|
The Twin Towers collapsed in a very
strange manner, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer
shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel
columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is
very strange. Look at all that dust. It is as if some high-energy
disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every
concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust.
But although some kind of "black"
technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do
not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a
controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher
Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive
explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion
appears on a seismograph.
The seismograph which recorded this
data was operated by Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in
the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data.
They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused
by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:
During the collapse, most of the
energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing
other damage but not causing significant ground shaking. Dr. Arthur
Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk
Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News
So if most of the energy of the
falling debris was dissipated and was not the cause of the major spikes in
the seismic record then what was? Perhaps massive explosions in the lowest
(level -7) basements of the Twin Towers, besides the supporting steel
columns where they met the Manhattan bedrock? Perhaps even small nuclear
explosions?
This, together with numerous small
explosives detonated at every ten or so levels of the supporting steel
columns, would explain one observation which the official story does not
explain: Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns
not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true, that
the damage was caused by the impacts and fires, which occurred only in the
upper floors, and that the floors then pancaked, one would expect the
massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30
floors, to have remained standing, which they did not. But this is
understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by
explosions at the level of the bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and
the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in
the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground
level in about ten seconds.
Further evidence for explosives is
provided by video evidence of the way in which the South Tower collapsed:
The top thirty or so floors keeled over at the beginning of the collapse.
If the floors had pancaked in the way that the official story has it then
these top floors should have fallen straight down. But if explosives
somewhere in the region of the impact level had blasted the steel
supporting columns in the core then it is understandable that the top
floors tilted over (probably in the direction of the damaged corner where
the plane hit).
The explosive devices could have been
encased in heat-resistant material so that any of them which were exposed
to fire would not detonate. If timing was critical then they could be
detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right
time. Even if the fires disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes
hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires. No
wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive
device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode. Even a
timing sequence may not have been needed simultaneous detonation of each
device in the above-ground levels may have been sufficient to produce the
intended result.
The time t required for an object to
fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g),
where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from
the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2)
would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of
the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account.
The Twin Towers collapsed in 10 - 15 seconds, close to free fall.
Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to
shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If
this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have
required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors
ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per
second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or
so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the
collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and
the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have
been due to some other cause and the most obvious possibility is
explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of
free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a
controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other
destructive technology) at all levels.
For a week after the collapse of the
Twin Towers there were areas beneath the surface which remained intensely
hot.
AVIRIS data collected on September 16,
2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC
buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater
than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). U. S. Geological
Survey Report
What was the source of this heat?
Could it have been residual heat from underground nuclear explosions?
The Twin Towers were not the only
buildings in the WTC complex about which questions can be asked. There
were other WTC building "collapses".
A way to prove that the supporting
steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives would be
to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence of what
metallurgists call "twinning". But the WTC debris was removed as fast as
possible and no forensic examination of the debris was permitted by the
FBI or any other government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel
from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to
places like China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the
ships, thereby removing the evidence. See Debris Mountain Starts to
Shrink, an article which shows that Controlled Demolition Inc. (a world
leader in the demolition of tall buildings) was apparently keen to have
the debris removed and disposed of as soon as possible and was able to
come up with a detailed plan for doing so within eleven days of the
collapse of the Twin Towers, suggesting that this company had detailed
knowledge of the Twin Towers and the entire WTC complex prior to September
11th.
It might be objected that the WTC
employed hundreds of security guards and had hundreds of surveillance
cameras (supposedly) operating. With this kind of security it might be
possible to plant a few bombs but planting many (and especially bombs
powerful enough to destroy the foundations of the supporting steel
columns) would seem infeasible. However, the ownership of the World Trade
Center changed hands eleven weeks before the attack. The new owner was
Larry Silverstein. The destruction of the WTC and George W. Bush's
declaration of a "War on Terrorism" has proven to be (and could have been
foreseen to be) of major benefit to Israel in its brutal repression of the
Palestinian people, its efforts to destroy the Palestinian Authority,
which it labels as "terrorist-controlled", and its attempts to dominate
all its Arab neighbors. The new owners of the WTC might well have been
persuaded to cooperate in a scheme of such obvious benefit to Israel. But
if eleven weeks is considered insufficient time to plant explosives then
how about several years? This possibility will be considered in the next
section.
