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.