FTW - Based upon a detailed review of an interview with a NY architect who is expert on high rise construction and upon today's BBC story which I have linked at the bottom of this page, I am now virtually certain that there were no explosives placed within the WTC buildings. The motive for such a move would have been unclear in light of the drama and the security risks for "pre-event" compromise posed by dual efforts that would have accomplished the same ends.
Discovery of the explosives before the hijacking would have emptied the buildings and placed the nation on alert before the hijackings could have been carried out. The WTC towers would have been evacuated and that would have reduced the impact of the crashes.
Gravity would have taken all of the unburned fuel down central shafts of the building and the physics in this story are consistent with both witness statements and other expert interviews I have read.
In addition, my ex-wife Mary lives a block away and witnessed both the second crash and the collapse of both towers from a close distance. Neither she, nor any other person she knows, heard any explosions or believe that secondary charges were a factor in of the collapses.
I will be posting a more detailed bulletin for my subscribers on this shortly.
What has never been in dispute is that the fall of the south tower,
just 56 minutes after it had been hit, marked the first time in
history that a steel-framed highrise structure had suffered a total
collapse due to fire. Never before had such a building
suffered even a partial collapse due to fire. At 10:28 AM, the north
tower became the second
steel-framed highrise structure to suffer a total collapse due to
The twin towers were certainly not the first highrise structures to
ever sustain significant damage from a fire. Nor were they the first
steel-framed buildings to be struck by errant aircraft. Various
buildings around the world, including the Empire State Building, have
been hit by airplanes of various size. And countless steel-framed
buildings around the world have been hit by U.S.-launched cruise
missiles and guided bombs. None of them have ever suffered a complete
collapse, even after sustaining multiple impacts.
To explain the unprecedented series of events that unfolded on
September 11, 2001, 'experts' trotted out by the media
have posited that the photogenic collapses resulted from an
combination of three factors: the initial damage inflicted on the
towers by the
airplane crashes; the damage caused by what were said to be intense
fires; and the
design of the twin towers.
experts, however, have offered no explanation for why the building
known as #7 World Trade Center -
a conventional steel-framed highrise structure that was not
by a plane - became, at approximately 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001,
highrise structure in recorded history to suffer a complete collapse
to fire. FEMA struggled to find an explanation to include in a report
on the collapses, but came up short: “The specifics of the fires in WTC
7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this
Though dwarfed by the massive twin towers, WTC7 was an
imposing structure that would have dominated the skyline of many large
cities. Built in 1985, it was a modern, 47-story
structure that housed 1,868,000 square feet of commercial office space,
much of it occupied by governmental agencies bearing
three-letter acronyms, including the CIA.
Some have suggested that WTC7 collapsed due to damage caused by
debris from the falling towers, particularly the north tower. That does
not appear to be the case, however, since photos and video of the
building taken in the hours after the collapse of the towers show that
WTC7 was quite intact prior to its collapse. There is also the curious
fact that WTC6, which sat between
WTC7 and the towers, somehow managed to avoid suffering a complete
Some reports, including the BBC
report cited earlier by Ruppert, seemed to imply that the building's
foundation had perhaps been "weakened by the earlier collapses." But if
that had been the case, WTC7 would not have dropped straight down, as
though sinking into the ground; it would have toppled over, taking out
neighboring buildings in the process. The BBC report also warned that "more
nearby buildings may still fall," as though it had suddenly become
commonplace for tall buildings to spontaneously convert themselves into
neat piles of debris.
Fires purportedly raged within WTC7 for hours before the building
collapsed, but the
source of the fires remains largely a mystery,
as does the complete failure of the building's modern sprinkler
system, which should have been more than adequate to contain any fires.
Considering the intense media attention that was focused on lower
that day, still photos or video footage of WTC7 engulfed in flames are
curiously hard to
find. Photos of the building taken not long before the collapse (such
as the one to the upper right) reveal only small pockets of fire that
were confined to two floors.
World Trade Center #7 hit the ground, reduced to a
neat pile of
rubble, in approximately seven seconds. Like the twin towers, it was in
virtual free-fall. Also like the towers, WTC7 collapsed into
its own footprint
with absolutely uncanny precision. It is no accident that the American
although bombarded with images of the collapsing towers, have never
the collapse of WTC7. It is nearly impossible to watch video footage of
the collapse and
to recognize it for what it is: a deliberate, and perfectly
controlled implosion. [Click on the two small animated gifs to view
video clips of the collapse from two different vantage points.]
The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers (WTC7 is rarely mentioned) is that the steel and concrete floor slabs, in the areas of the towers damaged by the initial plane crashes, broke free and collapsed down upon the floors below, which then in turn broke free and collapsed, thus creating an alleged 'pancake' effect that quickly gained mass and speed. Once the floors broke free, so the story goes, the outer steel shells of the towers lost structural integrity and collapsed in upon the pancaking floor sections.
