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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


The path of greatest resistance is going to be the opposite of the largest force.

For instance, friction is a resistance force, as is the resistance encountering an object of solidity. Your argument is that the structure below's construction is a stronger resistance than the force acting on the mass above due to gravity.

However, the path of GREATEST resistance is still up. If you'd like to not include gravity in your calculations (which I'm not sure how you'd manage) I guess you're free to, but the direction that has to go against the greatest amount of force.

The force generated by the falling body in this case is greater than the resistance force provided by the structural integrity of the structure below.

So no, unless the strength the structural integrity of the building is greater than that of the dynamic mass of the moving body, down through the building will not be a path of greater resistance than the path of up.

Falling to "the side" only happens when the structural integrity of the body below is strong enough to maintain itself at the point of impact. If the point of impact collapses instead, then there's not going to be anything available for the mass above to rotate and flow over. We're not dealing with raindrops running down a mountain here.

I feel like we run into a few theories here:

1. There was a single explosion or cut that caused the top portion to get in motion and fall.
2. That there was an explosion that was perfectly timed to go off on every floor directly below the above floor hit.

Regardless, given the construction design of the structure in question (that of basically an open space within a tube), it's still going to be easier to go through that structure than it will be to go up in terms of resistance to force.

I'm mainly just making fun of you guys for saying "the path of greatest resistance" and taking it from a pure physics standpoint. Mathematically, up will be the path up greatest resistance.

Eric Hoffer

Buildings don't fall up Eric.

That would be floating, not falling. Maybe you need a dictionary?

fireant's picture

You gotta admit though, he is mathematically correct.

And he did admit he's fucking with us :)

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Are you saying the only thing to impede falling to the side

would be a super structure outside the falling top? Think sir. What else could have impeded the superstructure from falling to the side?

Undo what Wilson did

I was speaking in general terms fireant.

Eric seemed to think floating up would be called falling.

fireant's picture

Yeah, but I'm asking you to think, and answer why the tops

snapped back to center like they did. There's a reason. Think.

Undo what Wilson did



fireant's picture

The amount of thick black smoke indicates

a massive fire fueled with synthetic material, which would be very hot, oxygen starved or not. I'm not going to try and qualify "hot enough to melt steel". How hot does it have to get to distort mis-loaded steel under high stress?
I'm not out to slam any group. I relied on AE and others for information for a long time, but a few questions nagged at me, and I finally decided to challenge what I had been thinking based on their reports. The answers are not good for the organization's integrity. It's an obvious attempt to portray the fires as small and low temperature, while the evidence suggests widespread and very hot.
The same is true for building 7. Read below for references, but the same organization claims 7 went straight down in it's own footprint, which is false. It leaned south going down and fell into the building across the street. They claim "small office fires", and never broach the subject of south side debris damage, or the fact they only show the fire from upwind sides, while other evidence shows the building well involved.
To me, with the gravity of such an event, these "omissions" are unforgivable.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Yeah they were hot. Hot enough to produce molten iron.

You send mixed messages here. They are HOT. But how? To melt steel? Really? How did that happen??

Still though, at the hottest office fire recorded on the WTC2, on the eastern side of the south tower, at 1800 degrees, it was almost 1000 degrees below what would melt steel.

But then again there was molten metal seen shooting out of this part of the building as its perimeter corner column melted away...so some good evidence of white-hot localized thermitic reactions.

4300 degree thermitic reactions definitiely can't be found in office fires...unless they were planted there ahead of time.

And your arguments about WTC7 are red herrings.

So...what DID cause the collapse of this building, which was not hit by a 767?

Right. It was so damaged that we just had to "pull it."


Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

How so?

You deny 7 was leaning going down and there was no damage to the south side, or that the fires did not intensify in the afternoon after the fire dept abandoned it? Please enlighten me how the facts I have presented, supported by evidence, are red herrings.

Undo what Wilson did



Probably a stupid question but...

...what was the synthethic material you're referring to?

fireant's picture

Most every ancillary item in the building,

furniture, carpet, wiring, plumbing, etc.

Undo what Wilson did

But wasn't the building built in 1980?

The AE911 video seemed to make the point that the fire code in 1980 was pretty modern and that what happened that day definitely didn't add up (again, that's their point. I'm a lay-person).

fireant's picture

Construction started in the late '60s, and there is evidence of

shortcuts due to the core asbestos issue and the lack of a barrier between the steel frame and the aluminum cladding. Mattering not, even up to code will burn if igniter fuel and heat are applied.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture


WTC7 was built in 1985.

Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

An obvious mistake isn't bs.

Is that the extent of your vocabulary?
Can't read in context enough to recognize I was referring to the tower construction (an obvious mistake considering the context was bldg 7)? It was a mistake, and for the record, you are correct.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

A note on the underground temperatures.

The Japanese have been known for centuries to fire stoneware ceramics using wood as fuel for the hillside kilns. Stoneware requires 2400 degrees f. It is not outside the realm of possibility for the recorded underground heat to have occurred without the presence of thermite or thermate.

Undo what Wilson did

Those kilns make use of a firebox / flue system to

continuously supply the burning wood fuel with fresh air and draft the exhaust. That wood is rapidly consumed and must to be constantly replenished for this to work. The buried fires under the World Trade Center rubble were not comprised of such a system.

fireant's picture

All I am pointing out is high temps can be attained with

common carbon fuels.
Whether the conditions were conducive under WTC, I don't know. You say impossible for similar conditions to develop. I can't dismiss the possibility just because of that. There obviously was fuel down there, and heat, and surely there was oxygen, probably all sorts of flue systems through the twisted metal. I really don't know ibdeeter, but without more evidence, I can't slam the door down on it.

Undo what Wilson did

OK, so the buildings fell down

and created lots of fireboxes and flues. Then these firebox / flue combos were getting resupplied with fuel from where?

Alternately, if these efficient, high temperature office supply fires you propose burning underground were transient, burning from one fuel source to the next and creating as they move along, the necessary draft conditions to generate temperatures high enough to melt steel and other metals, they still wouldn't melt holes through inch thick beams because the fires would be on the move chasing fuel.

fireant's picture

I'm only referring to the NASA authenticated hot spots.

I'm not suggesting they were hot enough to melt steel. If I remember correctly, NASA pegged them at about 1800. I was only addressing the oft repeated mantra that ordinary fires can't get that hot. Under certain conditions, they can. I agree with you that since any fuel would be stationary and likely dense, the fires would necessarily be transient, and unlikely to generate such heat, but I can't rule it out. This was a pretty unique event, with little to compare.

Undo what Wilson did

So you're going to sit there, fireant,

and admit that what you're suggesting about buried office furnishings fueling fires under the rubble hot enough and for a sufficient period of time to melt steel and other metals doesn't add up, but you're gonna cling to that theory anyway?

I think the families of those that died that day deserve better than that don't you? I mean this needs a real investigation, not just flossed over and covered up. Till the day I die, I will believe the world has been lied to about 9-11 because the official myth has gaping holes in it that the PTB have avoided filling in.

sharkhearted's picture

That is the bottom line.

The families of the victims deserve the truth!

Norfolk, VA

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

Oh the mantras

"They deserve the truth, so we'll ignore physics!"

You guys realize the logistics of using thermite are even more improbable than the likelihood of collapse from being nailed by a huge aircraft right?

I won't argue that our government won't kill our own citizens, but it would've been much easier to let a bunch of known terrorists into the US and let them hit the towers than it would be to sneak in with strange contraptions and wire the place.

The victims deserve the truth, but the truth isn't "anything except what we're told by the government." That doesn't count as truth. The truth isn't just as likely thermite as it is nuclear bombs as it is being nailed by two planes and being damaged enough to fall.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Ignoring physics??

Please explain to me how almost 10 MILLION square feet of concrete, cubicles, computers, and everything else but the spaghetti steel...was turned to dust in a matter of seconds??

Where is your physical explanation for it??

Letts see it...

Norfolk, VA

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


I don't need a physical explanation for you living in fantasy land. The event you're talking about never happened.

It wasn't turned to dust. There was a huge amount of debris that remained. Tons of it of course was destroyed, but I'm assuming you're not looking for a fully formed desk set here. If I'm able to provide photographic examples, will you promise to never say, "turned to dust" again?

Eric Hoffer

Yeah, good one Eric

If you cannot explain away melting of steel with office furnishings, resort to strawman.


Melting steel? Please, I'm "steel" looking for examples of melted steel (see what I did there?). I keep hearing about "rivers" of melted steel.

And no, "microspheres" left over from cutting torches on the scene don't count.

Please, show me the melted steel. I'm definitely excited to see it. Not incandescent. Not glowing. Molten. I want actual pure melted steel.

Eric Hoffer

Well, I already supplied that evidence.

I guess you were too busy being cute to read it? Look back through this thread and find it if you're really interested, Eric. Sigh...