In what is certifiably a rare occurrence, I’ve found myself reasonably impressed by the skepticism found in a special news article.  Specifically, by the piece 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which aired on CBC Newsworld this week.

The hour-long program focuses on perhaps the largest foundation of the 9/11 “Truthers’” conspiracy theory, the collapse of WTC7.  In it, while true douchebags like Dylan Avery of Loose Change are given time to have their say, it’s the engineers, firefighters and the families of the victims who have the final word.  What’s more, the program makes no hesitation to refute conspiracy theory claims surrounding the collapse of the third tower with real science, reason, and at times just plain common sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Truthers’ nonsense, the meat of the 9/11 conspiracy theory surrounds the collapse of WTC7, which they say is a “smoking gun” for the government’s supposed involvement in the attacks, as it had not appeared to have sustained significant damage and must therefore have been destroyed in a controlled demolition through the use of explosives.  The program’s response to this argument, based on official research into the collapse of the tower, leaves no stone unturned, as it picks apart every conspiracy theory claim neatly thoroughly.

First and foremost, the argument that WTC7 suffered no damage prior to its collapse is debunked by foorage from all angles of broken windows as well as fire and smoke pluming from all sides.  On the claim that the fire left raging in the building could not be hot enough to melt the steel foundations of the structure, a team of engineers explain that the melting of the steel isn’t necessary to produce a collapse.  Instead, the steel needs merely to be weakened by the intense temperatures of the fire to the point where it can no longer support the weight of the structure (This is accomplished long before the steel is at its melting point).  Conspiracy theorists even argue that the sight and sound of the building’s collapse indicate that explosives were present in the building to initiated its destruction.  The program offers two explanations for this.

One is practical:  Those “hearing” and “seeing” explosions have little to no experience on what real-life explosions sound and look like, and thus cannot be relied on to provide a realistic assessment.  The other explanation is more technical.  The “explosion” seen by observers is itself a result of the collapse.  As the structure’s foundations fails and it begins to collapse, air within the building is trapped, much like in a balloon.  The pressure builds until the air is finally able to escape, which it does very violently.  Indeed, this may be called an explosion, but not as a result of explosives.  It is, rather, a result of the physics of the building’s collapse, and nothing more.

We here at Lintbox have yet to write an extensive piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which we should sometime in the future (at the risk of facing the often very harsh responses from Truthers.)  Nevertheless, CBC/BBC managed to produce one very satisfying, scientific approach to the conspiracy theory, and for that I’m left impressed.  Maybe there’s hope for the media, after all!