Monday, March 20, 2006

Did the Towers Explode?

As we mentioned, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire. The reverse truth is that every previous total collapse was due to a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers, like WTC-7, exhibited all of the features of a controlled demolition:

1) Sudden onset. Buildings are still, then suddenly and violently the collapse starts. As we've established, the fires were neither intense, extensive nor long-lasting. Heated steel does not suddenly break, it would have noticeably bent. No steel-framed building had ever even bent due to fire.

2) Straight down, symmetric collapse. Again the only way to accomplish this is for the support columns to fail simultaneously. The diffuse, cool-burning fires could not have caused this.

3) Near free-fall speed. By the Law of Momentum Conservation the floors would decelerate at every collision so had there been a pancake collapse the Towers would have fallen at free-fall speed. Since the Towers were exploded from the top down their decent depended upon the detonation timing. Free-fall wasn't necessary although it still came pretty close.

4) Total collapse. As we've shown a pancake collapse could not account for this. Again, prior to, and after 9/11 the only total collapses of steel-framed buildings were achieved through controlled demolitions.

5) Sliced steel. The only way for the buildings to come straight down was to slice through the vertical support columns. Only explosives could have shredded the steel. The disappearance of the cores is especially troublesome for the official story. That's why they've been so misrepresented in so many instances. The 9/11 went furthest by actually denying they even existed, calling the core a "hollow shaft with elevators."

6) Pulverization of concrete and non-metallic material. Virtually all of the concrete and non-metallic materials were pulverized into a fine talc-like powder throughout the collapse. The finer the material, the greater the energy required. According to researcher Jeff King, to produce this fine dust requires the breaking of chemical bonds. The physical process of slabs milling or grinding could not account for this pulverization.

7) Horizontal ejections. What besides explosives, could explain the horizontal ejections of the heavy steel columns in all directions at distances of up to 500 ft?

8) Dust clouds Jim Hoffman calculated the heat required to cause the expansion of the huge dust clouds,which were up to 5 times the volume of the building, to be 10 times the gravitational potential energy of the buildings. This implies another energy source.

9) Plumes or squibs of smoke. Horizontal ejections of white-grey smoke are seen below the collapsing areas. The location of the plumes correspond to the location of the core columns.

10) Molten metal in the basements and thermal hot spots. There were numerous accounts of molten metal buried under the rubble. Intense fires persisted for months. It takes temperatures of approximately 5200 degrees F to liquefy metal. Could the energy from the fallen building have caused this? No. There would not be enough directed energy as the concrete had been pulverized to powder before it hit the ground and steel beams had been ejected in all directions. Most of the building fell outside of it's footprint.


ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

The fall of the Towers exhibited all the of features of a controlled demolition. Neither fires nor a pancake collapse could account for the total collapse of the buildings. Whereas WTC-7 was brought down by a classic bottom-up implosion The Towers were felled by a top-down explosion. Steel columns were ejected horizontally and virtually all of the concrete and non-metallic material was turned to powder before it hit the ground. The Twin Towers did not "collapse," they were SYSTEMATICALLY BLOWN UP.

The physical evidence is supported by survivor and eyewitness accounts. Policeman, firefighters, reporters and citizens spoke of bombs and huge explosions they saw and felt. In August of 2005 the 9/11 oral histories recorded by the Fire Department of New York were released. Many can be read in David Ray Griffin's paper Explosive Testimony. More eyewitness accounts excerpted from probably the book best book written on 9/11, Webster Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA."


Recommended for additional reading:

Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research.

Wing TV's "9/11 on Trial"

Steven Jones paper "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?"

David Ray Griffin "The Destruction on the World Trade Center:" Why the Official Cannot Be True"

3 comments:

Sebas said...

man. great articles. you wrote them yourself? thanks n keep it up.

Herb said...

thanks. it's a compilation of all my research. the article on the exploding towers is pretty much from david ray griffin's paper "why the official account cannot be true"

chile bean said...

1] contrary to controlled demo precedent the towers exploded from top down
2]one explanation is that fire sprinklers system was used to spray thermobarics over each floor
and since pressure for explosives is from below destruction of floors top down required to avoid destroying piping -
3[ thermite /thermate can explain cutting steel columns but not the pulverizing concrete steel floor asemblies
4]fire sprinkler piping is a pre- existing excellent delivery system
to disperse an atomized explosive over the entire floor footage of each floor
5] can all be done in secret of basement mechanical space -no need to crawl around planting bombs etc