world trade center collapse


The more one reads about the World Trade Center collapse, the more skeptical they should become of the “official” account. Given the lack of any remaining "hard" evidence, the following presentation is speculation, but well worth reading and thinking about.


Because the investigators at the WTC site were hampered to the maximum, documentation efforts were equally hampered; and the debris was too quickly – and profitably - disposed of; overseas.

Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of ANY steel-framed building, allegedly from fire. BUT – there were three such occurrences; not just one. The third building, Seven World Trade Center (7-WTC), was not hit by an aircraft loaded with jet fuel. Its collapse wasn't accompanied by a fireball, representing the alleged tank of diesel fuel burning or exploding - (which it didn't). That’s asking too much from ‘coincidence,’ just by virtue of two separate architectural styles; within an eight-hour period of time. Most spectacularly, no ‘official’ questions were asked.


COVERUP is the unique legacy of ALL of the 9-11 events, as is true of subsequent events. That leaves the obvious question, ”SO, what’s being covered up? The planes hit the buildings, they burned & collapsed. What’s the big deal?”

One may be sure that such is the intended question. Few even give any thought to 7-WTC; at all.

The book, “Painful Questions,” - Eric Hufschmid - centers on the flaws in the “official” accounts of 9-11. The color illustrations and the photographs are worth the price of the book. Those illustrations quickly betray the fact that something is very badly wrong in the “official” account of the WTC collapse. Obviously, that's nothing new, when it comes to anything associated with 9-11.

One must first go to the reports and descriptions of the molten steel at the base of all three buildings, including 7-WTC. It is also necesary to go to the assumption that the accounts are factual; as, there have been no denials - and certainly no investigations, relative to the reports. Those reports are too strange to ignore; particularly given the associated thermal imagery of the post-collapse WTC site. Those reports are not limited to a single individual, or any “group.” The ‘pools of molten steel’ descriptions quickly lead the military mindset to something on the order of massive Thermite charges. Try to imagine that the mechanical energy of the collapse could "melt and pool" any steel. Forget it! Bending steel with horrendous energy is one thing, melting it is another. For those uninformed, Thermite charges can be either ‘passive’ (melt-down only) or dynamic, in the form of “shape charges.”

Certainly, such would be a major undertaking; there's no argument available on that point. Forty-seven center-core steel columns (or a high percentage) would have to be rigged. But, just the obvious and well-documented “official” deceptions of 9-11 were massive undertakings. Thus, the term ‘impossible’ is not particularly appropriate, here.

Steel will do all kinds of “tricks,” but melting requires the basic melting temperature – or greater. To obtain the melting temperature for steel - not iron - one needs the external temperature of approximately 2,900 degrees (F) with enough time for the metal to convert from a solid to a liquid. The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher temperature – such as Thermite – approximately 5,400 degrees (F). That's almost twice the needed heat. All the pooled jet fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel - under any conditions.

Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.'

Or, if one cares to argue that the core structure was acting as a chimney, it is necessary to realize than any catastrophic temperatures which "chimneyed" would have caused the contents of the upper floors to burn violently - which is not seen in the images, versus the white smoke, indicating a relatively cool temperature.

While one is given to concluding that the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts, it must be noted that the WTC towers had three independent elevator levels, with only one elevator shaft going to the top. Thus, the ONLY other top-to-bottom avenue for central destruction were the 47 core steel columns. If there were "inspection ports," or with a few holes cut in the core columns, the necessary charges could be lowered into place.

The Naudet Brothers videotape/DVD demonstrates the lack of any lobby smoke to suggest any amount of jet fuel pouring down the single elevator shaft & burning. That only leaves the possibility of demolition charges. The antenna starting down first was second only to the blonde, in the FEMA report, standing in the impact hole. The fires were obviously too cool to collapse the towers, let alone abruptly.

A few sentences in the FEMA report [Chapter 2] add to the 'mystery' of the collapse:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

Thus, one quickly has to assume that the buildings were designed to NOT collapse from 'normal' fire temperatures and return to the question of the reality behind not only a collapse, but a very rapid collapse.

Look to the photo below. (Also used in the FEMA report.) In the center of the impact hole (look very closely) there is a blonde standing there, leaning to the right. Thus, one must contemplate just how cool the pre-collapse temperatures were, at the impact - and presumeably the hottest - point.

If one wishes to argue "controlled demolition," then it is necessary to address explosives - yea or nay. The WTC collapses do not leave a prominent audio legacy suggesting explosives. Note the use of the term "prominent." There are arguments claiming that expolsions did occur. If so, they were incredibly controlled; that's not to rate the issue as being 'impossible.' Still, where one would anticipate such explosions as factual, it is reasonable to expect at least a radio report of explosions, among the last transmissions of the firefighters who were trapped in the buildings.

To be fair, those communications got quite a lid clamped upon them, as well. So, what is true, in this picture?

One Web site does offer imagery suggesting demolition "squibs" going off, however, the imagery hasn't been authenticated to a highly acceptable degree. That's not to suggest that the imagery should be ignored. If factual, it does tell a terrible tale.

It should be noted that the explosions of any demolition "squibs" would be disguised in the noise of the collapse.

Lacking reports of prominent explosions, thus far, the ultimate key in the matter is the reports of the "pools of molten steel." The issue being that between the molten steel reports and the relative silence, Thermite is the next best candidate for sabotage. It is vitally important to realize that if the metal had been heated by ANY conventional fuel, it would – by the dictates of physics - have to be heated from below - ONLY! Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees - insufficient to actually MELT steel. Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down. The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed.

We may be certain that - in the best case scenario - the jet fuel didn't find a "magical" equivalent of a burner mechanism or "Blast Furnace," BELOW the steel. Hence, a device on the order of a Thermite charge is the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION as to how the molten metal could be found at the bottom of the debris, as opposed to being melted OVER or AMONG the debris.

Anyone who has seen a military Thermite grenade melt through the block of a jeep engine - in approximately ten seconds - will attest to the melting properties of Thermite.

ONCE AGAIN – in the bizarre legacy of 9-11 - No questions were asked!

Too many sources acknowledge the molten steel. However, the major mystery is that some incredible and enduring temperatures were recorded, for approximately a week after the collapse. So far, there is little to account for such reports.

The laws of physics tell the ultimate tale. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth!" - Doyle

The center-section supporting structure of the buildings broke apart as it collapsed. Therefore, an argument for ‘mechanical energy transmission’ doesn’t hold up. It’s not the same as hitting a nail with a sledge-hammer. A ‘shattering’ sledge-hammer would not carry the force to strike, deform and ‘heat’ a nail. In other words, the force of the collapse couldn't/didn't melt the bases of the core columns.  

Put this URL in your search engine, noting the 2 occurences of "cutter" jets - shooting to the right - of a classic contolled demolition -

The south WTC tower is most representative of the collapses. Remember that it lost it's “cap”-

- therefore the energy from the structure above would – in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure, below. In theory, the “cap” should have torn loose and independently fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue - vertically. The “cap” tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed – "in formation” - with the rest of the structure. The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself. The 'center of gravity' of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground! The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt of the "cap."

If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the “cap” should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to “pancake;” as was witnessed. It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!

With the outer walls being vertically self-supporting, any interior dynamics (action) would be hidden from view. Remember that the shattering of the outer walls progressively followed the collapse of the building core.  

It is worth noting that there was an expected delay in the core collapse, as evidenced by the videotapes and pictures illustrating heavy free-falling external debris gaining a slight lead on the building collapse.

The basic mechanics of the collapses offer another major clue - BOTH buildings were damaged so as to create a segmented "cap." Yet with a radical difference between the mass (size) of the "caps," both towers collapsed - identically!

In the extreme, the individual floor "plates" might have been able to let go (“peeling” from around the columns and the outer walls), but - as a minimum - the lower (ground level) segments of the heavy steel inner columns should have been left standing, somewhat vertically, like stray swizzle-sticks. Yet, clearly something major also happened at the very base of the building - a search warrant is required to find the strongest vertical components in the structure - but not so with the weakest!

Given that the lower columns were radically thicker steel, and obviously stronger, some of the columns should have still been standing – in some significant number. Yet, from the post-collapse photographs, the outer walls appeared to be the strongest vertical sections; which they were not. Yet, the lower outer walls were left standing; not the more massive “core” columns. The magnitude of both vertical and lateral forces - even considering location - doesn't make sense; not even in the context of 'chaos.'

It IS certain that not all of the columns collapsed at their base, evidenced just by the blessed group of survivors caught in the remains of the sole-surviving stairwell.

While there are pictures to show "stubs" of some core columns, the numbers of the core columns are few.

Depending on the size descriptions of the “molten steel,” available, the suggestion goes to the idea that there might have been 'over-kill' Thermite charges at the very bottom, guaranteeing the total vertical collapse. Strictly as a guess, one might estimate an eight-foot section abruptly melted down – or was taken down by Thermite “shape charges.”

In the videos & pictures of the collapsing segments, it is clear that the lower windows were exploding significantly below the collapsing section above. That would be a “plunger” effect, expelling the air as the core collapsed - independently of the outer shell. In simple terms, those images represent the differential between gravity accelerating the core, versus the outer walls, resisting collapse, with their independent vertical support. As the core collapsed, the outer shell segments let go from the lateral forces, which they were not stressed for. The images also demonstrate the unique force concentrations in TWO events - not just one; with a third such collapse to follow; 7-WTC.

Let's digress a moment to reflect on the "official" position. Remember those "heated and deformed bolts," which we're to believe gave way, almost simultaneously? In chapter two of the FEMA report, it is revealed that the bolts of the "weakened" floor beams were lateral (sideways) supports; not vertical. The vertical support plates (L-shamed "hanger brackets") for the floor joists were welded!

By inference, we are to believe that the 'corner' bolts (heavier insulation with greater adhesion) ALL lost their thermal insulation, that no heat was radiated away by the steel-on-steel contact and that no significant volume of heat was ventilated out through the shattered windows - along with all that smoke. The "manufactured presumption" is that the heat totally accumulated to produce the cited temperatures - not from burning jet fuel, per FEMA - but from burning furniture, interior finish materials and paper! With all that 'contained' heat, the cooler outer steel walls are supposed to have heated and expanded sideways - independently of the heated & expanded steel floor joists! - That's not how fire physics operate.

FEMA also glosses over another detail - the analysis/emphasis should have been on the stronger MAIN floor trusses, not the "transverse" (90-degrees to the main joists) floor joists. The floors were supported by an "x-y" grid of vertical supports, not a single row of trusses - as otherwise suggested.

The reality is that the expansion of the heated/expanded floor trusses and joists would have added strength, not taken it away! The heated floor structural elements would have 'snugged-up' to the cooler outer walls. The outer walls [cooled by external convective air currents], being vertically channeled, would not have "expanded-away" from the steel floor joists; leaving the floor panels to collapse.

While any expansion of the trusses and joists would have definitely affected the outer walls, the effect should have been neligible. The imagery of the outer walls being the last to collapse attests to the validity of that argument.

This brings us to another interesting point - the windows ran to the top of the full ceiling - thus the heat accumulation would have been relatively negligible, given the open ventilation from the volume of broken windows - evidenced by the wind carrying the smoke away. The internal components and the outer walls would not have been subject to a massive "heat treatment," relative to a reasonable time which should have been required to cause ANY significant collapse.

These counter-arguments radically diminish the proposition that the rigidity of the cement floors and their deeply corrugated steel containment 'pans' were somehow 'destroyed,' with the subsequent 'dead weight' causing the floor joists to abruptly 'bow' downward and inward and collapse. The 'official' presentation also ignores the insulated steel pan acting as a contact 'firewall' for the cement floor, as well as an effective 'heat-sink.' It must not be forgotten that the deep corrugation of the steel pans constituted additional vertical support, similar to rebar.

Again, the obviously limited time of intense heat exposure limits the inevitablity of a collapse - in part; or in whole.

A heat induced floor collapse may be possible - for limited numbers of local floor segments, affecting one floor at a time. Given the surviving thermal insulation - in some part - around the steel, the heat could NOT have been universally distributed over an entire single floor, let alone over ten floors - in the case of the North Tower, in particular.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel. However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat uniquely accumulated, versus ventilated, so as to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel - in such a short period of time.

It must also be considered that the elevator shafts and the stairwells acted as chimneys. The fires on the floors above the impact floors attest to the probability of those fires being started by the "chimney effect." What started as a conduit for flame, later became a conduit for ventilation.

