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.