The Twin Towers
Many of the peculiar anomalies violating the laws of physics in the collapse of Building 7 are also present and problematic in the collapse of the Twin Towers. With one obvious distinction - an airplane hit both the South and the North towers. According to official government reports, the collision of the airplanes into the buildings, combined with the intensity of the fire ignited by the planes' jet fuel, weakened and brought the two massive structures down. While this hypothesis is perhaps feasible in theory, the video and physical evidence of the Towers' collapse does not support it. Instead, the evidence again points to a number of tell-tale specifics that make an intentional demolition of the Towers an infinitely more viable hypothesis - a hypothesis that has never been considered by official government inquiries.
The first evidence of intentional demolition is the sheer size and power of the two buildings. It is well known that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of jumbo jets. Two hits from Boeing 707 jumbo jets, in fact, is what the architects famously said the towers could withstand. And it is true. The buildings seemed to do just fine after the impact. So the official story had to quickly turn, like with Building 7, to the 'intense' inferno as cause for the Towers' eventual demise.
But this official assertion brings us right back to the problem of fire from jet fuel and debris reaching a high enough temperature to weaken and collapse steel. Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?
It should also be noted that the same catastrophic impact of the airplanes and subsequent raging inferno that supposedly brought two of the tallest buildings in the world down in the matter of one hour somehow spared the passport of one of the alleged hijackers. It is worth clarifying that that passport, like yours and mine, was made out of paper. A well-known, highly flammable material that somehow exited the pocket of a man flying a jumbo jet into a building at 500 mph, then floated unscathed through the initial impact, zig-zagged its way through a thundering firestorm that supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel (approximately 2500 degrees Farenheit), and fluttered unharmed onto a Manhattan sidewalk to be collected by an industrious FBI agent tipped off by a citizen on Vesey St. It is important to note that the author is not making this up. Here is the AP report. We are spoon fed these absurdities by a mass-media whose inability for deductive reasoning is trumped only by our own.
A. Unreasonable Speed of Collapse
Besides the theoretical arguments supporting the hypothesis that intentional demolition, not fire, brought the Towers down, the huge volume of video evidence shows conclusively an array of specific details of the Towers' collapse that are wholly consistent with the particulars of intentional demolition. The first detail is the speed with which the Towers fell. Despite the huge amount of mass and material sitting underneath them, the tops of both Towers, like with Building 7, collapsed to the ground at close to free-fall speed. To put it more bluntly, if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down. This is virtually the same speed it took the actual top 15 floors of the North Tower to collapse. With the entire in-tact, undamaged, unaffected 90 floors worth of core building sitting underneath it, somehow providing NO further resistance to the falling building than air itself. (Remember that the impact zone of the aircraft and the subsequent fire was from floor 90 up. No other part of the building could have possibly sustained any serious damage since heat and fire go up. And the government's official theory is that the top 15 floors essentially destabilized and failed, and its then unsupported weight began to pile drive downwardly onto the rest of the 90 as yet undamaged stories.)
Somehow, in a gross violation of the laws of physics, the remaining 90 floors and core of the North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower's collapse than air itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility. The only thing that can account for the speed of the Towers' collapse is controlled demolition - where cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. Almost exactly like these firefighters in this video surmised on the morning of September 11 before the story got officially rewritten.
An up-close analysis and review of the cascading collapse of the buildings shows more evidence of explosives and cutter charges. One of the exclusive, tell-tale signs of demolition are the presence of what the industry calls 'squibs'. Squibs are horizontal puffs of debris and smoke that explode laterally out from the side of an imploding building. They are a result of the force of the detonation of the charges that ignite to weaken a building's core columns, allowing the upper floors to crash unimpeded in the straight-down trajectory of a demolished structure. Of huge importance is the fact that squibs explode far below the level of falling debris, detonating in the seconds before the arrival of the rest of the falling building from above. For an initial example of a squib, click on this video, and observe the lateral explosions just below the main explosion initiating the onset of collapse.
Defenders of the 'official story', like Popular Mechanics and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are now trying to say that these squibs are the result of a 'syringe effect', where the collapsing mass of the building above compacts the air below, building up the air pressure like in a syringe to such a degree that it bulges and bursts out the sides of the building in horizontal puffs of smoke. But this explanation is absurd. The squibs shown in the videos are all small, cylindrical, tight puffs of explosions that are exact replicas of other known squibs seen in official building demolitions. Like this one, whose squibs look identical to the above video of the north tower. How is it possible that the compressing air pressure of a massive building totaling millions of square feet was channeled into narrow, neat cylinders of force that blew little round holes through very localized blast spots, cylinders that just happen to look exactly like those of officially demolished buildings?
