103 votes

The Smoking Gun. WTC7 taken down by CONTROLLED demolition. WTC1 and WTC2 as well. What are we to make of this?

Controlled demolition.

In case you have not seen the new documentary, where now thousands of structural engineers, architects, chemical engineers, and physicists are going on record that IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE that those three buildings could have been brought down by office fires, or by even high-impact 767 crashes in regards to WTC1 and WTC2. (You can watch that documentary when you have time here:)


All...I repeat all...of the three buildings brought down that day...comprising the worst structural "failures" in world history...were done by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Incontrovertible. Irrefutable.

And extremely high-tech, high energy military grade explosives which are able to melt steel in a flash, were used.

This is now, without question.

We have solved the what. Now we turn to the how...and then the WHO.

But the government's official accounts, the FEMA and the NIST reports, are so ridden with fraud, gross negligence, and pseudoscience, that those reports...are CRIME SCENES in and of themselves.

We need to start prosecuting right there and then work our way up...but I digress...

3000 innocent citizens and first responders have died! Who will speak for them?? Who will bring them justice??

And hundreds of thousands of family members and friends to the victims who carry the pain with them to this day...deserve a right to know what happened... rather than being insulted by these incompetent, taxpayer-funded government-sponsored cover-ups to the scene of the worst mass murder in American history.

WTC7 was demolished differently than the Twin Towers: All or most of its basement supports were severed at once....as evidenced by the free fall, or fall at the speed of gravity with no resistance, of the first 108 feet.

In other words, 108 feet, you know, 8 to 10 stories of the building of the lower floors, just ceased to exist in an instant.

Where did they go? Did those floors slip into a parallel universe?

Or were they blown to smithereens?

Certainly the truth...wherever it may lie...is not the, fake, forced, fraudulent model reconstruction that NIST (MIST?) tried to shove down the throats of the American taxpayer, $22 Million Dollars later!

As to the destruction of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers...two of the STRONGEST vertical structures on Earth...the entire buildings were laden with nano-thermite, with complete destruction set to begin just below the airplane impact zones, and timed to look like a "normal" gravitational collapse.

It was a brilliant execution.

[Except there is no such thing as a "normal gravitational collapse." Asymmetrical damage (the jet impacts)...can not lead to a symmetrical global collapse. Physically impossible.]

You heard the first collective shaped charge "ka-POW" of the south tower floors being blown apart just below the jet impact area, then the explosions of the other successive floors were timed and were increasingly masked by the continuous roar of the massive demolition wave which gained velocity and amplitude as it plummeted to Earth.

Very clever.

But, eyes don't deceive...and ears don't....thanks to the advent of cameras and cell phone cameras.

Complete gravitational collapse on super-highrises from office fires no matter how hot?

Doesn't happen.

Has never happened in the nearly 100 years of high-rise history.

Will never happen in the future, as long as the Laws of Physics apply....which they will forever.

Unless thermite is involved.

Which may explain the molten iron in a sheer 'waterfall' of molten metal off of the south tower as its upper 30 floor block begins to deform and rotate down, but a block no more, its angular momentum of all that incredible mass, suddenly neutralizing into dust...as the "collapse" accelerates in earnest, traveling down the former path of MOST resistance (the core) that in seconds has become--by being blown to bits--the NEW path of LEAST resistance.

Hmmm. 30 stories pulverized into powder in two seconds. Very strange.

The path of MOST resistance...becoming the path of LEAST resistance. Very strange.

Molten iron. Very strange.

What possibly could turn most of the mass of 350 vertical feet of an acre-sized building, into wisps, in a few seconds? Or melt its steel columns in the same??

Must be something...of course NOT mentioned in the taxpayer funded NIST and FEMA and 9/11 Commission Reports.

Here is the smoking gun to how the controlled demolition was set up...innocuously...with unrecognizable boxes of military-grade super-thermite sol-gel shaped charges, placed in the core areas hidden from the office tenants, against the bare columns in and around the elevator banks.

Super-thermite melts steel with incredible temperature and exrtreme levels of energy.. and pulverizes the concrete and the non-steel contents in mid-air, as Towers 1 and 2 come down.

Literally all of the floor concrete, gypsum wallboard, and FF&E, including elevators and HVAC equipment... for 110 stories of each building, an enormous weight, was pulverized to a toxic powder as fine as talcum, in mid air in seconds...and it spread out like a volcanic pyroclastic flow, over lower Manhattan...while the melted and distorted steel frames, collapse in a heap below.

Watch another the 18 minute presentation here.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here's more proof that the fire was low temp

Here's more proof that the fire was low temp.


"Shortly after the jet hit the North WTC Tower, Edna Cintron, pictured above, was waving from its hole, indicating that its opening was not particularly hot. How could the fires be hot enough to melt steel, but cool enough for Edna?"


Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

fireant's picture

Please use some common sense.

This is the kind of argument that makes us look foolish, and actually discredits the quest for truth.
Edna Cintron managed to find the oxygen intake source of the fire. It in no way indicates strength or temp of the fire. To use it to claim the fire was weak or cool is disingenuous. How will we find truth by being disingenuous? How will we sway others by using such illogical claims? It is not proof the fire was low temp. Use some common sense.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant, YOU want to know

fireant, YOU want to know about 'disingenuous'? Find a mirror...... reading through all your posts on this thread has been tiresome-why not go do alot more in depth research on your own instead of asking to be spoonfed?

sharkhearted's picture

Misinformation about the misinformation about the smoke.

They never said it was "low temperature". They talked about how it was fuel rich (black).

No one ever did not say that the office fire temps of the WTC did not approach the maximum threshold possible.

Sure enough...those temperatures recorded approached 1800 degrees in the south tower.

But that begs the question: What was that really bright fire with white smoke and molten steel or iron that was eating away at the south tower perimeter corner column, a minute before the top 30 stories sheared off?? What was it??

No fire ever EVER in any ANY office fire anywhere in Newton's known universe, would not even come close to melting steel, and most certainly not come close to melting IRON...which can only happen in a thermitic reaction.

If any integrity needs to be brought to question, it is yours.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

"Shortly after the jet hit the North WTC Tower, Edna Cintron...

"Shortly after the jet hit the North WTC Tower, Edna Cintron, pictured above, was waving from its hole, indicating that its opening was not particularly hot. How could the fires be hot enough to melt steel, but cool enough for Edna?"


Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

fireant's picture

I know I'm not dreaming.

I've seen many documentaries and reports over the years suggesting thick dark smoke is indicative of low temp fire. I don't have any links, nor is it that important. I merely point out for anyone who may be under false impressions, that color of smoke indicates fuel, and dense smoke is not necessarily an indication of temp. Why would that cause question of my integrity?
To the best of my knowledge, the dripping bright metal has not been identified, nor is there any substantiation that molten steel was being eaten away. I would gladly look at any evidence you may have. The question remains. If the buildings were taken apart with thermate and/or explosives, there would be structural evidence in the debris pile. The vast majority of beams I have seen all have their original milled ends, with no sign of cutting. If I were going to make a claim that thermate was used to take down the buildings, I'd want some serious physical evidence to support it.

Undo what Wilson did

A hotter fire produces less smoke, fireant.

Black smoke indicates free carbon particles from incomplete combustion not 'synthetics' as you suggest.

A carbonaceous fire (jet fuel, plastics, etc...) that burns hotter produces less black smoke as more of the carbon is converted to carbon dioxide in an oxygen rich environment.

In a less oxygen rich environment, more smoke will be produced (free carbon and volatiles), the fire will be less intense and more carbon monoxide will be produced.

fireant's picture

Yes it does. I have stated such.

Thick black smoke is also produced when plastics are burning hot, just not as thick as when cooler. My point here is to make sure people understand the color of smoke indicates fuel, not temperature.

Undo what Wilson did

When you say "hot "

that is subjective. Burn that plastic in a blast furnace where most of the carbon is combusted and you'll see virtually no black smoke.

fireant's picture

Yer right, it's relative.

I'm not trying to get into a temp debate; merely point out that color of smoke is a sign of fuel, not temp, as I know I have seen some videos try to portray.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

How about start here...

Put on the earphones and watch full screen. Bookmark, and watch them in this succession, each when you have time.

These are well-done and professionally produced, and worth your while. Every single one tells a story. And each one paints a picture. And pulls together pieces of the puzzle of the most heinous, horrific crime scene in American history.

For those of you that can, download and make copies of these, in case the internet ever does get shut down.

Apologies in advance of having to subject you to the background music of video number 9, but it is worth watching for its content nonetheless, and I would wait until you have viewed the others first.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE&sns=em

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M&feature=g-user-u

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws&feature=related

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belm78njlm0&feature=plcp

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOTwE8DaaTo&feature=related

7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhy22V_95p0

8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9ph-Jz7L4&feature=youtu.be

9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

fireant's picture

Please pinpoint the video and time where I'll find evidence

that the corner of the tower was being cut with thermate. I appreciate the links and all, but I don't have hours to sift through trying to find it.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Wow. What a rational scientific response.

You "don't have hours to sift through trying to find it."

Do you work for NIST? If not, then you should. You would be perfect for them.

3000 innocent people have died.

And you "don't have hours to sift through" the evidence??

Wow. What a patriot. What honor. What a scientist.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Nice of you

To so freely spend someone else's time as opposed to just finding the screenshot yourself. Watching 9/11 documentaries rehash the same fallacies and displaying quotes from Goebbel's for an hour just so you can try and find the 5 seconds worth of actual evidence that may matter is a trial of masochistic proportions.

Can't you just pull out the part you're referring to?

Eric Hoffer

fireant's picture

Sir, you made the claim the corner of the building was cut by

thermate. Prove it.

Undo what Wilson did


You tested whatever was liquid falling out of there for material composition?

I'm not saying your entire hypothesis rests on whatever liquid you're talking about being actually steel, but it does.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

The NIST report said it was molten aluminum from the plane

That is criminally FALSE.

Molten aluminum is silver, like mercury.

It was most certainly NOT molten aluminum.

Molten iron and/or steel fits the yellow/white hot spectrum and is the only possible molten thing that could be seen dripping out of the south tower near the perimeter corner column.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.


Molten aluminum with impurities picked up from the room it was in? Aluminum can glow yellow with impurities, but I don't know for sure if that's what occurred.

Could also have been from the melted lead and copper batteries on that floor? The floor was a storage floor for UPS units.


Gives the most likely explanation, in my mind.

It's most likely a combination of aluminum, lead, and copper, given what was on the floor. We know it can't be steel because the temperatures wouldn't have been hot enough.


Gives an interesting alternative explanation of what occurred. I hadn't thought of the molten aluminum meeting the sprinkler system, but that'd definitely explain the explosions heard. Not sure if he's right, but it's plausible.

Eric Hoffer

fireant's picture

Two questions.

What color is molten copper?
If said phenomenon was used to cut the corners, why was it observed on one corner only?

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

THREE questions

1. What molten copper? Where? Let's see it!!

2. Where are the cameras on the other corner perimeter columns? Perhaps there were none. And even if they were there...would they necessarily exhibit molten metal? Where is your evidence that there was not molten metal on the other 3 corner perimeter columns?? And even if there was, what does that necessarily have to do with the destruction of the building?

3. Where is the source of molten copper?? And how was the 1900 degree F melting point of copper, supposed to be achieved in a building whose maximum office fires only approached 1500 degrees F?


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

fireant's picture

Plenty of copper in the building, no?

The point is, the dripping apparent hot metal is suspicious, but without some physical evidence, it is impossible to know exactly what it was. To claim "the building was cut by thermate" based on that one issue is reckless and irresponsible. We simply do not know without corroborating evidence.
Again. If the building were dismantled with thermate, we would see abundant structural evidence in the debris piles. Why do you avoid this fundamental and primary issue I raise? Show me some evidence; I'm open minded.