There are a few very obvious problems with this 'pancake' theory.
there is the question of whether fires raged in the towers at
intensity, and for a sufficient amount of time, to cause the failure of
the floor trusses. All of the images captured that day show that at the
time of the collapses, the towers were billowing copious amounts of
black smoke -- indicative not of raging infernos, but of low intensity,
smoldering office fires.
Transcripts of fire department audiotapes
indicate that firefighters on the scene reported only pockets of
fire that posed no danger to the structural integrity of the building.
The graphic to the left, published with the previously cited BBC report, was supposed to help
understand what caused the collapse of the towers. The illustration,
however, contained obvious errors, including the claim that the fires
reached "800° C
hot enough to melt steel floor supports." There is no indication that
the fires burning in the towers reached such temperatures -- and even
if they did, steel doesn't actually melt at 800° C (about
F); it melts at about 1,500° C (about 2,750° F).
The text of the BBC report contained this curious claim: "the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions as to why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths." Actually, if the claim about the core temperatures were true, it would have raised questions as to how hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths, since the only way up was through the building cores, where all the stairwells and elevators were located.
the best evidence refuting the notion that the fires in the WTC towers
were burning at extremely high temperatures can be found through close
examination of the pre-collapse photos to the left. Near the center of
the gaping entry wound (which looks much different, by the way, than
entry wound in the Pentagon) stands the tragic figure of an apparently
still very much alive -- and seemingly unaware that she is clinging to
a piece of nearly molten metal.
Technically speaking, the 'pancake' theory does not require that the fires reached temperatures capable of melting steel; it requires only that temperatures were high enough to substantially weaken the steel floor supports. A 1500° F fire could conceivably accomplish that task, if that temperature was maintained for a considerable amount of time. But there is no indication from firefighter reports, survivor reports, or the photographic evidence that there were any fires of that magnitude that burned for any appreciable length of time.
Another problem with the 'pancake' theory is that it fails to
the fate of the cores of the two towers. Contrary to the deceptive BBC graphic, the cores of the WTC
towers occupied a considerable portion of the buildings' footprints, as
can be seen in the accurately scaled graphic on the lower left, and in
the photo on the lower right, taken while the towers were under
configurations of 47 massive steel support columns, heavily
cross-braced, were designed to not only be self-supporting, but to
support the floors and exterior walls as well.
accept that the floor slabs somehow ‘pancaked,’ and that the outer
steel and aluminum shells
buckled and collapsed, we are left with no explanation of what happened
those massive concrete and steel cores. Clearly, the floor slabs were
hardly the wide-open
'pancakes' depicted in deceptive media graphics. In truth, the
'pancake' theory, at best, offers only an explanation of how
floor and exterior wall sections may have collapsed. Even if
an extremely unlikely event had occurred, the end result would not
60-foot-high mound of rubble; it would have been two 137' x 87' x
1,360' towers standing in place of two 208' x 208' x 1,360' towers.
Yet another problem with the ‘pancake’ theory is that it is wholly
dependent on a perfectly symmetrical failure of the floor slabs, even
though the initial damage to the buildings was clearly
asymmetrical, and the fires
certainly did not burn uniformly throughout the damaged floors. And
yet we know that for the destruction to be complete, the
collapse of the initial floor slabs would have had to be perfectly
point of connection around the perimeter of the core, and every
of connection around the exterior shell, would have had
fail at precisely the same moment in time. And each successive floor
to fail in exactly the same perfectly uniform manner, unerringly, all
the way down the line. When the
effect has to course through 110 floors, there isn't really any
for error. And yet both towers, as we all know, 'pancaked' into
oblivion in matching, perfectly choreographed collapses.
Remarkably enough, the two towers somehow collapsed in exactly the
same manner even though the initial damage to each tower was quite
different. The plane that hit the north tower plowed straight into the
center of the north face of the tower, and then straight into the
center of the tower's core. The south tower, however, was hit with more
of a glancing blow, through the southeast corner of the building, in
such a way that the plane likely did minimal damage to the tower's
core. Nevertheless, the damage to the south tower may have been more
significant than the damage to the north tower. In the north tower, the
weight of the upper floors was transferred to the remaining structural
elements of the north wall of the tower. But in the south tower, since
it was a corner of the building that was blown out, there was nowhere
for the load to be transferred. Also, the south tower was hit at a
lower elevation, so there was more weight bearing on the damaged area.
It is interesting to note here, by the way, that in both tower
initial impacts caused structural damage on at least six floors. The
south tower was impacted on floors 78-84, and the north tower on floors
93-98. The Pentagon, on the other hand, miraculously sustained impact
damage on just two floors.