Obviously, if the compacting air pressure of this 'syringe effect' was a reality, that pressure would have built in massive waves that would have released themselves in huge outward blasts, exploding in wide surges, decimating whole banks of adjacent windows and floors. This is not what happened. The squibs were neat and tight, like in the first example given above, and in the next clip below. Watch on the left façade about 1/3 of the way into the clip, far below the falling debris, the obvious squib and explosive gas ejecting from the side of the building. The clip is especially effective if you pause the video, then use the frame by frame slow motion tabs on the right side of the clip's tool bar.
Moreover, the next clip clearly shows enormous squibs at the top of the building, at the onset of the initial explosion, before the building had a chance to fall and build up the supposed syringe-like air pressure. Watch the right side of the building and look for the two massive horizontal puffs of gas exploding one after the other laterally and below the falling debris. Again, use the slow-motion tabs for best viewing.
And while squibs take out the core center interior columns that support the external mass of the building, exploding far below the level of the main collapse event to clear a path for the disintegrating mass to fall unimpeded straight down, this clipdemonstrates how that main mass of falling building debris was initially pulverized into manageable chunks of rubble and dust. Remember that the mass of a truly collapsing building left alone is not going to fall symmetrically downward. One part of the building will fail first, then the entire remaining mass will lean and yaw to that side and carry on falling in that asymmetrical direction, following Newton's most basic law of motion. But this is not what we observe in the fall of the Towers. They both fell with almost identical, perfect symmetry. And the only way to account for this symmetry and its violation of the natural laws of physics is to surmise that the buildings, as they fell, were being acted upon by an outside force; i.e. well-timed, specifically placed explosives guiding the fall of the building and its debris straight down.
Look at the clip again. Or this example. This initial explosion is not a collapsing building. This is a dramatic, highly explosive event. Look at the lateral force being generated by the blast. Look at the huge sections of neatly cut steel beams being hurtled laterally in front of the lighter dust particles of concrete, a scenario only possible through some kind of explosive event.
Look at this stillphoto. How is this massive, multi-colored explosion being generated by the simple collapse of the top quarter section of a building falling in on itself? Imagine cutting off the top section of a massive tree. Would the rest of the tree underneath that falling section explode symmetrically beneath it as the top section rained down? The fall of these Towers was not a collapse. It was a violent, dramatic, almost perfectly symmetrical explosive event.
This aforementioned symmetry of collapse that can be observed in all the video evidence must not go uninvestigated. It is perhaps the most dubious of all the characteristics of the Towers' collapse. If an airplane was to plow into one side of a building, leaving a big enough wound and fire behind to sufficiently weaken its integrity and initiate the onset of its collapse, then we can rightly guess that the collapse would begin within that wound and fire zone. We can rightly guess that the top of the building sitting above the wound and fire zone would lean and be drawn in the direction of the lateral failure. Again, like a cut, falling tree. And in fact, in the case of the South Tower, this is exactly what happened. Observe in this videohow dramatically to the side the top of the building initially leans. Or look at this still photo to see the same.
According to basic laws of physics, the top of that building should have continued to fall to the side, and, unless acted on by another force, it should have landed on adjacent buildings and side streets below. It did not. It was either somehow drawn back into the center of the collapse, or it was pulverized to dust before it hit the ground. Either way, based on this video evidence, the government's official explanation for total building collapse - i.e. its 'pancake theory', or 'pile driver' theory, wherein the unsupported weight of the upper sections of the damaged building fall unimpeded down onto the levels and floors below, driving that next floor into the one below it, and then the next one below it, and on and on in a downward collapse - this theory can no longer be of any use. The video clearly shows the building has fallen to the side, asymmetrically, meaning the entire vertical façade of the building away from the airplane entrance hole did not fall straight down onto the floors below itself. It fell sideways toward the hole, and whole sections of the far, undamaged side of the building should have been left sticking up into the air like fractured limbs. Remember, there were 47 massive central steel support beams holding these buildings vertically up. How does the asymmetrical collapse of the materialattached to those beams account for those beams being sliced into neat 25 and 30 foot sections, collapsing straight down into nice neat piles of rubble in the buildings' own footprint? Again, if you sliced the top of a massive tree off near its top, you would not expect the entire tree underneath it to explode into dust and splinters. The tree has vertical integrity. So, too, did these buildings, and something tore them down.
So, the question becomes, what happened to the top of that building? What happened to the asymmetrical nature of the first part of the collapse? How did the falling building, if we are to believe in the laws of physics, regain its symmetrical disintegration. A symmetry that can readily be seen in this video. Remember that if a building truly falls down on its own, without the use of guiding explosives, it is not going to fall symmetrically. It will lean to the side that weakened first, and begin to collapse in that direction. But the two towers, and Building 7, each collapsed straight down in a symmetrical fall.
