The cross section marked X--X in this graphic, is pictured
below. Note that the original graphic from the WTC-report was so out of scale, that it
was necessary to stretch it somewhat.
The first image below is apparently the real life version of the
above graphic (supposedly obtained from the WTC wreckage). The second image
shows the gusset plate and seat connection.
The dimensions quoted in the
following section were made by taking measurements from these two photos.
Standard adjustments for perspective had to be made for measurements from the
The gusset plate is 4 x 2 x 3/8 and has a volume of 3
cubic inches. The seat angle has a volume of roughly 2 x ((9 + 4) x 14.5 x 3/8)
= 141 cubic inches and the "stiffeners" add another 9 x 1.5 x 3/8 = 5 cubic
inches. Since there were (at most) 120 gusset plates and seat angles, these add
in 120 x 149 = 17880 cubic inches. The 76 horizontal diagonal brace plates add
in another 76 x 90 x 3/2 x 1/2 = 5130 cubic inches for an addition of
(17880 + 5130)/1728 = 13.3 cubic feet of steel to our total.
upper chord (top section) of one of the double trusses consisted of four pieces
of 1/8 inch thick angle iron, as illustrated below (it is circled in red).
Below, is a more detailed view of the cross section of the top
chord of a transverse truss (left) and double truss (right).
So, the upper chord has a cross sectional area of
1.25) + (1.25 + 2))/8 = 0.8125 square inches for a transverse truss and,
Since we have no information concerning the lower chord
(and the "official" pictures are inconsistent and nowhere near to scale) we will
assume it has the same dimensions as the upper chord.
Now summing the
volume of steel in the top and bottom chords and diagonal rods, we have the
following per foot volumes:
2 x 0.8125 x 12 + 20.16 = 39.7 cubic inches
per foot for the transverse trusses, and
2 x 2 x 12 + 2 x 20.16 = 88.3
cubic inches per foot for the double trusses.
Now we need to calculate
the total length of double and transverse trussing. There were apparently, 60
double trusses spanning the 60 feet from the perimeter wall to (a beam attached
to) the core and 24 double trusses spanning the
35 feet from the perimeter wall to the core. They are pictured in the following
The overall length of double trussing was thus 60 x 60 + 24 x 35 =
4440 feet. Transverse trusses ran perpendicular to the double trusses as
The overall length of transverse trussing was thus 8 x 207 + 4 x 87
= 2004 feet.
There was also a lesser supporting feature called
"intermediate support angle". Since all we know about the intermediate support
angle, is that its support capabilities were inferior to the double and
transverse trusses, we shall be generous and assume that it was similar in
nature to the transverse trusses. This adds another 1764 feet, to give a total
of 2004 + 1764 = 3768 feet of transverse trussing.
Hence, the volume of
steel in the double trusses was 4440 x 88.3/1728 = 227 cubic feet.
the volume of steel in the transverse trusses was 3768 x 39.7/1728 = 86.6 cubic
So the overall per floor volume of steel in the floor support
150 + 13.3 + 227 + 86.6 = 477 cubic feet.
per floor volume of steel, is now the sum of that in the perimeter wall, the
central core section and the floor system. This is 563 + 1210 + 477 = 2250 cubic
So why have we gone to all this trouble to calculate the per floor
volume of steel? Well, we know that 96,000 tons of steel was used in the
construction of each of the WTC towers. The WTC towers had 117 floors (110 above
and 7 below the Plaza level) so an average floor contained 96,000/117 = 820 tons
of steel. Since the density of steel is 490 pounds per cubic foot, we see that
each floor contained about 820 x 2000/490 = 3347 cubic feet of steel.
Now, according to the above calculations, the per floor volume of steel
in each of the towers, is (a very generous) 2250 cubic feet. But this is only 67
percent of the volume of steel that we know was used in the construction of the
tower. So, the big question is: Where is the other 33 percent? Where are the
missing 32,000 tons of steel? What features of the building are being left out
of the "official" explanations?
Could it be that each
concrete floor was actually supported by weighty steel beams and not by the very
flimsy trusses of the "official" story?
Well, the following
picture, taken during the construction of the WTC, may hold the answer.
Here, one can see what appear to be large steel girders laid out
according to the plan for the positioning of the supposed double trusses (this
pictured here). To make things clearer, the position of the girders have
been marked in white in the photo below. Remember, that the perimeter columns
which appear like a row of toothpicks in the visible sections of the wall, are
actually 14 inches wide. Thus the floor joists do indeed appear to be quite
large steel girders. One thing is certain though, they are not the claimed
In this photo the vertical red lines correspond to
visible core columns. The white lines (apart from the outer perimeter lines)
correspond to visible floor joists.
Above, is a photo of early construction work on the South Tower.
Behind, is the North Tower and further back, the Verizon building. The photo was
taken from the old extention of Greenwich Street (which was ripped up to make
way for WTCs 4 and 5) looking north west. Some interesting aspects of the
construction are presented in the following enlargements of the red-boxed
In this enlargement one can see eight perimeter box columns at ten
foot intervals (further up the structure these columns split into three smaller
box columns at 40 inch intervals). Of course, what is of interest here are the
eight (seven on the lower level and one on the upper) quite solid looking beams
spanning the 35 foot gap between the perimeter wall and the central core, where
the "official line" promised us there were only flimsy trusses.
In the foreground of this enlargement one can see eighteen
perimeter box columns of the South Tower (those in the background are of the
North Tower). If you look closely, you can just make out a single quite large
beam spanning the 60 foot gap between the central core and the perimeter wall.
Remember, that the corner core column to which this beam is attached is some 3
foot wide (and 16 inches deep). However, one floor below this, workers are
working on a section of flooring held up by what appears to be trussing. One
supposes that this is temporary flooring. If one looks carefully one can see a
barrier rail to prevent workers from falling off the area supported by the
trusses. This tends to support the case that this is temporary flooring.
Assuming that all the missing steel is contained in these beams we can
estimate their cross-sectional area (the assumption that all the missing steel
is contained in these beams is somewhat dubious, as I suspect that the sample of
perimeter columns has been deliberately biased toward columns with thin
cross-sections, and hence, that a significant percentage of the missing steel,
is missing from the perimeter columns). Still, using this assumption, we have
1100 + 227 = 1327 cubic feet of steel to play with (the 227 comes from the no
longer necessary double trussing). The total length of double trussing to be
replaced is 4440 feet. Hence, the desired estimate of the cross-sectional area
1327/4440 x 144 = 43 square inches.
So, we have enough steel
to replace the double trusses by H-beams (or I-beams, depending on how you view
them) that are 24 inches deep, 10 inches wide and fabricated from one inch thick
steel. These would be very, very strong beams, and would be much, much stronger
than necessary to span the 35 and 60 foot spans from the central core to the
It is worth emphasizing that these
beams, plus the thicker stronger perimeter columns, would mean that WTC One and
Two were actually traditional steel-framed buildings, that also incorporated
extra thinner perimeter columns, to attain the rigidity necessary to resist wind
Above are pictures taken during
the construction of the WTC. On the right is a picture of some 30 feet of
trussing, which one supposes was temporary flooring. Note the vertical gaps in
the box columns of the perimeter wall. Gaps in the box columns do not seem to be
a sensible feature in a supposedly load bearing wall. Is this because the
perimeter wall was not actually meant to be a load bearing wall as such, but a
feature designed to give the WTC its required rigidity (against wind loading)?
In the left photo note the yellow and red lines in the concrete. In the right
photo note the three parallel light-colored lines (about 4 inches wide) in the
concrete. One also wonders why the pile of steel in the foreground was hoisted
up the building, unless it was to be incorporated in the structure. An answer to
this question may be provided by the following photo.
Between the workers cutting up a couple of WTC core columns, is a
column with concrete still attached to the beams that are welded/bolted to it.
These U-shaped beams look suspiciously like the lengths of steel in the
foreground of the picture of the trussing. Is it possible that floor slab was
some eight inches thick and laced with significant steel beams? Was the slab
poured in situ and not prefabricated as some claim? Was the temporary flooring
only necessary till the concrete in the floor slabs had set? And where does the
following piece fit in the whole affair?
Impacts of the magnitude of those that occurred on September 11 were
considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to
The possibility of a jet-fuel fires the size of those that occurred on
September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the
towers were designed to survive them.
In order to explain why the towers collapsed, where other steel framed
buildings would have survived, the WTC conspirators invented the "truss
The "truss theory" is seriously flawed. It cannot explain how the
perimeter wall transmits wind loading to the central core.
The "truss theory", if accepted, leads to a 33 percent underestimate of
the amount of steel in the towers. That is, the "truss theory" does not
account for the whereabouts of 32,000 tons of steel (of 96,000 tons) used in
the construction of each of the towers.
The "truss theory" is a lie that has been spun to convince a gullible
public, that what appeared to be the controlled demolitions of three of the
World Trade Center buildings, were actually natural consequents of the
aircraft strikes and not controlled demolitions at all.
There are photos showing large steel girders positioned where the
"official" line states that only (double) trusses should be.
In all, one has to conclude that the "truss theory" is false and that
those who push it are part of a large conspiracy to deceive the American
ARCHITECTS MUST PROVIDE WORLD
TRADE CENTER BLUEPRINTS AND PLANS
for the World Trade Center was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates.
Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record. Since these people have
nothing to hide, they should provide the architectural plans of the World Trade
Center, for all to see. This will enable any misunderstandings regarding the
facts of the collapse to be established and corrected. In fact, Minoru Yamasaki
& Associates, Roth & Sons, or their descendent companies, should put the
entire set of architectural plans on the internet.