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:)

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

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.

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

Comment viewing options

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

That's the beauty of steel

That's the beauty of steel (and concrete) buddy, you can do that kind of thing, you know. Wood frames, not so much and not so high

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

fireant's picture

I agree. Even though they were considered very large spans for

steel, they would hold up just fine and tie the building support together. What was not anticipated was all the contents of the upper section emptying out into the towers all at once. Sandwiched trusses with L brackets just couldn't hold up. If they were lapped cross members, might have been a different story.

Undo what Wilson did

Hmmm is that what you think.?

Hmmm is that what you think.? Pretty smart for a retired bus driver in the sky! (NOT)

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

sharkhearted's picture

CORRECTED FACT: Some steel frame buildings have...

...PARTIALLY collapsed...due to fire.

(That is all your links show, fireant. Partial, ASYMMETRIC collapses).

FACT: No HIGHRISE in the history of high rise construction has ever collapsed INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT...and at near FREEFALL SPEED...due to fire, plane crashes, or any other reason....except under controlled demolition.

The planes damaged the buildings asymmetrically. Asymmetric damage would mean an asymmetric or partial collapse.

It is not possible to have asymmetric damage...and then get near perfect, SYMMETRIC collapses.

Can NOT happen. Scientifically and physically IMPOSSIBLE.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

Finally.

Let's take them one at a time.

Some of those examples were in fact total.

Since Windsor clearly collapsed only on the portion which was raw steel, not yet encased in concrete, and the concrete encased portion did not collapse, we can reasonably assume the entire structure would have collapsed had it not been concrete encased. It can be said the entire raw steel portion collapsed. Undeniable. The question remains. Why would your sources omit this fact?

If the Twin Towers "collapsed due to fire", they would have only partially collapsed due to fire, that being initiation, the remainder being gravity.

I agree it is not possible to have asymmetrical damage and a symmetrical collapse. Not when dealing with two reasonably solid masses. It can't happen. The fact is, both tops of the towers did collapse asymmetrically. It wasn't until the lower portions collapsed that we saw symmetry. Why? The easy answer is explosives. I just can't figure how the tops halted their arcing tilt and collapsed straight down because of explosives. There would have to have been the equivalent of space shuttle engines for thrust to counter that falling mass. The mass was in motion and abruptly halted, before it seemed to explode. There is no explosive placed on the inside capable of that. On the other hand, the core columns still being attached would perfectly explain it.
And here is another fact. The vertical structure of the lower towers did not collapse, or relinquish their vertical supporting function. That is evident in all the video. Much of the core was still standing, and the side walls were ejected laterally. The only resistance was the floors, supported by lightweight joists mounted to the core and the walls with a small "L" bracket, and they spanned 60 feet in two directions. If you figure the square footage of what is known as the "core area" (a rectangle defined by the core column placement), it's only about 27% of the entire floor space. If you figure only the diameters of the columns, you're talking a very tiny potion of the interior square footage. But let's use the 27% to be fair. I'll even throw in 3 to round it out and say 30%. That means 70% of the square footage had no vertical support. The only support in those areas were small brackets you can hold in your hand attached to side plates; no overlapping beams. That's all the resistance there was to the mass of all the upper portion contents crashing and churning into it. There was no vertical support resistance in 70% of the square footage. The collapse of the lower portion was not a collapse of the vertical structures. It was an internal collapse, and completely different from the upper portion collapses. This would explain why the lower towers collapsed symmetrically while the upper towers collapsed asymmetrically.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Rebuttal #3

"The fact is, both tops of the towers did collapse asymmetrically. It wasn't until the lower portions collapsed that we saw symmetry. Why? The easy answer is explosives. I just can't figure how the tops halted their arcing tilt and collapsed straight down because of explosives."

How? I'll tell you how. Thermitic cutter charges.

Only the South tower started asymmetrically, because you could see the corner perimeter columns of the south tower's northeastern corner, being melted by thermite (that is the only thing that can melt steel), at exactly where the south tower started to fail, asymmetrically.

That asymmetric block did indeed start to gain angular momentum as it should (SHOULD) have toppled over and crash to the ground, asymmetrically, to the side.

But it did not. Why? Why did all that angular momentum seem to defy physics and be neutralized in mid air??

Because the block was blown to bits.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

That is a laugh.

Please explain to me how thermate cutter charges could alter the direction of the tilting mass of the tops. If cutter charges were going off they would still be on the arc of trajectory; not stopping dead in the water. Remember; they came apart after they halted their motion.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

You don't have the slightest understanding of physics.

The angular momentum of the large rotating upper block of the south tower was neutralized before it toppled over to the ground, because the block was blown to bits in mid air.

Where the large block which has a HUGE mass that could hurdle asymmetrically off the side of the building to the ground, the billions of pulverized particles it was turned into, all had very SMALL masses.

So the angular momentum was gone, and the heavier particles followed gravity, and the lighter ones, the air currents.

Thermite produces a LOT of heat, like about 4300 degrees....more than enough to wilt or even vaporize the steel portion of the structure.

If you can't understand that, then you are beyond the ability to comprehend.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

Your are in error. The top stopped it's momentum PRIOR to it's

disintegration. This video shows it pretty well. There are better one's, and I'll post when I find them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ&feature=related

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

No it did not. Are you blind??

You are splitting hairs on this one. The angular momentum faded away in a matter of seconds.

High grade thrermitic explosives rely not on blast energy but heat energy and they do their damage almost instantaneously.

Well, at least you have admitted to its disintegration in mid air.

So...what is your explanation?

How does a mass of building the size of a 28 story skyscraper, suddenly turn into small particles in the matter of a couple of seconds??

How??

Here is how it happened.

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

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

Easy, if you remove all prejudice and look with your own eyes.

The entire upper portions, particularly the North Tower, were heated to the cusp of flame. Most of it was smoldering; the entire cube was an oven, trapping the heat. The expansion factor alone would have weakened the joints, esp spot welds. When collapse commenced, and since the cores were still in part connected, the upper floors would have been dislodged further by the movement of the core, spilling, if you will, all the contents of the upper section into the lower section.

The angular momentum abruptly halted in a fraction of a second. It's hard to see, but it clearly stopped it's tilting fall prior to it's disintegration; both towers. Explosions going off would not have stopped that angular momentum until the cube actually exploded, and it was still a cube when it stopped. The attached portion of the core is the only thing which could have stopped it.

But again, even if I'm wrong about everything, as you claim, show me the structural evidence. The beams in the tops that were cut up with thermate would most likely have ended up some where on top of the pile. Surely you can find just one? There's tons of raw video now and lot's of photos too.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

So...who is paying you?

You don't know what the f-u-c-k you are talking about but you are crafty I will give you that.

You didn't even know a few hours ago...what angular momentum is...and are only rehashing it after you have rehashed it from my posts.

So....who is paying you?

Why are you here?

Why are you trying so hard to prove the government's official account, which is an obvious lie?

Don't worry. Lies can't last forever.

I know that is what your overlords might convince you to believe...that lies can become reality...but no, sadly for you, that is not the case.

And their lies are destined to wear off. They have to.

Truth...is not relative. It does not survive on spin and disinformation and propaganda.

It just is...regardless of what you or I think about it.

So...I ask the same question again...why are you trying so hard to prove the government's official account, even after it has disproved itself as a complete lie and fraud?

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

And you can surely show me where I ever claimed to support

any official government story. Show me. I've never said nor insinuated any such thing.
The real question sir is why you are so hell bent on it being demolition. Why is that so important to YOU?
And by the way, if you can point me to someone who would pay me for this, please do. My only motive is to honor Ron Paul's legacy of integrity. I will not have you coming to a site with his name and making claims for it to not be possible those buildings fell as we saw. You cannot prove that, and you know darned well how central this one event is in formulating world view. I have shown it indeed possible. There is a way it could have happened other than demolition. That is all I have said. Nothing more.
Did you ever stop to consider someone may be leading you to promote demolition for a reason? Maybe to divert from the real crime? Huh? Didya?

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Rebuttal #2

"If the Twin Towers "collapsed due to fire", they would have only partially collapsed due to fire, that being initiation, the remainder being gravity."