This symmetry was clearly produced through precisely timed waves of mammoth explosions that ripped the building apart. We have been told that the huge pyroclastic flows of dust and debris exploding from the building were, like the squibs, caused by the 'syringe effect; i.e. the vertically pancaking building thrusting its excess debris laterally. But how could weakening steel causing vertical collapse produce such MASSIVE surges of horizontal explosions at the top of the building at the onset of collapse? Watch this video again, and play the first 5 seconds in slow motion. Where is the lateral force coming from? The clip is showing explosions near the top of the building, at the start of collapse, long before the huge mass of the building could build up enough power or energy to eject cement and steel with such devastating force. And watch from below again. If, for the moment, we allow ourselves to at least consider that explosives might have been used, doesn't it looklike explosives are being used to pop out the floors one at a time?
Crimes are investigated and solved all the time through observation and inference. And yet not even one of the official investigations conducted by the government ever even consideredexplosives as a possible hypothesis for the buildings' collapse. Why? Dr. Steven Jones, a BYU physicist and professor minding his own business in Utah, did consider this possibility. And his work shows that when considered as a hypothesis, explosives and intentional demolition account for all of the seeming anomalies and mysteries of the Towers' collapse - anomalies left unsolved and uninvestigated by the government's wholly unreliable and dubious official explanation.
Dr. Jones has, in fact, turned his research focus full-time on to the mysteries and anomalies of the Towers' collapse. And time after time, in experiment after experiment, he uncovers more and more data that consistently, and without exception, conforms perfectly to the intentional demolition theory. A theory that accounts for the impossible speed of the buildings' collapse, the appearance of the tell-tale squibs, the symmetry of collapse, the devastating explosiveness of the collapse, the eyewitness accounts of underground explosions, etc. etc.
Professor Jones is an expert in thermite, a highly volatile and potentially explosive reaction in which aluminum metal is oxidized with other metals to create an incredibly hot and potent reaction that can cut through metal as thick as steel and iron in fractions of a second. The military uses thermite charges as anti-tank explosives, and to destroy structures like bridges and buildings. Packed properly, civilian demolition crews can also use thermite as primary cutter charges to quickly and efficiently sever the steel support columns of buildings they are intentionally bringing down. Professor Jones believes a well-known explosive version of thermite was used to fell the Twin Towers.
What is of essential importance is that this theory of Dr. Jones can be easily tested. Thermite reactions leave behind identifying markers and traces of specific metal compounds and residues that are exclusive to its reaction. And while most of the source material and would-be evidence of destroyed beams and building debris was illegally cleared and recycled, Dr. Jones did manage to find a piece of a steel support beam from Clarkson University, a section of beam that had been used in a sculpture dedicated to the victims of 9/11. He also acquired dust particles of pulverized concrete saved from an apartment in a building adjacent to the WTC. Testing residue from the beam and dust with an Electron Microprobe, Dr. Jones found compounds wholly consistent with thermite reactions - abundant Iron, Zinc, Sulfur, Manganese, Fluorine, and, perhaps most suspiciously, Barium, a highly toxic substance found in military grade explosives, not in building material, airplanes, or office supplies. For more info on this research, scroll down to page 28 on this website.
D. Lateral Explosions
Below are numerous other clips and stills of the suspicious looking explosions, some of which Jones has argued were detonated with thermite. Conventional explosives were surely also used to dismantle the floors and the standing building debris, and they can be seen below producing powerful lateral ejections of huge, multi-ton steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally from the core of the building. Again, what can possibly account for the generation of this kind of explosive, instantaneous lateral force? Observe in this video, toward the beginning of the clip, the violent, outward trajectory of the beams and core debris. Watch low on the building as the video plays, below the level of collapse to see the ejected beams and the strongest evidence of explosives. Or this video, slightly clearer, showing the same. These lateral explosions are, again, near the top of the building, at the onset of the collapse, long before enough momentum and mass could account for such horizontal force.
In this still photo, it is scientifically impossible, if the official story is considered, to account for the already enormous mushroom cloud of pulverized dust and debris appearing so close to the start and onset of collapse.
Not enough weight from the above floors has yet fallen down on the below mass to create enough explosive power to account for the size and speed of the photographed blast. "First we have explosive ejections of dust and pieces. Thick dust clouds spewed from the towers in all directions at about 50 feet per second. Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust cloud. That's a feature of explosive demolitions of structures. Some pieces of the perimeter were thrown laterally as far as 500 feet. Here's a gash in 3 World Financial Center, about 400 feet away from the North Tower, and it's several hundred feet up."
"Energetic ejections of dust occurred well below the rapidly descending demolition wave in each tower. Squibs which you can see in animations show rapid ejections of high velocity gases, over 200 feet a second. The aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions, littering surrounding buildings for considerable distances. It wasn't as if the towers exploded in a single explosion. They exploded in what's called a smooth wave. They started exploding and the explosion continued; it sounded like a huge ocean wave roar."
E. More Videos
Below is a number of other video clips showing clear evidence of squibs and internal detonations: