Since 9/11 is my birthday, two friends gave me the above gift last year. It’s a lighted box they found in the International District, a scrolling view of New York City’s sights.

While writing this piece about the shakeout since 9/11 in my military family, I soaked my brain in all kinds of World Trade Center-related movies, none of which ended up in the piece. I watched Oliver Stone’s very boring World Trade Center (Nicolas Cage mutters to himself while trapped under rubble for two hours), I rewatched the never boring Working Girl (did you realize Melanie Griffith works in the World Trade Center?), I rewatched Man on Wire…

But the video that really stood out—and will make you sickest to your stomach—is the History Channel’s documentary about the World Trade Center filmed in early 2001, nine months before the attacks.

It’s all about how neat the World Trade Center is: how the buildings are cooled by water pumped in from the Hudson River, how the complex contains 71 escalators and 254 elevators, how its subway station was the first subway station to be air conditioned in the United States, how the architect Minoru Yamasaki was afraid of heights.

Nauseatingly, since the documentary was made while the buildings were still standing but aired on TV after the towers were gone, in the upper corner of the screen during interviews are two superimposed dates: The date of the interview and the date the interviewee has been missing since. One of the interviews is with Frank A. De Martini, a construction manager, who talks excitedly about the exterior skeleton on the buildings. There were no columns in the middle of the building; the exterior walls carried all vertical loads.

A smiling De Martini tells the camera that because of the way the buildings were designed, you could fly airplanes into them and they’d still stand. “I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid. And the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Up in the corner of the screen while he’s talking, it says, “Recorded 1/25/01, Missing since 9/11/01.”

Both he and his wife were in his office when the first plane hit. He sent her downstairs and out to safety while he stayed back to help others. He hasn’t been seen since.

Christopher Frizzelle was The Stranger's print editor, and first joined the staff in 2003. He was the editor-in-chief from 2007 to 2016, and edited the story by Eli Sanders that won a 2012 Pulitzer...

110 replies on “A Video of a Plane Passing Safely in Front of the World Trade Center, and a Video of the World Trade Center that Will Make You Sick”

  1. All of my statements about thermite are true and factual, even if you don’t like them.

    You are correct that you never mentioned the microspheres. I was addressing the link that sgt_doom posted up there, so you can thank him/her for any derailment. I know that conspiracy theorists are ego-driven, but at some level you have to recognize that not everything is about you.

    Boring troll is boring. Come up with a new schtick.

  2. 109 — You have been exposed as providing a misleading partial definition of thermite to dismiss it’s role in bringing down the WTC buildings. Thermite is a highly energetic substance that instantly melts steel structural members with relatively little explosive force. That’s exactly what one would use to make a building fall down without the people watching from the outside knowing what caused it, so you could then offer your own far-fetched explanation for the collapse.

    Response to your babbling: My ego is just fine. It’s not about me, it’s about justice and freedom. I’m not at all bored. If you don’t care for this discussion then why do you continue to participate?

  3. “Thermite is a highly energetic substance that instantly melts steel structural members with relatively little explosive force.”
    Show me where I’ve once posted something that contradicts that. I have not.

    I’ve just said that the components to thermite (metal, rust) are mundane enough that finding them in the wreckage of a building isn’t enough to assert that thermite was used to destroy the building.

    Have you ever worked in an office? As boring and uninventive as your trolling is, offices can be worse. 🙂

  4. @111 — You’re typing out of both sides of your ass. You claim to have not contradicted my assertion that thermite can bring down a building but you’ve made numerous posts insisting it’s so benign and gentle you could use it on a baby’s diaper rash. The thermite residue that was found in the WTC wreckage included the metal component AND THE OXIDIZER, MORON! That makes it capable of destroying a building.

    Oh, and I love how you’re trying to hurt my feelings! That’s so juvenile you couldn’t pass Psychology 101 if I spotted you a hundred. You’ve run out of bullshit so you’re trying to dissuade me from continuing to respond to you. Notice I’m still here.

  5. @113: ” but you’ve made numerous posts insisting it’s so benign and gentle you could use it on a baby’s diaper rash.”

    Again, show me where I’ve suggested thermite is benign or gentle. I’ve explicitly stated that it is composed of mundane ingredients, and explicitly stated that my assertion has nothing to do with how hot it burns or how easily it melts steel. See post 71 again if you’re still confused.

    “AND THE OXIDIZER, MORON!”
    Rust? They found rust in the WTC wreckage? I’m shocked.

  8. @114 — We’ve covered this already. Repeating your already-disproved nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical and does not warrant a re-response. Bring something new to the party (preferably factual for a change).

Comments are closed.