Did "gravity" turn all of the office FF&E, walls and doors, the massive mechanical systems, and the 92,000 tons of concrete in each building, into dust, where there were no recognizable items in the rubble, not even a desk or a phone?

Did "gravity" eject huge steel beams into buildings, laterally? (Gravity pulls down, doesn't eject things out!)

Did "gravity" leave pools of molten metal in the rubble?

Did "gravity" cause all of the numerous secondary explosions that were heard by 100s of firemen, police and civilians?

Did "gravity" create huge pyroclastic clouds during the "collapses" similar to volcanic eruptions that can only physically occur where EXTREME heat is being released?

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

I know you have already decided it was explosives, so I know

you will not be able to get your mind around this, but yes, gravity most certainly could have caused beam ejection and the pulverization of matter.
Take a simple plastic knife or fork and stand it on end with your finger on a surface which offers resistance. Push down, and the knife will bend then spring to the side the moment your finger is a little off center. The steel beams could have reacted similarly. The evidence suggests they did just that, seeing as how there are no cut beams in the debris piles, only dismembered beams at their connections.

Try to visualize all the contents of the upper floors, massive chunks of hot concrete, steel beams, all the offices and cables and equipment, pouring into the lower tower at one time, creating a jumbled mega meat grinder, and super heated at that. Yes, I can imagine pulverization would take place.

Yes, I can imagine tremendous heat was generated with all that friction, enough to generate the dust laden pyroclastic clouds.

Secondary explosions and molten metal in the basement are inconclusive. You do realize the parking lot with all the burnt cars was burning prior to either collapse? That wouldn't explain all the reported explosions, I'm not claiming that. Exploding tires around the corner out of sight amidst all that confusion could explain some however. There are some many possibilities for the others it's just not sometning either of us can explain with certainty. The molten metal too. Aluminm only requires about 1200 F to melt. Mixed with impurities, that could be what the firemen saw. We don't know, do we?
It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It does remain on the table as a factor.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Your responses here are so ridiculous I will not even

..waste my time trying to have an honest debate with you anymore.

I would love to see you creamed in a debate with all the architects, engineers, and physicists. They would laugh you off the stage.

You are a disinformation artist, fireant, I will give you that. Who is paying you?

And molten aluminum is SILVER, not glowing and incandescent!!!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

And you really think aluminum would be in a pure state in all

that mess?
I would have no problem with any debate with your so called architects and engineers. If the building were cut apart with thermate, the beams in the debris pile would confirm that fact. Your boys haven't even looked. If they have, they haven't reported their findings. You call that science or an investigation? Show me the structural proof. If you can't, change or delete this thread.
All structural evidence indicates the buildings came apart at their connections. There is no structural evidence of cutter charges in the debris piles

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Silver aluminum was not seen dripping out of the south tower

It was incandescent, and either molten iron or steel, and both by-prodcuts of thermite.

Yet the NIST report said it was "aluminum from the airplane".

And they ["your boys"] are not "so-called" architects and engineers. They are some of the finest in their fields.

The beams of the debris pile (the ones that were kept)....remember 99.7% of the evidence was destroyed...show massive corrosion and deformation, and where some had holes like swiss cheese.

There are many peer reviewed papers for you to digest on the subject here...page down past the videos and documentaries.

http://ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

No, I will not delete this thread. This is not going to go away. I can promise you that.

Please show me the "structural evidence" that indicates the buildings came apart at their connections?

And please tell me, if they just came apart, why there is nothing...not a desk, a telephone, a body, left?

And also...modern demolition shaped charges and especially thermite charges.. leave behind no evidence whatsoever. Nothing.

So... are you a sorry (and not very effective) paid disinformation agent for the government??

Why are you so trying to prove the government's official (fraudulent) story??

Its not working. Houston...you have a problem.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

I am aware of a very few pieces showing eutectic corrosion.

It is definitely a red flag, but not conclusive. The splotchy holes could be a sign of prior corrosion; not outside the realm of possibility considering there was no barrier between the aluminum cladding and steel siding (don't overlook that clue!). The enigma is if that were a sign of thermate (not saying it isn't), there would be more than just a few pieces, and we would see cut members.

Regarding the evidence, we have extensive video and photographic evidence now with recently released raw footage. With that and all the photos, we can find some cut beams. ASCE culled through all the debris for six months before it was recycled taking samples. They didn't find any cut beams. They did find a few anomalies, but they found an overwhelming amount of shearing. If you are suggesting shaped charges were used on the bolts and welds, I suppose that is within the realm of possibility. The standing core, however, does not support that theory.

Regarding AE, they are deliberately misleading about 7WTC. Once I woke up to that fact, I lost all respect for them. And you'd think an architect would be able to figure the cores likely did not sever completely prior to collapse. Those are unforgivable sins of omission, especially considering the gravity of this matter.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

Rebuttal #1

"Some of those examples were in fact total."

Show me. Which ones? Which ones failed 100% into their own footprint at near free-fall acceleration?

"Since Windsor clearly collapsed only on the portion which was raw steel, not yet encased in concrete, and the concrete encased portion did not collapse, we can reasonably assume the entire structure would have collapsed had it not been concrete encased. It can be said the entire raw steel portion collapsed. Undeniable. The question remains. Why would your sources omit this fact?"

Reasonably assume? In your make-believe fairy world of pseudo-physics, maybe.
Steel, " raw" as you call it, or not, does not melt or bend in any "collapse", ever, unless thermitic cutter charges are used.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

That was not the premise.

I stopped reading at "free fall into their own footprint". The topic is collapsing due to fire. It is your sources who make the claim no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire in order to help make their case. That was the only issue addressed in the fact I presented. Steel frame buildings have in fact collapsed due to fire.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

No. The topic is the false claim you made about what they said.

You are conflating a claim that AE911 truth scientists ...have never made.

Nobody has EVER claimed that there have not been partial collapses.

They always made it clear that no high-rise has ever collapsed into its own footprint at near freefall acceleration...except by CONTROLLED demolition.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

And they never point out no buildings of such design have ever

existed, let alone have large jets ram them at high altitude cruise speed. Do they?
And you are wrong. They always add that "due to fire" factor in there, as you omitted.

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

The buildings did not collapse from the jet impacts, did they?

And AE911truth engineers a have said that steel HIGHRISE structures have never TOTALLY "collapsed" because of fire...into their own footprints.

THAT is what they said has never happened.

(I accidentally left the fire part out above).

Those partial collapses, with Windsor being the best example, are ASYMMETRICAL.

Asymmetrical damage yields asymmetrical collapses.

What is the only thing that can cause a symmetrical collapse?

Symmetry in destruction...and that can only be done with CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

No that's not the only thing that can cause it. Changing the

nature of the matter can. The nature of the matter in the tops changed from a solid into a jumbled mass of broken debris and a shell that could no longer hold it's shape. The upper collapse was completely different in nature from the lower collapse. Totally. They were two separate events. The asymmetry adhered to it's rule until the falling solid mass was no longer (except for the halting of the tilt).

Undo what Wilson did

sharkhearted's picture

UH HUH. And what caused the disintegration of the upper block?

Did it just magically go POOF in midair?

What happened?

Did you wave your wand?

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

fireant's picture

The sides broke up and fell to the ground. The videos show it

clearly. There was nothing holding them together at that time. The inner framework was gone. Air and heat pressure probably helped it along. All the siding came apart at their connections, and there was no sign of thermate going off to make it do that. The siding connections up and down the entire buildings are right there on the side in plain sight. Thermate there would have been seen all over the place, but they came apart; at their connections.

Undo what Wilson did

Heat pressure from what? The raging Fires!?!

The fire were almost out. The fire dept. said there were two small fires that would take a short time to put out before the first building fell.
Dam it fireant why do you keep sucking me into this conversation on the Daily Paul!
And yes there is evidence of thermite. There are iron and sulfur micro spheres and molten metal in the basements. I have talked about the molten metal in the basements already with you. Do you consider that a factor that can be ignored???

Like I said before.

Why don't you listen to the experts on this matter. Unless you are an architect or an engineer. Are you??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/...

Demolition expert have come out to say that this is no doubt controlled demolition. What more do you want man?!?!?

What about wtc 7

That one looked symmetrical. Core columns than the rest on the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA