The collapse of the Twin Towers

Most of us watched the live television on that dark day of September 11th 2001, and can remember what we saw quite vividly. Many of us saw the Twin World Trade towers falling in a quite dramatic fashion, the top part collapsing down into the lower parts amid a cloud of dust and falling debris until little was left except dust and debris covering little more than the footprint of where the building originally stood.

But is this plausible?

Imagine standing at the top of a 110 story building, and throwing a billiard ball off the roof. Imagine just how fast this ball would accelerate and fall. We can calculate that it would take around 10 ½ seconds to hit the pavement below.

Now imagine that, just as you threw that ball off the roof, the building started to collapse under your feet. Is it plausible that you would hit the pavement at the same time as that billiard ball dropping through air? The structure of the intact part of the building below would surely offer much resistance to the fall of the part of the building you were standing on. Even if it could not completely resist the top falling floors, it would still offer resistance, and so the laws of physics would dictate that this resistance alone would slow the falling floors from above. So for the top floors to collapse at the speeds of gravity, either the top floors must have had infinite mass & momentum, or the floors below offered zero resistance. The first scenario is impossible, so perhaps the second possibility applied?

Which building top would fall to the ground first?

Which 20 story building will fall to the ground first? Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed. On 9/11, the example on the left "collapsed" at virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall so that there was absolutely no resistance offered by the lower floors.

Try this little experiment. Watch the following film clip closely, and count how many times the white team passes the ball to each other. See if you can get it right first time.

Just how the could the lower floors have offered zero resistance?

The official explanation from the 911 Commission was that the impact of the aircraft followed by the high temperature of the ensuing fire weakened the steel in the building, which then just ‘pancacked’ down upon itself, pulverising all the steel and concrete as it collapsed. But steel doesn’t melt until extremely high temperatures are reached, far higher than ordinary burning jet fuel. Imagine the jet engines in the last aircraft you flew in, did the steel melt in that engine? Imagine throwing a steel bolt into a red hot glowing garden fire, did that bolt melt? To even weaken steel, extremely high temperatures are needed, and even weakened steel would offer more than zero resistance.

So what other factor could there have been?

Have you ever seen videos of buildings collapse at speeds approaching freefall? Well, yes, what about buildings being demolished through controlled demolitions?

But surely it takes many weeks of planning and preparation to set up and demolish a building using explosives. And this is, of course, the whole crux of the questions.

But surely witnesses near or in the buildings would have heard any explosions?

Good question, and indeed many did, but you don’t hear or see these news clips in the mainstream media anymore.

Surely if explosives were used there would be a huge amount of heat given off?

Well, yes, the clean up workers were experiencing pools of molten metal for several weeks after the buildings collapsed, now why was this?

But what could cause the metal to melt?

If it couldn't have been burning jet fuel, what could it have been? Maybe the friction and energy released as the buildings fell? Possibly, but would this have caused pools of molten metal to exist for weeks afterward? Or could it have been something else perhaps, something like 'Thermite' or its sister compound 'Thermate'? Who knows, but let the reader judge for him or herself...

Talk by MIT engineer/research scientist Jeff King.

MIT engineer Jeff King presents evidence that has led him to the conclusion that the twin towers and building seven were demolished in a controlled fashion on September 11 2001.

Lecture by architect Richard Gage.

This lecture has recently been given at the Canadian University of Manitoba by American architect Richard Gage, AIA, and provides a technical analysis of the World Trade Center controlled demolition on September 11, 2001

Click To Play
A full screen version can be found here

Is this an orange?

The power of human reasoning is strong. Watch the video below, is it an orange? Well, yes it is, because you know it's an orange, you've seen one, no doubt eaten one, so you're sure it is. But why don't people question what they know by association, just because they are told things through 'unquestionable' channels, such as the mainstream media, government sources and so forth...

A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition.