Demolition of the Twin Towers

[spooked911]

Seeing upper sections of the towers crumble apart at the same time the lower sections of the structure are crumbling apart -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the 1/4 mile high towers fall at incredibly rapid, near free-fall speeds -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the towers form massive volcanic dust clouds as they fall -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the towers collapse straight down, through the path of most resistance -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing explosive squibs jutting out from the towers preceding the collapse wave -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the incredible devastation at Ground Zero, where almost nothing is left of two huge 1/4 mile high towers -- you should suspect demolition.

Hearing witness after witness describe explosions at the WTC -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing that the towers had a very expensive asbestos problem -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing that the owner of the towers had a large insurance policy covering destruction of the towers by a terrorist attack -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing the many the anomalies and irregularities of 9/11 -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing that government and private-sector scientists have no explanation for the rapid and global collapses of the towers, and don't even bother to model the collapses -- you should suspect demolition.

SIMPLY THAT BOTH TOWERS CAME DOWN-- you should suspect demolition!

Putting these all together, the suspicion SHOULD turn into certainty beyond any reasonable doubt.

[hack89]

1. Lack of a plausible, detailed scenario on ..

how it could have been done (that accounts for all observed phenomena) - you should wait wait to see if it is even possible.

[spooked911]

3. so you agree it was demolition but just don't know how it was done?

there are several possibilites:

1. the towers were pre-built with demolitions embedded in them for future re-activation

2. the towers were loaded up internally with essentially conventional explosives

3. the towers were taken out by a few extremely powerful bombs, such as mini-nukes

4. the towers were demolished by some external force, such as a directed energy beam

5. the towers were demolished by a combination of the above


Evaluating the possibilities--

#1 is an interesting idea that is hard to rule out completely, but overall seems unlikely in that the explosives would probably decay in the 30+ years since the towers were built

#2 is the easiest to propose, but the major problem is it is not clear how the towers could have been loaded with so much explosive without people not in on the plot seeing it

#3 is easy enough to propose, and it also gets around the problem of needing to lace the towers with explosive as presumably only a few devices would be needed. I made the part of the case against mini-nukes here. I tend to think a small number of mini-nukes don't quite explain the demolition sequence of the towers-- how they were blasted apart into dust in a progressive manner.

#4 is the least obvious but the most interesting and I think most likely explanation. A directed energy beam weapon from above is the best way to explain the top-down demolition sequence and the apparent melting and dustification of the steel. The technology is no doubt out there for this energy beam, but the problem is that it is top-secret and we don't know exactly what it is.

#5 is a reasonable position, and it seems quite possible beam weapons plus conventional explosives were used. Maybe if there were built-in explosives, they activated those as well. A mini-nuke or two may have been added into the mix as a back-up.

[hack89]

17. No ...

I am saying that the reason the "truth" community has failed to put forward a detailed scenario is because it will quickly become obvious how implausible it is.

The fact that you are arguing for nuclear weapons simply proves my point.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. This is the same argument

that the Repugs use when they discuss the Iraq War. They were in charge of WH, Congress, & DOD, but they continued to accuse the DEMS of not having a plan. I'm sure the DEMS can come up with a lot of plans but they are a waste of time when you're in the minority.

It is up to the FBI with the help of NIST and FEMA to figure out what happened. They are the only ones who have direct access to the evidence.

BTW: How is that FBI investigation going? Ah, what FBI investigation?

[hack89]

23. But if a particular CT is not plausible

then it can't be true. You are arguing that CD is a fact but you have no obligation to prove anything. Do you at least accept that this argument is not one that will convince most Americans?

[Contrite]

24. Here's one

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

[hack89]

25. This actually proves my point ...

you notice how he never mentions just how many explosives were needed? When you consider that the PE of the WTC was the equivalent of hundreds of tons of explosives yet was insufficient to cause the damage seen, you see the problem.

If you take into account all the CTs on this forum, the WTC were laced with a complex system of high explosives and thermite to bring down the structure plus an enormous amount of additional explosives to pulverize everything. Now explain to me why it is obviously CD when no one has ever brought down building in such a manner.

[Contrite]

26. He does address this in his "reply to NIST" section

"NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none. If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?"

Otherwise, why not write to him yourself and pose the question? He takes e-mail at [e-mail]

"Now explain to me why it is obviously CD when no one has ever brought down building in such a manner." There's always a first time.

[hack89]

27. It's simple ..

the 767 and fires performed the function of the explosives in damaging and weakening the WTC structure. If the structure was intact the towers would not have fallen. Consider the KE of that 767 and it's equivalent energy in explosives and it makes sense.

It is all about energy. One thing that can be counted on is for CTrs to underestimate the energy and forces involved.

[Contrite]

28. He also addresses the energy deficit

in the Momentum Transfer in WTC1 section

Here is just a small part of that discussion:

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.

This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

[LARED]

38. I always do a test with these CT analysis

I always read the 'analysis' until I get to a part that betrays the authors utter lack of knowledge on the subject. With 9/11 CT'er's it never takes long

To wit;

There are some important details to know in order to understand the collapse.

1/ The perimeter structure could carry all of the vertical mass above it at any point with ability to spare. So immediate collapse would not occur even in the event of a failure of all of the load carrying ability of the core.

The guy is perfectly clueless. Another example of well meaning people getting fooled by someone sounding articulate.

[Contrite]

55. He explains it above that, in greater detail.

"The perimeter columns formed a square with horizontal bracing and chamfered corners, and carried themselves and about half the main floor load. The perimeter columns had a design safety factor such that they would have been capable of carrying the entire load themselves without the help of the core, although this would never be the case under normal circumstances.

The floors carried their own weight and that placed upon them. They transferred this load to the perimeter structure, and the core structure to act vertically, although there would also be a small horizontal load under normal circumstances of loading."

And adds that the perimeter corners alone were sufficient to support the load, adding that "the corners can be regarded as the most rigid and strongest part of a structure."

Are you saying that he is misrepresenting the design or misrepresenting the strength of the design?

[Contrite]

58. You can argue it with him yourself

at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=0

where he posts as an advanced member,

or, e-mail him at the addy above.

[spooked911]

34. Arguing for nuclear weapons? Please.

I hold out that possibility. I didn't say it was extremely likely.

And in any case, some powerful outside energy was clearly needed to blow apart the WTC as it happened.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. I would love to see your calculations as to how much

Potential energy was stored in the towers and how much kinetic energy was invovled.

Otherwise you cleary have no credibity.

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

56. Nuclear weapons used on the WTC ??? Give me a break !!!

Spooked911 wrote:

>there are several possibilites:

>1. the towers were pre-built with demolitions embedded in them for >future re-activation

The term "re-activation" implies that they WERE active. Why did you use this term?

Do you think anyone would work in a building where such explosives, not "demolitions" were embedded?

What about the insurance companies? You think they are going to insure a building that is lined with explosives???

Bah!

>>2. the towers were loaded up internally with essentially conventional explosives

Why use the word "loaded up" ?

You mean someone placed explosive charges, dont you?

Is English your second language?


>>>3. the towers were taken out by a few extremely powerful bombs, such as mini-nukes

No radiation detected. Next!


>>4. the towers were demolished by some external force, such as a directed energy beam

No proof such a weapon exists and therefor highly implausable
and a great way to obfuscate the issue of the 9/11 events.

>>5. the towers were demolished by a combination of the above

No need for that.

A controlled demolition event, using conventional devices was what
took those towers out, and there was no need of any "UFO technology"
to do so.

What branch of the government did you say you worked for?

I mean, after all you are a "spook", right?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Listening to people who know what they're talking about --

you learn that your suspiscions are unfounded, and your certainty is built on sinking sand.

Still, you can always say you were wrong.

[spooked911]

4. Not sure who you are referring to--

but there is no doubt the WTC was blown to kingdom come.

[G Hawes]

43. "blown to kingdom come"

lol - you've been hanging out with judy woowoo and her pal ace baker too long.

[spooked911]

5. what exact points are you refuting of my post anyway?

do you honestly not even SUSPECT demolition?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. I honestly do not even suspect demolition.

I have disputed and refuted most of the exact points in your little list, whether compiled by you or reposted here by you, many times in these forums. It's the same old CT bullroar, nothing new.

[spooked911]

12. so still you keep coming back here for more?

doesn't it get tiring?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. DU is worth it.

Are you trying to induce fatigue in me?

[mirandapriestly]

29. "DU is worth it"???

You care SO MUCH that you try to set people straight on 9-11. That is so touching....Strange, though, that I've never seen you post outside of the 9-11 forum.....

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Really??

Try looking in the right places.

[spooked911]

32. that ain't DU

and I am curious why you only write a blog post every one or two months

[Bolo Boffin]

36. It is me, though, "posting outside the 9/11 forum"

which I believe was the question.

I've gotten out of the blogging habit, but I'm going to get back into it.

http://christianistchronicles.blogspot.com/

I feel ready to take on the creationists. They, unlike most 9/11 "truth" movement advocates, have an embedded support structure in society. A lot of the same kinds of mistakes, though.

Of course, there's always my regular blog, which is way out of date:

http://boloboffin.blogspot.com/

I blogged pretty regularly for about a year or so. In the past year and a half, I've done two contracts aboard a cruise ship, and blogging was quite hard to do.

[mirandapriestly]

48. Uh...that's not DU, and Hekmatyar is hugely CIA involved

which "complicates" the conclusion to your fear-mongering essay a little bit. And, the word "surge" well, it's used by rethugs and corporate media to make the process sound better....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3019472

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Okede-dokedy!

Been meaning to do that, but the switch over meant changing all that HTML. Thanks for reminding me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3022620

[spooked911]

33. Not really-- but it seems the other way around is very likely

[quickesst]

14. ?

"overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments"
prove to be false or incorrect
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"

Why do these threads continue if the issue has been proven as fact? By the very existence of threads concerning this issue, and proposed by both sides of the argument, it is obvious that nothing has been "refuted". If you had successfully refuted the alternate theories concerning the collapses, I have my doubts that such posters as WildBill, Petgoat, MP, DrDebug, etc. would engage in arguing already successfully refuted issues. Just sayin'. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

20. .

The continued arguing of refuted points by the posters you cite isn't evidence of the refutation of the points.

[wildbilln864]

21. thank you quickesst!

Nothing has been settled! What caused those THREE towers to fall is still a mystery IMO! Certainly not fire! Certainly not a plane unless it hits the bottom floors. No plane hit building #7!
No one has positively identified the molten pools except anonymous posters here! Nothing has been settled!

[William Seger]

31. "Why do these threads continue if the issue has been proven as fact? "

> If you had successfully refuted the alternate theories concerning the collapses, I have my doubts that such posters as WildBill, Petgoat, MP, DrDebug, etc. would engage in arguing already successfully refuted issues.

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
~ Jonathan Swift

[G Hawes]

45. obviously

the people you cite have not refuted a single point successfully. in fact, they keep starting new threads about the very things that you suppose they have refuted, which, according to you, they wouldn't do if they had succesfully refuted anything.

no, more like troofers just keep spewing the same old tired crap over and over again, hoping that the unintelligent and the uninitiated will buy it. pretty sad.

[petgoat]

44. disputed and refuted

You've disfuted and reputed the points, bolo.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. I just figured out

what I should have bought you for christmas. A mirror.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. I don't know

if you would recognize a mirror if you saw one.

Happy New Year!

[wildbilln864]

6. Farkin....

excellent post!
:yourock:
Where's Usama Bin Laden?

[G Hawes]

7. Oh, another list

Seeing upper sections of the towers crumble apart at the same time the lower sections of the structure are crumbling apart -- you should suspect demolition.

-- why? it is accounted for by experts who actually studied it

Seeing the 1/4 mile high towers fall at incredibly rapid, near free-fall speeds -- you should suspect demolition.

-- why? they couldn't have fallen any slower than they did once they started.

Seeing the towers form massive volcanic dust clouds as they fall -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there was no "volcanic" dust clouds

Seeing the towers collapse straight down, through the path of most resistance -- you should suspect demolition.

-- they didn't fall "straight down", in fact they took out a lot of surrounding buildings

Seeing explosive squibs jutting out from the towers preceding the collapse wave -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there were no "explosive squibs"

Seeing the incredible devastation at Ground Zero, where almost nothing is left of two huge 1/4 mile high towers -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there was incredible devastation, that's true, but what else would you expect when two huge 1/4 mile high towers collapse onto surrounding buildings? it's not true that there was "almost nothing" left, there were hundreds of thousands of tons of debris that had to be meticulously sifted through for months

Hearing witness after witness describe explosions at the WTC -- you should suspect demolition.

-- explosions would be expected. explosions doesn't mean demolition "explosives"

Knowing that the towers had a very expensive asbestos problem -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the towers did not have an expensive asbestos problem, that's a myth

Knowing that the owner of the towers had a large insurance policy covering destruction of the towers by a terrorist attack -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the proceeds of the insurance policies won't even cover the cost of rebuilding, he had no reason to want the buildings destroyed

Knowing the many the anomalies and irregularities of 9/11 -- you should suspect demolition.

-- none of the "anomolies and irregularities" are set out here, so why should they lead someone to suspect demolition?

Seeing that government and private-sector scientists have no explanation for the rapid and global collapses of the towers, and don't even bother to model the collapses -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the reason for the collapse of the towers was explained in great detail by actual experts, who found no evidence of explosive devices

SIMPLY THAT BOTH TOWERS CAME DOWN-- you should suspect demolition!

-- why? the reason for the collapse of the towers was explained in great detail by actual experts, who found no evidence of explosive devices

[dailykoff]

10. "Trust Bush's experts" is not exactly a persuasive rebuttal. (n/t)

[G Hawes]

41. Nothing of substance to rebut

duh.

[spooked911]

13. okay... pbp

Seeing upper sections of the towers crumble apart at the same time the lower sections of the structure are crumbling apart -- you should suspect demolition.

-- why? it is accounted for by experts who actually studied it

how was it accounted for? how did they explain it?

Seeing the 1/4 mile high towers fall at incredibly rapid, near free-fall speeds -- you should suspect demolition.

-- why? they couldn't have fallen any slower than they did once they started.

how do you know? why didn't the stronger lower portion of the tower offer more resistance? Have you ever seen or triued to model a progressive collapse?

Seeing the towers form massive volcanic dust clouds as they fall -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there was no "volcanic" dust clouds

Bullcrap-- though it depends how you define volcanic, I suppose. There certainly were massive pyroclastic dust clouds

Seeing the towers collapse straight down, through the path of most resistance -- you should suspect demolition.

-- they didn't fall "straight down", in fact they took out a lot of surrounding buildings

If they didn't fall straight down, then the lower portions of the towers should not have been wiped out.

Seeing explosive squibs jutting out from the towers preceding the collapse wave -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there were no "explosive squibs"

These are explosive squibs:


Seeing the incredible devastation at Ground Zero, where almost nothing is left of two huge 1/4 mile high towers -- you should suspect demolition.

-- there was incredible devastation, that's true, but what else would you expect when two huge 1/4 mile high towers collapse onto surrounding buildings? it's not true that there was "almost nothing" left, there were hundreds of thousands of tons of debris that had to be meticulously sifted through for months

Exactly, a simple collapse would not have produced such devastation.

Hearing witness after witness describe explosions at the WTC -- you should suspect demolition.

-- explosions would be expected. explosions doesn't mean demolition "explosives"

But it can surely make you at least "suspect" explosives

Knowing that the towers had a very expensive asbestos problem -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the towers did not have an expensive asbestos problem, that's a myth

Reference for that?

Knowing that the owner of the towers had a large insurance policy covering destruction of the towers by a terrorist attack -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the proceeds of the insurance policies won't even cover the cost of rebuilding, he had no reason to want the buildings destroyed

The bldgs were business unfriendly money-losers, do you really deny that?

Knowing the many the anomalies and irregularities of 9/11 -- you should suspect demolition.

-- none of the "anomolies and irregularities" are set out here, so why should they lead someone to suspect demolition?

I'm not going to go through all of 9/11-- but the fact that there was foreknowledge and other strangeness should make you suspect something was up when the bldgs went down.

Seeing that government and private-sector scientists have no explanation for the rapid and global collapses of the towers, and don't even bother to model the collapses -- you should suspect demolition.

-- the reason for the collapse of the towers was explained in great detail by actual experts, who found no evidence of explosive devices

the so-called experts have NEVER explained in any detail why the towers collapsed

SIMPLY THAT BOTH TOWERS CAME DOWN-- you should suspect demolition!

-- why? the reason for the collapse of the towers was explained in great detail by actual experts, who found no evidence of explosive devices

Huge steel-framed bldgs do not fall apart and turn into dust-- even by fire-- period.

[dailykoff]

39. Those are very good points.

Personally I don't think we should just suspect, I think we should indict. There's more than enough evidence.

[G Hawes]

42. No good points by spooked at all

as is apparent to anyone reading with an open mind.

[dailykoff]

47. But you haven't disagreed with any

which makes me think they're all pretty good.

[G Hawes]

49. Wrong again

i disagreed with all of them as set out above in my point by point response. i guess you missed that.

[petgoat]

51. You haven't rebutted spook's rebuttal

Your point by point response was pretty vague, and very
heavy on the invocation of an absent authority.

"Oh they know what they're doing."

[G Hawes]

52. Read much?

The initial post was vague and heavy on invocation of absent authority.

It is an exercise in futility to put more work into rebutting a BS post than the amount of work that was put into the BS post in the first place. I'm not playing that particular CT game. If and when spooked can substantiate his initial post instead of relying only upon vague and absent authorities, perhaps I will do the same. His "rebuttal" wasn't a rebuttal at all. It was just the usual old CT "just asking questions" routine that has long grown stale. Why is it that you ask from me more than has been provided by the CT post that began this thread?

[petgoat]

61. Why ask more from you?

Because the "Just raising questions" crowd need do no more than raise doubts
to have legitimate points supporting their call for new investigations.

The "Investigations have been thorough and proper" crowd has to meet a higher
standard.

[wildbilln864]

15. self delete...

it was so obvious anyway!
:eyes:

[mirandapriestly]

8. Quote from NBC's Brian Williams

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/091106/default.asp

"During my first trip to the pit, under police escort, I found what appeared to be a human fingertip, dusty and trampled and misshapen, sitting there in plain sight at the edge of the smoldering pile. Heat still radiated and pockets were still smoking. I've thought back on my find, which was bagged and taken away. Was it identified? Was it all that was left of someone? One of my neighbors buried the jawbone of her son. That's all they ever found."

[mirandapriestly]

9. Filmed right after demolition

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F9LWdzuyahI&mode=related&search=

[spooked911]

35. Here are the principal data that must be explained:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam7.html

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. Directed-energy 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 based 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 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.

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it was HAARP, what kind of acelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts were in the weapon.

In August 2006, we began looking at the bathtub which protected the WTC and it led us to look at more data. The data told us what destroyed the twin towers. The data told us that directed-energy weapons must exist. We were not aware that the US military had directed-energy weapons. After we concluded that some sort of energy weapon was used, we looked for evidence that such weapons exist and found it, as documented here. As Sherlock Holmes declared,

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

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. I doubt if the planners

would risk using an experimental weapon, that would have been impossible to test in another prior real world situation, to take down the WTC.

Sorry Jane Doe's logic doesn't hold up.

Whoever took the buildings down knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what parts of the buildings had to be taken out first in order to achieve the end result.

Here's one possibility that Jane Doe doesn't even consider, the buildings were taken down using the existing mechanical and fuel systems already on site.

Remember there were at least two locations around the WTC that the smell of natural gas was reported prior to the attack. The mechanical floors in all three buildings had no windows. How hard would it be to fill these spaces and a few elevator shafts with natural gas and sit back and watch the buildings go boom?

[petgoat]

46. Jim Hoffman has a short comment about directed energy beams,

which lists some problems with them, among which is the
problem of powering the dang thang.

WTC7 was built on an electrical substation, wasn't it?

[mirandapriestly]

53. I've thought that too, but

have buildings like that ever been brought down by cd? Does anyone have that kind of experience? Plus, I doubt it was some demolition guys doing it, I would think it was military/intelligence who were trained in explosives and were covertly trained to demolish structures. Those 60 Israeli spies who were arrested after 9-11 were trained in explosives according to FAUX (I don't think it was them) so intelligence people ARE trained in explosives. I would think military were probably well trained in explosives (or weaponry)

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Gas is an explosive too

and there was plenty of natural gas on site, plus lot's of reports of the smell of natural gas in the area before and after the first plane hit.

The fact that the collapse began, apparently simultaneously, around the entire upper floor outer ring and possibly the inner core of Tower 1 rather suggests an explosion or rapid combustion of gasses such as carbon monoxide or other flammable vapor residue from the jet fuel, over-pressuring the area. "A room or area requires only 25 percent of its space to contain the explosive mixture for the entire area to explode."(Dunn, WNYF p9)

http://www.ericdarton.net/afterwords/fireandair.html

[mirandapriestly]

54. That's an interesting theory about the existing fuel lines, though...

I have though that there was something that made fuel explode (other than just heat) and that is why the cars were exploding quite a distance from the towers:
Teresa Veliz, worked in building 1:

Teresa Veliz was a manager for a software development firm. She was on the 47th floor of the North Tower when American 11 struck(1). Veliz was able to reach the ground level at about the same time that the South Tower collapsed. Flung to the ground in total darkness, Veliz and a colleague followed another person who happened to have a flashlight. As she narrated later: “The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore*, up an escalator, and out to Church Street(2). The explosions were going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street towards Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street(3). There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know which way to run.”
(Source: “Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly,” in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15.)

and consider

MALE: This is the colonel(?) . Evacuate all buildings in the complex, you copy me?
All buildings in the complex . (15:5 1)
MALE: (Overlap/Inaudible) . . . gas leak .
MALE: (Overlap/Inaudible) the building . ..
FEMALE: Roger . .. (Overlap/Inaudible)

…..

WTC Ch. 27 - RADIO CHANNEL X - SECURITY pg.11

MALE: Copy. Plaza to six-three what’s . . . what’s the location of that gas leak?

V. Massa

“…There were reports coming over the radio that there was a secondary device in Stuyvesant High School, that there was major gas leak and to evacuate the area. Everybody turned around and started heading north again. We were like, Jesus Christ, what the hell is next? Everybody was shell-shocked. We figured this building is going to explode now, you know…”

“…We stood there for a minute or two and we were like — I don’t know, this is bullshit, and let’s start heading back in…”
(Source: WTC Task Force Interview with V. Massa
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/12/eee-in-lower-manhattan/


But, would someone have experience bring down a building that way?
I'm curious about that Stuyvesant HS explosion report.

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. Isn't how that fellow on E 62nd Street

destroyed his brownstone last year?

The fact that the collapse began, apparently simultaneously, around the entire upper floor outer ring and possibly the inner core of Tower 1 rather suggests an explosion or rapid combustion of gasses such as carbon monoxide or other flammable vapor residue from the jet fuel, over-pressuring the area. "A room or area requires only 25 percent of its space to contain the explosive mixture for the entire area to explode."(Dunn, WNYF p9) This may have been another reason the fire temperatures in general not being any greater than an average fire- incomplete combustion due to lack of oxygen in the main body of fire. "The observed fire behavior points to temperatures in the building not being particularly severe — say no more than about 600 to 700 Deg. C.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:LpZR1Ta2yh4J:graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110250.PDF+world+trade+center+%22natural+gas%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=29&client=firefox-a

BTW: Thanks for the above link. Lot's of info there about the gas leak reports that I hadn't seen before.

[dailykoff]

59. I lean toward the big wedding theory.

I think they hit it with everything they had, old and new, so as not to take any chances and make sure the big fellas dropped fast. That's probably why there was so much left over.

[sabbat hunter]

60. asbestos

actually there wasnt any asbestos problem. what asbestos that was in the towers was sealed off and thus did not have to be removed. also as the laws changed while they were being built, not the entire buildings contained asbestos.