6. Did the Twin Towers Collapse on
Demand?
When considering the possibility that
the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives there is an interesting
variation which is worth considering: What if the Twin Towers were
designed or re-engineered so that they could be destroyed in a
controlled demolition if circumstances required?
What circumstances might lead to an
order to demolish the Twin Towers? A situation in which it was believed
that they were in danger of collapsing in an uncontrolled manner and
falling onto the buildings surrounding them in Manhattan's financial
district. In such a case, it might be held, better to demolish one or both
of the towers in a controlled manner so as to minimize death and
destruction in the surrounding area.
A self-destruct mechanism might not
have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been
added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of
America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office
buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the
WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be
particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to
engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled
Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away
the rubble from the Murrah Building in Okalahoma City after its demolition
and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after
September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the
purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used
except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.
So such a company specializing in
controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with
the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would
destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated)
so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world
witnessed on CNN on September 11th.
It has even been suggested that such a
self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with
offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving
out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and
was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower
Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large
companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the
financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space
unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major
attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices
would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in
mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few,
including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their
employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower
Manhattan.
According to this theory, then, the
plane (and possibly missile) attacks on the WTC triggered this fail-safe
mechanism, and one or more engineers were obliged (in consultation with
the owners of the WTC or perhaps the owners acted alone) to decide
whether the damage to one or both of the towers was sufficient that there
was a significant danger that they would collapse in an uncontrolled
manner upon the surrounding areas, and that it was thus necessary to push
the button which would detonate the charges and bring the towers down,
which they did.
[Testifying before a congressional
inquiry] Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the
Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] refused to hand over
blueprints for the twin towers crucial for evaluating the wreckage
until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a
lawsuit against the agency [that is, against FEMA]. New York Daily News,
2002-03-07
Was this because a close examination
of the blueprints might reveal clues that the Twin Towers had been
engineered to make possible a controlled demolition? And that FEMA (the
Federal Emergency Management Agency) was aware of this?
Since it was this very same FEMA which
took charge of the "investigation" into the WTC collapse (and is about to
release a report claiming that the fires caused the collapse) one might be
forgiven for suspecting that their "investigation" has been something less
than an unbiased attempt to discover the truth of what happened.
Assume now, for the sake of argument,
that a "fail-safe" mechanism as described above was actually engineered
into the Twin Towers (probably in the mid-1990s). The explanation given
above, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, still leaves open one important
question: Did those who demolished the Twin Towers on the morning of
September 11th plan in advance to do so? Did they have prior knowledge of
the plan to strike the towers and was the controlled demolition of the
Twin Towers (and the deaths of thousands of people in the buildings)
already planned by the perpetrators of the attacks and those who assisted
them?
Given the existence of the fail-safe
mechanism, a small number of people would have known about it, including
officials at FEMA and possibly including the most senior members of the
Manhattan business community (especially if such a mechanism was there to
persuade them to remain in Manhattan). Even though this mechanism was
presumably built in to the Twin Towers hoping it would never be used, some
people would know that it was there and that it could be used provided
one had the authority to initiate the demolition procedure and an arguably
sufficient reason to exercise that authority.
Who had such authority? Presumably the
owners of the World Trade Center (though perhaps they could not have
pushed the button without first obtaining permission from FEMA).
Most of the World Trade Center changed
hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven
weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance
covering buildings and rents payable to new beneficiaries.
The Blockbuster
The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the
26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and [Larry]
Silverstein the office portion.
The deal was finalized and celebrated
on the 23rd July just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was
destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex
to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.
Silverstein was ecstatic at that time.
"This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a
prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new
heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect. The Blockbuster
The "arguably sufficient reason" was
provided by the impacts and the subsequent structural damage and fire.
According to this scenario, then, the purpose of the impacts was not
themselves to destroy the Twin Towers but rather to provide the
"justification" for detonating the explosives which brought them down in a
controlled demolition.
FEMA The Secret Government
We arrived on, uh, late Monday night
[September 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning [September 11th];
and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire
site. Tom Kenny (FEMA), speaking to CBS anchor Dan Rather on September
12th.
Go to Next Page |