|
Site Map THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION AND THE SO-CALLED WAR ON TERRORISM |
|
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:
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. |