Undo what Wilson did

Fair Enough

I like hearing the counter-arguments. In your opinion, was the amount of smoke indicative of a low oxygen or high oxygen fire? And if low oxygen, then would you say that it makes no sense that the temperatures could've gotten hot enough to melt steel?

Also, from what I heard from the AE911 video, even at high temps, kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel. So how does that factor into your comment? Or was your point more to just point out that the AE911 group missed something so simple that their legitimacy has to be called into question?

Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on WTC 7? That's the really bizarre one in that it didn't seem to be under a heavy blaze and wasn't hit by a plane and didn't seem to have any major damage from falling debris (which I think was true of other buildings - maybe WTC4 & WTC5 - neither of which collapsed). Plus the idea that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed in an even fashion from an office fire in a building built in 1980 seems pretty fishy to me. Then again, I'm not an architect nor an engineer so my opinion is just that of a layman. Even so, there were other buildings that were damaged and on fire that didn't fall.

The fires in WTC 5 were much

The fires in WTC 5 were much more intense and widespread than those in 7, yet the former did not collapse through its path of greatest resistance as 7 did.


Really? Path of greatest resistance?

You realize the path of greatest resistance is UP right?

Eric Hoffer

LOL... I believe he is talking about a collapse, Eric.

How does anti-gravity figure in to a collapse?

fireant's picture

That was a good one LOL

The path of greatest resistance is up...I'm still laughing

Undo what Wilson did

Don't see

I don't see no floating sky scrapers.

We've got a huge force pulling downward that the structural integrity of has been beaten to shit from a huge plane whacking it as well as a bunch of fire weakening the steel. The resistance of the falling force due to gravity is more than the resistance the structure has to impact. Once that body began moving, the energy required to stop it was MUCH greater than the resistance provided by the structure beneath.

If the structure above never had gravity applied as an accelerator until after it was safely settled, then the path of greatest resistance might have been down (I'm not sure on the equations here given the weight at that point. It might still take less energy to get it moving through the structure than it would to lift it... theoretically) due to the structure beneath. However, once it's in motion? Heck no.

It's the difference between having a woman walk on your back and having her jump on your back. One feels great, one feels like paralysis.

Eric Hoffer

fireant's picture

The structure below was twofold.

Considering the two total masses, above and below, simply does not account for the unique building design. In other words, you can't take just the total mass of each unit into consideration because of design. The collapse actually took the path of least resistance, that being the floor spans, which helps explain the standing cores post collapse.
If the connections of the steel outer wall (the wall of the tube) were stronger, I would expect to see a very tall tube remaining post collapse, though I don't know that any connections could have resisted the lateral pressures.
Do you see where this may be going Mr. Eric?

Undo what Wilson did


If it's to the place where you make my point for me, then yes absolutely.

Down, through the mesh of material is the path of least resistance. The path of greatest resistance would be up.

This may NOT have been true given the nature of a static load and the exact structural support up until the point of the crash. However, all of that goes directly out the window once the steel is heated to the point where it loses structural integrity. The mass of the moving body does come into play as the faster that structure gets going, the more force it's going to generate as it hits. This isn't true for the static body below, which is essentially attempting to absorb the energy above as it falls apart due to the design you mention.

I'm mainly just looking at it from a theoretical basis. The design you mention matters more in reference to the bottom body than to the top that is building up the velocity.

Suffice to say, down through the center is definitely NOT the path of greatest resistance.

Eric Hoffer


you think buildings fall up Eric?

No, they fall down, but they can be deflected as they fall. Not up, but to the side which in a falling structure would be the path of least resistance since there isn't a superstructure to the side of the building to impede the fall.

The path of greatest resistance in a collapsing building would be straight down through the superstructure unless, of course, the lower floors were blown out as the collapse progressed. In that case there wouldn't be a superstructure in place to impede the fall straight down.