Among the most challenging tasks confronting 9/11 research is figuring
out how the Twin Towers were destroyed. I have long doubted that it
could have been done by thermite and conventional explosives, which
has been strengthened by recent collaborative research with a chemical
engineer. I have therefore encouraged the study of alternative modes
of destruction of the towers, which did not "collapse", including the use
of nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, and
directed energy weapons--land-based, air-based, or space-based--which
has led some to talk about "death rays from space" and the like. I do
NOT advocate "space beams" as such, but I ADVOCATE THE STUDY
of alternative theories of how this may have been done and welcome
sincere contributions but participants here who share this objective.
I continue to feature guests to discuss how it was done--since we still
do not know--on "The Real Deal", where my recent guests have made
arguments for (new generation) mini-nukes, for Tesla-style devices, and
other options. They can be found at the archives for the program, which
are at radiofetzer.blogspot.com...
. I have also long insisted understand-
ing the physics of the "collapse" of the Twin Towers does not require an
understanding beyond 10th grade physics. A former high-school teacher
(of physics and chemistry), Chuck has produces multiple lines of proof
that the Twin Towers simply could not have collapsed. The support of
the lower floors upward was on the order of 1/199, where there was more
than 199 times as much upward support as there was downward pressure,
a nice complement to John Skilling's remark that the buildings could carry
more than 20 times their expected live loads (dead loads plus occupancy).
One of the most interesting points that Chuck makes, which you can hear
in the archives, by the way, is that, since it is supposed to be the mass
(weight) of the upper portions of the buildings (the top 16 floors of the
North Tower and the top 30 of the South), which is officially alleged to
have brought about their "collapse". Indeed, the relative weight of the
upper portion of the North Tower in relation to the lower floors is on the
order of 1.8% as opposed to 98.2%. Recall it is the alleged plane strikes
hit around the 96th floor of the North and the 80th of the South, where
the fires allegedly weakened or melted the steel, causing those sections
to "collapse" onto the rest). But since the top 30 floors of the South
Tower tilted over and started to fall as an intact segment (before it
turned into very fine dust in space), it was no longer physically there
to exert downward force and contribute to a "collapse". Considerations
like these only affect those who actually rely upon logic and evidence.
For an overview of my position and slides of most of the evidence that
I discuss below, watch my Powerpoint presentation from Buenos Aires:
"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
For the big picture on the gross observable evidence that invalidates
theories that they buildings were brought down by any kind of collapse:
"New 9/11 Photographs Released"
AN ANALYSIS OF THE WTC ON 9/11
Critics like to attribute to me positions that I do not actually hold. While I
encourage research on unconventional weaponry, including nukes, lasers,
masesrs, and plasmoids, I haven't reached any conclusion about which is
the more likely. Certainly, nothing in any of the posts of my critics has
convince me that I am wrong about this, but then they seem to be more
directed against positions that I don't hold than those that I do. Some of
those I encourage studying are highly controversial but are intellectually
stimulating and worth studying. Judy Wood, Ph.D., a former professor
of mechanical engineering, for example, uses words like "dustification" to
guard against taking for granted that what we are seeing is familiar and
fits within our existing conceptual scheme, which is a very sophisticated
move, intellectually. For your consideration, here's an analysis of the World
Trade Center that reflects the extent to which I have reached conclusions.
Given all the misrepresentations, this more than just for the record. While
I have no illusions that those attacking me are going to "clean up their act"
and discuss my actual positions, I am optimistic that some of those here
will be able to advance my understanding of these issues based on their
own background and expertise. I don't claim that I am right on all counts,
but it is extremely unlikely that I am wrong about the general situation,
which is supported by physicists, structural and mechanical engineers and
others experts. I assume that some kinds of conventional explosives were
used in the Twin Towers, but I doubt that they--even when combined with
thermite/thermate--can explain the evidence from their destruction. But
I am open to discussion and invite reasoned arguments both pro and con.
The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and
WTC-7 are rather substantial, include the following characteristics:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7
. . . Sequence: . . . . . . Top down . / . Bottom up
. . . Floor motion: . . Stationary . / Falling together
. . . Mechanism: . . Pulverization* / Controlled Demolition
. . . Time/Speed: . . About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall)
. . . Remnants: . . . . No pancakes . . / . Pancakes
. . . . . . . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors)
They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.
On WTC-7, watch YouTube: "This is an Orange"
On the Twin Towers, see: "9/11: Towers of Dust"
Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.
. . . Debris motion: . Upward & . / . Remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outward . . . . . Intact
. . . Key Difference: . Explosion . / . Implosion
If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.
For a still series, see "New 9/11 Photos Released"
The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.
* NOTE: One commentator has suggested the "pulverization" conveys
the impression that the process was mechanical, when it might have
been chemical, nuclear, electro-magnetic, or something else indeed.
We still do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and other
odd kinds of damage were done to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-
6, not to mention the "toasted cars". It poses a scientific challenge.
I want to provide an outline below why I believe that unconventional
mechanisms must have been involved in the destruction of the towers.
The possibilities fall into several rather broad categories, some of which
are more for the sake of completeness than they are serious options.
(h1) Natural Causes: hurricane, tornado, earthquake
~(h1) The damage was isolated to a specific area of Manhattan, as
though only buildings with "WTC" designations were targeted.
These are not the kinds of effects brought about by nature.
(h2) Aircraft & Fires: plane crashes caused fires, weakened the
steel, and led to the initiation of a pancake collapse.
~(h2) The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to even
weaken much less melt the steel. The conditions to cause
a "collapse initiation" were not present. A non-starter.
(h3) Conventional plus thermite/thermate: the buildings had been
preped for demolition and the crashes were mere distractions.
(h3) Conventional plus thermite/thermate: the buildings had been
preped for demolition and the crashes were mere distractions.
~(h3) The steel and concrete structures--estimated to weigh in at
around 500,000 tons apiece--were largely turned into huge
clouds of very fine dust. This does not appear to be the
probable outcome of conventional explosives, with or with-
out thermite/thermate. Many features of the destruction
appear to contradict this very popular theory of the case:
(e1) the buildings were destroyed below ground level;
(e2) some footage shows spires turning to fine dust;
(e3) WTC-6 has a block of mass missing from its core;
(e4) WTC-5 has many "cookie cutter" forms of damage;
(e5) WTC-4 remains half present, half completely gone;
(e6) WTC-3 has a massive gash through most of the building;
(e7) there are thousands of "toasted cars" near and far;
(e8) some are wilted and look very much like wet rags;
(e9) many have engine blocks destroyed but are otherwise
(e10) tons upon tons of paper were not destroyed thereby; and,
(e11) there appear to have been no "massive pools of molten
(e11a) around 11 million gallons of water were poured on
(e11b) if there had been massive pools of molten metal,
there should have been enormous steam explosions;
(e11c) there were no massive steam explosions, which means
either 11 million gallons of water were not poured
on Ground Zero or there were not massive pools of
molten metal, but the water was poured on the site;
(e11d) several photographs alleged to support the existence
of massive pools of molten metal are phony or faked;
(e11d1) the responders peering into the cavern of
molten metal cannot possibly be authentic;
(elld2) the photo of the grappler handling a glow-
ing piece of steel cannot be authentic;
(elld3) the stream of molten metal from the 80th
floor is suspect on several grounds:
(e11d3a) it sometime appears emanating
from one location, sometimes
(e11d3b) it appear to be a unique effect,
suggesting that it was caused by
something distinctive about that
floor owned by the Fuji Bank;
(e11d3c) if it were caused by thermite/
thermate, then presumably since
that must have been distributed
throughout the buildings, streams
of this kind should be evident in
a more or less random pattern,
but that is not the case.
(e11d4) photos of the subbasement level of WTC-1
show pools of water that are not bubbling
and workers walking with seeming impunity;
(e11d5) other photos show workers enveloped in a
kind of mist, which, were it steam, would
have scalded them and possibly killed them;
(e11d6) geothermal maps for 23 September 2002 show
a dramatic subsiding of "hot spots" in com-
parison with thermal maps for 16 September.
These reasons have convinced me that (h3) is most unlikely to be true, even
in its latest "nano-thermite" variation. I therefore believe that we have
to look elsewhere for an adequate explanation of the available evidence, in
particular, that we have to consider various kinds of high-tech weaponry.
(h4) mini-nukes: 3rd or 4th generation, hydrogen bombs, etc.
~(h4) It is not apparent to me how (h4) can account for most of the same
effects that undermine (h3), from (e1) through (e11). One of the
most important contraindications of intense heat--which would have
accompanied the use of thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is the vast
quantities of paper that survived undamaged, unburned, and intact.
My rejection of nukes is actually tentative. I interviewed Demitri Khalezov
on "The Real Deal" on Friday, 21 January 2011, and Charles Boldwyn and
I discussed his theory and several others on Wednesday, 9 February 2011.
Both are among the most recent archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com...
(h5) plasmoids: gases that appear to have advantages over thermite:
. . . . . . Data: . . . too many too tiny . . pyroclastic . . . fires burned for
. . . . . . . . . . . . . particles in dust . . . dust clouds . . . some 99 days
. . . . . . Plasma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . despite
. . . . . . (tens of . . . . molecular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . constant
. . . . . thousands . . . dissociation . . . . unavoidable . . . . . dousing
. . . . . of degrees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . with water
. . . . . Thermite . . . . unknown
. . . . . (thousands . . . pulverization . . unaccounted . . . . unaccounted
. . . . . of degrees . . . mechanism . . . . . . . . for . . . . . . . . . for
~(h5) both thermite/thermate and plasma would have produced vast pools
of molten metal, which do not appear to have been present at the
scene by (e11) above. Plus how could the paper have survived?
Whatever mechanism was involved appears to have induced molecular
dissociation. What was mistaken for smoke appears to have been a
kind of "misting" as a part of the residue from molecular dissociation.
That WTC-7 has already been rebuilt but the site of the Twin Towers
remains dormant suggest that it may be difficult or even impossible
to rebuild, given the residual effects of molecular dissociation.
(h6) directed energy weapons: lasers, masers, or something like them
Here I must admit that, as a philosopher, I am at the borderline of my
competence to resolve the matter. I have repeatedly explained why I
do not believe that (h1) through (h3) can be correct. Here I go a bit
further and explain why (h4) and (h5) also appear implausible to me. I
am convinced that molecular dissociation took place, but I confess that
I am not presently able to discriminate between alternative mechanisms
for bringing that about. I presume future studies will resolve this. Any
adequate explanation must account for the evidence enumerated here,
including turning these buildings into millions of cubic yards of very
fine dust, the selective destruction of the buildings and the "toasted
cars", and the survival of enormous quantities of paper! These facts,
in my view, undermine (h3) and tend to undermine (h4) and (h5). What
seems to be required are devices that could focus on parts of buildings
and selectively destroy components of vehicles without also destroying
the rest of those buildings or the other components of those vehicles.
I am indebted to Judy Wood for explaining most of the arguments that I
have made here during extended interviews and conversations we have had
in the past. I encourage everyone who wants to better understand the
evidence supporting my position to visit her site, drjudywood.com...
and to obtain the DVD from the Madison Conference, "The Science and
Politics of 9/11", which includes a masterful presentation by her and
the commentary by a member of the audience who holds a Ph.D. in theo-
retical physics that she is now convinced that masers had to be used.
Even Sir Karl Popper has adopted modesty in comparison with the work
of physicists, chemists, and others who unpack the laws of nature by
means of their research. I can only say that, based upon my review
of the evidence I have presented here, I am convinced that whatever
happened to the WTC, it cannot be adequately explained on the basis
of conventional explosives with or without thermite/thermate. The
latest appeals to nano-thermite, moreover, do not appear promising
to account for the effects that I have enumerated above in the form
of (e1) through (e11). But I am willing to consider alternatives.
Elaborating on (e11d1), (e11d2), and (e11d3): The photo of workers
peering into the glowing cavern would imply that the temperature there
was around 3,000*F! Would you even place your face of the spout of a
teapot when it starts to whistle? And that's only a bit above 212*F.
The point about the grappler is that the hydraulics do not work at tem-
peratures far, far below the temperatures transmitted by glowing steel.
They are quite modest, around 350*F, as I recall. But you can check
out Judy's site for the exact figures. You really should visit there.
The point about the stream of molten metal from the 80th floor is that,
if it really was caused by thermite or thermate and thermite or thermate
or nano-thermite was the principal cause of the destruction of the towers,
then we should have these streams flowing all over the place at random.
edit on 12-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason