A Critical Review of the “9/11 Mysteries Viewer’s Guide” By Adam Taylor Version 1.0 Introduction: The film 9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions was one of the first professionally made independent films regarding alternative theories surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.[1] In particular, the film focused on the numerous anomalies concerning the collapse of the WTC. The film was praised by numerous members of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement: "Excellent. The best of the 9/11 movies." -- David Ray Griffin "WOW! is my reaction to this movie. Great insight into demolitions and what really happened on 9/11/2001." -- Steven E. Jones "An outstanding contribution to understanding 9/11. Simply superb." -- James H. Fetzer Regardless of this praise, many have also criticized the film based on allegations that the film presents false information, illogical fallacies, and cherry-picked sources. The most extensive criticism has been developed by a person named “Shane,” calling himself “The Doc” on the internet.[2] The Doc’s first criticism came in the form of a film called “Screw 9/11 Mysteries,” a version of the original film subtitled with comments by The Doc.[3] Over two and half hours in length, this edited version of 9/11 Mysteries critiqued practically every point of the film. Soon after, The Doc also developed a written essay titled “9/11 Mysteries Viewer’s Guide.”[4] This essay expanded on the points made in Screw 9/11 Mysteries, and is over 130 pages in length. The essay was made to refute the entire film, using the film’s online transcript.[5] 1 It should be noted that 9/11 Mysteries has also been criticized by other members of the Truth Movement as well.[6] The most extensive critique of the film by a proponent of the controlled demolition theory was done by software engineer Jim Hoffman.[7] I myself strongly disagree with several points the film makes. However, for as many errors I have found in 9/11 Mysteries, I have found greater errors in the Viewer’s Guide of the film. My purpose in writing this is to show that the criticisms made in the 9/11 Mysteries Guide do not refute the theories of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. Rather, the Guide makes numerous mistakes itself in attempting to give what it calls the “truth.” This review is not a complete critique of the Guide, as there are several elements of 9/11 Mysteries that the Guide does correctly debunk. As such, I will not extensively discuss or discuss at all certain topics that the Guide addresses that I also feel are either false or too debatable, such as: -Claims about pyroclastic flows.[8] -Claims about basement explosions.[9] -Claims about pre-impact explosions.[10] -Claims about insurance for the WTC.[11] -Claims about the “slurry walls.”[12] -Claims about a “power down.”[13] -Claims about the WTC security (although I will discuss possible means of covertly working in the buildings).[14] Again, many of these and other issues are addressed in Jim Hoffman’s critique. Also, I will not spend time addressing what I consider to be simple nit-picking in the Guide, such as claims about Brad’s sleep exaggerations.[15] What I mainly want to deal with is the forensic scientific evidence that points to controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The science alone should decide if the buildings were brought down with explosives. Although I will address elements of this, the speculatory politics of the matter should really be secondary. 2 Finally, please fact-check everything in this critique to see if what I’ve written holds up to scrutiny. I am completely open to criticism.[16] (Excerpts from the Guide will be shown in purple. Excerpts from the film will be shown in blue.) The Myth The Guide’s first real critique of elements of the controlled demolition theory begins with the criticism of the film’s claim of steel melting. 1:54 On September 11th, we learned that four passenger planes were hijacked and taken radically off course. Within an hour, two of the planes had flown into the enormous steel towers of the World Trade Center, creating fires and eventually toppling them. 2:20 Dazed by the news, the American public soon believed the fires in the towers had burned so hot they caused the steel frames of the buildings to give way. 2:38 A myth developed, fed by official sources through the media to a bewildered audience. Elements of the myth: the impact of the airplanes, gallons of burning jet fuel, steel melting, the buildings failing and suddenly imploding. In a mere 10 seconds, 110 stories hurtled earthward -- pulverizing into dust. According to the Guide, this is a straw man argument in the film. The official story never mentions steel melting. This is what is known as a straw man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man “A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.” Many others have also claimed this to be a straw man argument presented by the film, as the official story does not say that steel melted in the Towers. However, as the film indicates, this was simply the initial assumption made by not only the public, but also by several experts.[17] “Structural steel is fireproofed to last between one and two hours, which it did, and then steel melts.” -Hyman Brown, project engineer for the construction of the Twin Towers. “The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.” -Chris Wise, structural engineer 3 "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel.” -John Knapton, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle “I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.” -Eduardo Kausel, M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering quoted a month after the attacks. It was in fact several experts in the fields of structural engineering who were the first to make claims of “steel melting.” Regardless, the Guide still claims this to be an error made by the film and presents a quote from NIST’s FAQ on the WTC.[18] This is what the NIST report FAQ has to say about melting steel. In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). Here is what 911research.wtc7.net had to say in response to this: Confusion about whether the official story depends on the melting of structural steel is a product of pronouncements from a number of experts that the fires in the Twin Towers caused their collapses by melting steel. Subsequently, attackers of challenges to the official story used the argument that the fires couldn't have melted steel as a straw man argument.[19] The Guide then goes onto to discuss the film’s claim of the buildings being pulverized. This is demonstrably false. The following is a dust sample taken from Ground Zero. http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html Microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco, BS, MS, DABC, FAAFS, FNYMS at The New York Microscopic Society lecture held at AMNH 28 May 2003 45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing) 31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite) 7.1% Charred wood and debris 2.1% Paper fibers 2.1% Mica flakes 2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component) 2.0% Synthetic fibers 1.4% Glass fragments 1.3% Human remains 4 1.4% Natural fibers trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC) Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found. If the towers had indeed “pulverized”, the above dust sample would contain high amounts of steel particles. Although some elements of the towers did pulverize, we can see that they are mostly comprised of fragile products such as insulation and fireproofing. Here, the guide seems to confuse the film’s statement that the entire buildings themselves would have had to have been pulverized. The film does not state this, although it could have been worded better. Much of the buildings’ non-metallic components were pulverized. Not the steel.[20] Regardless, even though steel particles were absent, an enormous amount of iron particles were discovered[21], which ties into the next part of the Guide’s critique. Something more important that we can take from this dust analysis is the absence of explosive products. If the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition of any sort, we would expect to see traces of nitro-glycerin and TNT. This would only be true if conventional explosives were used to demolish the buildings. However, as indicated by the presence of the iron spheres, it is more likely that some form of aluminothermic incendiary was used.