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.