WTC Demolition: Atomic Weapons Versus Beam Weapons

This piece tries to make the case for a 4th generation hydrogen bomb for the demolition of the WTC.

The article makes several good points, but I think the case for a space-based microwave beam used to take down the WTC towers is better in terms of the overall evidence:

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive
9. Office paper was densly spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely

What theories are available to explain these phenomena?
We can identify seven theories:

1. Natural causes such as earthquakes and hurricanes
2. Arson
3. The official theory of airplane impact, fires and weakened steel collapsing
4. Conventional demolition with explosives such as RDX, dynamite, etc.
5. Demolition via thermite or its variants


6. Fission or fusion nukes (and clean bombs)

7. Beam weapons

No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.

In fact, the data refute theories a to e –- natural, arson, official, conventional and thermite demolition -– in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors. The arson and thermite theories fail to explain every data point, but all the unburned paper in particular refute any high-temperature base hypothesis.

The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. Similarly, some 1,400 cars were toasted in inexplicable patterns, and no alternative explanation to energy wave reflections has been offered. As Sherlock Holmes declared,

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

(emphasis added)

The Ground Zero Clean-Up Was Much Faster and Cheaper Than Expected

There are many articles that say this, here is one example.

The article explains that part of the reason the clean-up was cheaper was because the "bath-tub" that had the foundation for the towers, was much less damaged less expected. This is consistent with what Wood and Reynolds are saying here.

I wonder if the clean-up was quicker in part because there was much less steel than expected to haul away.

Ground Zero Smoking Gun #3: What the Hell Happened to the North Wall of WTC1?

In comments, a couple of posts back, Shep linked to this picture of ground zero showing the shell of WTC6 (center) and the sad remnants of WTC1 (right)(and the WTC7 pile off to the left):


This picture, for some reason really made me wonder, what happened to the North wall of WTC1?

This is the wall that would have faced WTC6, and is supposedly what fell down and made this huge gaping hole in WTC6:



The problem is that there really wasn't much in the bottom of that hole in WTC6:

Picture from here.

And the bottom of WTC6 didn't cave in because the parking garage under WTC6 was still intact!

Picture from here.

The Northern wall of WTC1 was a rather massive structure:
1360 feet tall
206 feet wide
of 14 inch thick steel box columns.

The only place it realistically could have gone is into WTC6.

But think about it-- if you chopped up this wall of steel into nice 100 foot by 50 foot sections, and then stacked them up, you'd have a 63.5 foot pile.

In an ideal situation.

If you threw this wall down, so that it fell into a jumble, it would easily be twice as tall-- over 100 feet of debris.

WHERE THE HELL DID ALL THAT STEEL GO????????

It is not in the WTC6 hole-- heck there is not even enough debris in there for the collapsed 8 stories of WTC6!

The wall is not in the footprint of WTC1.

It is, for all intents and purposes, the steel of the north wall is GONE.

The only conceivable explanation is that, indeed, some high-energy weapon disintegrated the steel as it fell, at the same time making huge holes in WTC6.

The other reason this makes sense is that the north wall of WTC1 was predicted to fall right ON THE EDGE OF THE BATHTUB surroundong the WTC complex. Thus, whoever planned the demolition was sure to take extra precuation not to have this massive mega-ton wall fall right on the edeg of the bath-tub.

Keep in mind, when they "pulled down" WTC6, they were very careful to do it so it wouldn't damage the bathtub. This was a major concern.

If the 8 story remnants of WTC6 were a worry to damage the bathtub when it fell down, how exactly was it that the mega-ton WTC1 north wall didn't destroy the bathtub when it came down?

The only possible explanation is that the wall was disintegrated as WTC1 came down.

WTC5-- Normal Versus Abnormal Building Damage

The side view is informative:


(double click to enlarge images)

Side view pic from here.

The main point here is that there is some strange damage here that is consistent with a beam weapon fired from above, but of course these holes do not prove it.

In my view, overall, the beam weapon hypothesis is the best explanation for the accumulated phenomenon associated with the destruction of the twin towers.

Note, the beam weapon was almost certainly not a "laser" but rather a microwave weapon with particular affinity for concrete and steel. The idea is that the beam (or beams) vibrated at the proper frequency to blow apart steel and concrete and turn them into fine dust.

Ground Zero Smoking Gun #2

The strange circular holes in WTC5:

(double click to enlarge)

(double click to enlarge)
There are some other holes that are also very suspicious, but not as perfectly rounded.

I don't think there is any official explanation for these round holes, although I guess if an official HAD to explain them, they would say probably they were caused by falling debris from either WTC1 or WTC2.

The main problem is that there is NO conceivable way that irregular-shaped clusters of outer columns falling from WTC1 or WTC2 would cause such rounded holes!

So, we are left with the explanations that the holes are:

1) photo-shopped into the photo.

2) caused by shots of the beam weapon that was also used to take down the twin towers from above.

Since explanation number 2 explains things significantly better than explanation number 1, it seems like the logical choice.


Another problem with the holes is that WTC5 was at the corner of the complex and was not in a good position to get heavily pelted by debris from the towers:


(from here)

For instance, note how part of WTC4 was much closer to tower 2, but survived roughly intact.

Ground Zero Smoking Gun #1

from here. (double click to enlarge)

I don't know quite how they did this, but somehow they tilted this huge section of WTC1 wall so it fell UP the street rather than fall accross the street and damage the World Financial Center:

(double click to enlarge)

This all goes to the point of how little major collateral damage there was to NON-WTC buildings.

Judy Wood has an amazing picture of this section of wall from the street perspective on this page.

This section was laying right in West Side Highway, ready for trucks to come and haul it away, and was one of the first things they cleaned up-- therefore is not visible in many pics of Ground Zero.

The World Trade Center: a Brief Post-Mortem

(double click to enlarge)


WTC1 (the north tower)-- completely annihilated, with amazingly little debris left

WTC2 (the south tower)-- completely annihilated, with somewhat more debris than WTC1, but still amazingly little debris.

WTC3 (the Marriot hotel)-- essentially annihilated, with some debris piled up

WTC4-- half was completely annihilated, half more or less intact

WTC5-- this building had the largest footprint of any of the WTC buildings (lower right side of the complex). It essentially remained upright but had a number of very odd holes punched in its roof

WTC6-- this building had the 2nd largest footprint of the WTC buildings. It is the one with a huge gaping hole in it's center-- though it essentially remained upright. The origin of this huge hole is not really clear; it is not clear that debris from the WTC1 demolition caused the huge straight-sided all-the-way-through-to-the-bottom hole.

WTC7-- a huge building that collapsed into an incredibly neat pile (between two non-WTC buildings on the right side of the complex).

Just as a matter of forensics here, what gets me are:

1) the huge WTC towers are blasted down to their bases-- the massive cores are GONE.

2) for some reason, WTC2 was a little messier than WTC1 and left a larger debris pile.

3) overall the debris piles from WTC1 and WTC2 are much smaller than you would expect for "normal" building collapses.

4) the odd holes in the roofs of WTC5 and WTC6

5) the lack of debris like filing cabinets and doorknobs.

6) how much of the underground structure was left intact.

I really don't think Beam Weapons as an explanation for Ground Zero are crazy at all, when you look at what happened.

What Exactly Drove the Collapse of the Tower Here?

Dust?

Smoking Gun for WTC2 Demolition

In two different videos of the fall of WTC2, there is a flash in the undamaged upper northeast corner --right as the corner breaks (the upper undamaged section of WTC2 tilted then broke apart (disintegrated), with the NE corner breaking during the sequence).

Pre-flash:

The flash:

I've circled the flash:

Post-flash:


Second video, pre-flash:

The flash:

Flash is circled:

Post-flash:


Videos are here and here.

There are actually other flashes in the videos that seem to be part of the demolition sequence, though some of the teeny tiny flashes may be video artifacts.

Excellent Videos on WTC Demolition

Here, here and here. 90 minutes total.

How the Towers Were Demolished

Gordon Ross tries to sort it out. It's an interesting piece that needs careful study.

Incredibly Vulnerable

Until I saw the NIST "FAQ" response to the WTC demolition accusations, I never quite realized how incredibly vulnerable the US government is, in terms of the WTC official collapse story.

Granted, the govt is highly vulnerable on many points of the official 9/11 story (such as the flight 93 "crash"), but it is the WTC collapses which are best documented in terms of pictures and videos, plus there is much known about how the structures were built. Thus, the WTC collapses are most susceptible to rigorous analysis.

What is clear from the NIST analysis is they simply have no coherent explanation for the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Apart from my short critique of NIST's demolition rebuttal, there are several good critiques of the NIST page collected at 9/11 blogger. Jim Hoffman also has a good, very long, detailed critique.

I especially like Robert Rice's essay, where he calls the NIST theory the "foot of god" theory. He makes several critical points and effectively drives home how simply ridiculous the govt's explanation is.


For once, in a long time, I actually feel optimistic that the 9/11 hoax will finally be blown open for the world to see.

NIST Admits the South WTC Tower Collapsed at the Rate of Free-Fall in a Vacuum

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Otherwise, this list of answers to "frequently asked questions" is a huge doughy load of crap.

For instance:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
--the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
--the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Well, there's some logic for ya!

The extent of their evidence that it was not controlled demolition is that the collapses started where the initial impacts were AND by the timing of something they could only estimate (extent of damage and time of fires).

That's really weak.

Here is some lawyerly wording:

"there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

Got that? There was no evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors AS the top building sections...began their downward movement ...

But was there evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors RIGHT AFTER the top building sections began their downward movement???

Also, was there evidence of explosions RIGHT BEFORE the top building sections began their downward movement???

Why only "AS the top building sections...began their downward movement"???

(Well, you know the answer)

Not to mention that their lawyerly statement also leaves room for explosions at, or above, "the impact and fire floors as the top building sections ... began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

But basically, NIST says that there was column damage and there were fires, and shit happened-- and it wasn't pancaking but they don't know WHAT happened except that things fell fast.

Debunking the Debunkers of the Debunkers of the Official Collapse Story

Regarding this page: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

About the "hanging floor slab" shown in the picture at the top--
1) what is the evidence that this is actually a floor slab as opposed to some pipes that fell from the ceiling?
2) how exactly does a stiff concrete floor slab bow and bend and sag in the middle from heat?

I don't think concrete can BEND, so that explanation of the floor sagging is simply crap.

Then they write about NIST:

They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence.

Um, couldn't the explanation also be that their first hypothesis was a total joke and was laughed at by so-called conspiracy theorists? Does any one think that people who bought and steadfastly supported the official story worried about the NIST model? It was the conspiracy theorists and real scientists who made them change their model.

Ironically, Professor Jones has changed his paper yet the conspiracy theorist [sic] don't cast doubt on whether his paper is correct.

That is simply not true, plenty of conspiracy theorists have problems with Jones' theories, particularly the thermite theory.

Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground.

The few core columns that survive then miraculously turn to dust at the end of the WTC1 collapse is hardly proof of pancaking, and actually suggests some strange unofficial event occurred.

If the building didn't pancake what happened to the trusses? Assuming they didn't just fly away it's obvious they fell straight down.

This is a total non-sequitor that proves nothing.

More evidence of pancaking is on ground zero. [a picture of a debris pile is shown]

A pile of debris is NOT proof of pancaking. A huge pile of debris could also occur from demolition, obviously.

Jeez. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived).

What is the hard evidence that insulation was stripped off of intact columns by plane debris? There is none!* It's a completely ad hoc argument. Yet their whole collapse theory rests on it! In all honesty, what is a more unsupported theory: that the towers were brought down by demolition or that fires brought down the buildings because the insulation was "stripped" off the columns?

For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favor and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest. There is incredible detailed which support each of the reports below.

I've looked over those reports. There are LOTS and LOTS of pretty pictures and models-- but VERY LITTLE hard data or calculations or analysis. I guess it makes people who want to believe the official story feel good, like NIST did some work. But in temrs of science, the NIST reports are sorely lacking.

The worse part is NIST does not even bother to model how the buildings completely collapsed! Nor do they explain the near free-fall collapse times.

Now it is possible that the towers had a very severe flaw in their construction (that is still unknown) that made them completely disintegrate at near free-fall speed. But why isn't there more urgency to figure out the flaw?

Of course the most likely explanation is that the towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives. Demolition is the only theory that easily explains the features of the collapses.

* Fireproofing stripped off columns that are already broken doesn't count-- for what should be obvious reasons.

Old Documentaries of the WTC Construction

Good stuff, found via 911blogger:

Jeff Strahl, Mechanical Engineer

Believes the WTC was brought down by demolition.

He brings up the interesting concept of the "resistance paradox":

Interesting that you note the towers disintegrating, but do not note, or pretend to not note, the contradiction between the lower portions offering no resistance to the falling debris if you wish to explain the short collapse time, vs the top portions disintegrating as if encountering massive resistance. So, which is it, Mr Partridge? Did the lower portions offer zero resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?

The fact that the towers collapsed top to bottom, where the only thing that appears to drive the collapse is a huge cloud of dust, is by itself strong proof that the collapses were not simple pancaking events.

POSTSCRIPT: It's also quite striking that there is no official modeling of the complete collapse sequence. I mean, three huge buildings go *poof*, and all NIST does is model the fires?

Response to "A critical analysis of the collapses of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint", Part 1

The PDF document can be found here.

This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "Implosionworld.com" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.

A few preface remarks:

First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".

Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?

Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.

Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.

Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.

Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure

Now to the main assertions:

Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".

I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.

They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes

I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings

Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".

I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.

The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.

Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.

This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.

Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."

This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.

This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.

This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.

Has A 30 Story Building EVER Disintegrated As Quickly as the Top 30 Stories of WTC2 Did?

Blowing Away the "Official Government Conspiracy Theory" for the Destruction of the WTC Twin Towers

Jane Doe's revised essay on the WTC collapses--

What can you prove with simple models of an enormously complex situation?

Let's say you tell me that you ran, by foot, to a store 10 miles away, then to the bank (5 more miles), then to the dog track (7 more miles), then to your friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, I would present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3 minutes and 43.13 seconds. So, it does not seem possible that you could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for you to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if I gave you the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world record pace, it would not have been possible for you to have done so in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated. I don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken you to run that distance. Nor do I need to prove how much longer it would have taken if you stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove your story, I only need to show that the story you gave me is not physically possible.

Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.

The bottom line is that there simply is NO DOUBT that the WTC towers were demolished intentionally by a mechanism that had nothing to do with airplane crashes (most likely they were taken down by some form of controlled demolition).

There is NO DOUBT.

If you don't want to face this reality, you are the one living in a fantasy world.

Maybe They Called It "Ground Zero" for a Reason

"9/11 Eyewitness" makes a case for the WTC towers being nuked.

While completely convincing evidence that nuclear devices were used to bring down the towers is still lacking, it is VERY clear that something highly unusual happened that facilitated the collapse of the towers-- something that pulverized concrete and vaporized and melted large amounts of steel. Molten steel in the basement area of the towers cannot be explained by jet fuel fires or by office fires or by the energy of the collapses. However, molten steel can be explained by massive thermite bombs or mini-nukes.

Good Review of Various Theories for Why WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 Collapsed

here.

Good Overview on Demolition of the WTC

from the "Demopedia".

This section discussing how bombs might have been planted in the WTC is especially good.

The article is a good overview on 9/11 in general. I don't know how long it will last in it's current form, though, given the format of the Demopedia and DU's attitude to 9/11.

In terms of demolition, the big question the official story simply can't address is: how did the central cores of the towers collapse so easily?

Weird Stuff Happened to the WTC Steel

Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

I suppose it's good to see that they are saying something unusual happened to the WTC steel-- because it really shouldn't have given way in those fires-- but as usual, they ignore the idea that there was intentional demolition which caused this abberrant steel deformation.

Thermite

Professor Jones says thermite brought down the towers.

Videos of an apparent thermite reaction in the south tower right before it collapsed here, here and here.

I don't think thermite explains everything about the tower collapses (for instance the pulverization of concrete), but thermite was probably used.

I like Webfairy's idea that the demolition of the WTC was sort of like the JFK assassination, where they brought in every shooter from all over the country to be in the area. The demolition of the WTC may well have involved multiple different technologies, from conventional explosives, to thermite, to microwave weaponry.

A copnventional demolition simply doesn't explain how all the filing cabinets and elevator doors and doorknobs that existed in the WTC were vaporized.

Recent Thoughts on Demolition

Some points that I find notable:

1) I find it very suspicious that NIST investigators and other official investigators won't even CONSIDER the idea that the towers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) were demolished. How can they rule it out so simply? If you knew nothing about the history of the buildings prior to their collapse, and then saw them collapse, a reasonable explanation would be demolition. It is still not clear to me why they have ruled out demolition (except obviously this demolition was not done in the typical way where the building is evacuated, stripped out and wired up-- but for instance, the buildings could have been covertly wired up as a "safety" measure following the '93 bombing. The reason was to prevent the buildings from toppling over in case of a basement bomb that took out one side.).

2) the rapid recycling of the WTC steel by Giuliani (Ghouliani) is simply inexcusabale. Here we had the three largest building collapses in history, and the site was quickly cleaned up with incredible security, before any serious investigation could be done. This stinks.

3) another suspicious feature of the collapses is how global they were once the collapse started. There was no partial collapse of a section that gradually cascaded into a larger collapse. There was no partial collapsing period. It was simply total collapse, for all three towers, each in a matter of seconds.

4) most videos of the collapses (except for 911 Eyewitness) have no sound, so we can't hear if there any explosions prior to collapse or not. Of course 911 Eyewitness reveals EXACTLY those prior explosions.

Brilliant Video

"9/11 Revisited". Please spread this far and wide. Note: this is a viewing portal for the video.

The video relates to the demolition of the WTC. Has some amazing local TV coverage from the morning of 9/11 I hadn't seen before.

Here's the website for the video, which can be purchased for only the cost of shipping here. It can be watched online at from the homesite here.

And here is yet a different link for the video.

One of the highlights for me: watching Lee Hamilton squirm on C-SPAN when asked about the idea of government complicity in 9/11. Interestingly, he said it was an extraordinary claim, said it needed proof, it was bin Laden's plot, said the commission found no evidence for it-- but NEVER DENIED IT!

WTC1 and WTC2 and the Pancaking Model

Here is where *I* have always had trouble with the pancake collapse model.

I could see that a couple of floors, due to fire-induced weakening, could buckle and collapse, and that could conceivably start causing floors below to start dropping as well. I still think having a complete floor drop ten feet symmetrically is extremely unlikely, and that is the only way you would get enough momentum to start a progressive pancaking. Much more likely would be that the floor sagged on one side, where the trusses were weakened, and then that part gave way, pulling down the other side slowly (IE, the floor would not drop all at once). But I don't see how that floor collapse starts a global collapse or even the collapse of the next floor. But let's go with the assumption that one whole floor dropped ten feet, smashing into the floor below and knocking it loose, starting a cascading collapse.

I think it is clear that this floor collapse would pull the floors AWAY from the outer columns and the inner core, certainly leaving those INTACT early on.

So what would I expect to see then?

Floors would collapse, say ten floors, leaving the outer walls more or less intact and the core intact. The outer walls would go first as they were weaker columns than the core columns. Unsupported, the outer walls would buckle, wave about and give way. This should still leave the core intact though!

So the sequence should be:
1) floors collapsing
2) outer walls start weakening, eventually starting to wobble and break apart,
3) this would leave the core structure still standing-- you would see something like the Windsor building fire in Madrid, where there was an outer partial collapse, but the core would remain intact.
4) the floor pancaking might conceivably stop at the mechanical floors on floors 75-76, where there were thick steel beams supporting the floors instead of trusses.

But let's say the momentum was so great, the pancaking floors broke through these beams--
5) the floor pancaking would continue unabated for perhaps the height of the building as the momentum got too great to stop.
6) the complete outer walls of the tower would peel away
7) the core should STILL REMAIN INTACT! Now this might not be the most stable structure, and this might wobble and tip over at some point due to the stresses of the floors falling from it, but for a complete pancake collapse, I would expect to see some point where the complete core is left standing.

Did we see this?

No.

Therefore, there was NO PANCAKE FLOOR COLLAPSE.

So, how on earth does floor pancaking lead to complete global collapse including the core within 16 seconds (that is the maximal time that each tower could have collapsed in)?

I just can't see it.

It honestly makes no sense.


A related point, I think it is, for all intents and purposes, IMPOSSIBLE for hydrocarbon fires to significantly weaken the core columns. I also seriously doubt the airplane crashes (assuming there WERE planes, which I also doubt) would significantly damage the core columns. So I can't see how the core is significantly weakened by the "planes" or the fires. Thus, I think the tipping of the top of WTC2 BY ITSELF is evidence of demolition.

Then there is the further point that the top of WTC2 disintegrated in mid-air fall, which is also impossible without demolition.

Finally, the falling top of WTC2 should have fallen to the side-- not driven the collapse straight down.

So WTC2 was clearly not a pancake collapse, and the overall pattern is for all intents and purposes PROOF of demolition.

I defy anyone to make a case otherwise.

On the other hand, one can make a much better argument for pancake collapse for WTC1-- but I still think the overall pattern indicates demolition, because of what I outlined above. That is, there was never any point where there were clearly floors collapsing leaving the core intact. Rather, the core dropped rapidly along with the floors. And I think the only way this could happen is with demolition.

Another Article Promoting Demolition

I sense a trend.

This one has some different info and concepts, the more of these we can collect, the stronger our case will be.

The Case for Controlled Demolition of the WTC Towers

Laid out beautifully by "Jane Doe".

Excellent Article Covering the Major Points for Why the Collapses of the WTC1, 2 and 7 Towers Were Almost Certainly Demolition

Here.

Key points:
1) the fires weren't that hot or that widespread in the three towers
2) the towers fell far too fast for a weight-driven collapse

The article also goes over other general 9/11 issues and why the event needs further investigation.

SQUIBS

That is, the little isolated jets of debris shooting out the side of the WTC ahead of the collapsing portion:


Multiple squibs were seen to accompany the collapses of both the south and north WTC towers.

A researcher named Aidan Monaghan has made some important points about the squibs:

Several theories have been advanced in order to explain the presence (of) these "squibs", including:

- Theory A: That collapsing or "pancaking" floors of each tower were responsible for creating these "squibs".

- Theory B: That collapse debris was compressed down elevator shafts by each tower collapse's demolition wave and that some of this debris escaped these elevator shafts at various points and burst through various upper floor windows, in the form of "squibs".

- Theory C: That these "squibs" were evidence of preset explosive devices that were used to deliberately collapse each tower.

Given that a nearly simultaneous, internal collapse or "pancaking" of floors would likely create more visibly significant and widespread damage to each towers structure beyond the small and isolated "squibs" that were evident at certain locations (and that were often well below each visible demolition wave), it seems that Theory A can not realistically account for these "squibs".

Indeed, what could be the most remarkable detail that refutes Theory B is that certain "squibs" were present at lower floors well before even outer free fallingdebris descending to the ground was, during at least WTC 2's collapse.

Theory B would therefore imply that likely massive amounts of collapse debris was descending down WTC 2's narrow elevator shafts at a faster rate than free fall speed, in order for the afore mentioned "squibs" to be present at lower floors, well before free falling debris outside of the collapsing building was. This would seem to be a very unlikely outcome.

In addition, these "squibs" were often white in color, very unlike the grey and black colors of the pulverized concrete and smoke that the observed demolition waves were comprised of. For Theory B to be correct, one would expect dark grey or even black colored debris bursts or "squibs", not white.

Based on the seeming unreliability of Theories A and B as explanations for the afore mentioned "squib" phenomena, Theory C (the use of preset explosive devices) ought to be subject to greater consideration and scrutiny, regardless of it's implications.

Additionally, ... WTC tower elevator transportation was divided into 3 segments.

... the passage of any compressed debris through elevator shafts during each tower's collapse (originating well above each 78th floor) would have been obstructed at the 78th floors of each tower and thus one would have expected to see the afore mentioned "squib" debris at the 78th floors of each tower, instead of floors much further below.

He has more pictures that illustrate his points.

I think the squibs are strongly indicative of explosive demolition, and importantly, similar squibs are seen with known cases of controlled demolition.

Irrefutable Evidence for Massive Explosives in the South Tower Collapse

Early moments in the collapse of the South WTC Tower (frames 227 and 255 are about one second apart):







Here, the top 35 stories of the tower are boxed, so the movement of this building chunk can be followed:






As described by "Nerdcities":

In the above frames we follow the north-east corner of the tower as this 35 floor section collapses. Using the north-east corner as a reference I have outlined in red the progress of this 35 floor top section as it descends.

The first thing to note is that the top section itself must be disintegrating otherwise (as the above frames show) the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse.

But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate? And in fact, what could possibly cause the top section to almost entirely disintegrate, before the lower section begins to collapse?

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). Unless, of course, this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition of its own, just a few moments before the lower part of the building was demolished.

Sp, why did the upper section of the South Tower disintegrate so rapidly-- rather than falling as a large chunk of building?

As shown above, the fact that the large upper section of WTC2 just turned into dust early on in the collapse of the building is extremely strong evidence for explosive demolition.

As explained also above, this thirty story upper section of the south tower (WTC2) was essentially undamaged-- yet early on in the collapse, it started tilting and twisting and falling, and the part of the tower below the breakpoint starts collapsing. Before this collapse proceeds very far, the upper section disintegrates into dust-- in a matter of seconds.

(Related issue: how on earth can the upper part of the building drive the collapse of the lower tower if it is also turning into a huge dust cloud?)

Here is a picture of this upper section from the opposite angle as shown in the previous post (from the south), showing the top of WTC2 just as it starts to tilt. At the same time, there are multiple explosive jets, or sharp smoke puffs, coming out the west face of this upper section.

This picture shows fairly clearly why the upper section turned to dust.

This is unequivocal evidence for controlled demolition, in my opinion.

Massive controlled demolition.


Early moment during the collapse of the South tower-- note multiple explosive jets coming out of the upper tilting section. 

If you are interested, or think this picture was faked somehow-- here is the video from which that still was taken. The video actually gives a better view of the multiple explosions coming out of the upper section of the building.

By the way, if you think a building will suddenly crumble from the bottom up when the bottom floor is blown out, you MUST see this video of a failed controlled demolition.

If you would like a more scientific analysis proving demolition, please see here and here.