Such ventilation would also have acted to cool the 47 vertical columns, diminishing any tendency to weaken & buckle - to any appreciable extent. Again, it's necessary to remember how quickly the collapse occurred - if the purported cause-and-effect was factual.

In evidence of the heat escape, one picture of the events shows a woman STANDING at the edge of the burned-out North Tower entry hole (Illustrated in figure 2-15 of the FEMA report). If she could have stood upright at that station, it's academic that the internal temperatures couldn't have been hot enough to produce an abrupt event - such as the nearly instant collapse.

To be fair, the pictures do show what is apparently a well-fed conventional fire on a floor approximately two stories upward from the woman. Again, the building was designed and 'rated' to deal with that temperature level.

The aircraft impact would have taken out approximately 30 exterior shell columns, weakening the face of the building. However, it is clear that the exterior collapsed in consequence of the building core collapsing, with the interior material having enough lateral energy to shatter the outer shell, as the core collapsed - with the cement flooring shattering into so much dust.

Returning to the argument of the mechanics of a basement "core collapse," the lowest floor in the buildings would only have traveled the distance of the missing “basement” segment - whatever that level may have been. [For the sake of argument, again, let’s call that eight feet - literally at the last level.] The lower floor would have traveled eight feet, then stopped. However, with that collapse (transmitted the full length of the core – to the very top of the building) the upper segment would experience an acceleration effect in the classic ‘mass-times-acceleration’ equation. Thus, with the aircraft impact and fire damage, at the top, the weakened and ‘segmented’ upper portion would be dynamically converted into a “plunger.” Gravity did the rest.  

To keep the concept of such an operation simple, it’s necessary to entertain the idea also that ONLY the base of the columns were rigged with Thermite charges. With enough induced force (collapse), the upper “core” column attachment joints (bolts/welds) could conceivably shear/shatter in a vertical 'accordion' effect from the downward accelerating mass.

In all the images of the collapse, there is nothing seen to suggest that the segmented upper "caps" (in their entirety - including the outer walls) collapsed onto the lower floors (making contact with the lower floors) - until impacting the ground. The South Tower "cap" tilted onto the lower floor, it did not pancake onto that floor. What is NOT seen is a solid initial "crunch," of the upper floor collapsing onto the lower segment.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see a solid initial "crunch." Absent such an event, logic goes to the argument, "No pancake from above; no pancake below." The "caps" could only BOTH fall - "in formation" - if the lower sections were falling at an equal speed - identically timed. Both sections would need to be subject to the same "trigger event" for that kind of timing. TWO such occurrences are too much for coincidence. With respect to this argument, the collapse of the North Tower gives a remarkable example.


In the online images, 'freeze-framed,' during the collapse of the North Tower, it is observed that one FIRST sees the antenna collapse by approximately 10 - 20 feet. It is necessary to compare the top right corner of the building exterior, versus the first "segment line" of the antenna. Note the wind-driven 'trail' of the smoke, versus the smoke being ejected into the wind - from an 'event' inside the building.

Next, (looking through the general smoke) an intermediate set of "puff lines" of smoke are uniquely seen - ABOVE the aircraft impact entry hole - from the top floor, down to the impact point. The "puff lines" extend along the entire floor line, escaping from the windows, of course. Those unique uniform linear "puff lines" are the smoking gun, as the "puff line" can ONLY occur, if the floor BELOW the "puff line" is solid, allowing the necessary compression, which pushes the smoke outward. No solid floor = NO "PUFF."

Any significant fire would have been at least one floor below the last "puff line!" That indicates the collapse of the cooler upper floors; (core column collapse) not the heavily fire damaged floors - immediately above the fire.

Note that the corner post in the images is rigid, relative to what is obviously happening within the building. The additional outer structure which helps stabilize the antenna, accounts for the upper external walls being particularly resilient to independent collapse. The collapsing internal floors from the TOP of the building caused the entire cascade; not the fire-damaged floor - uniquely.

The nearly simultaneous occurrence of the "puff lines" - and the light smoke color - indicate that the alleged fire/heat would need to be uniform to the top-most floor. That is, independent fires burning on multiple floors; producing simultaneous and identical temperature profiles. IMPOSSIBLE!

Again, in the images, the fire below is not "fanned" [billowing flames escaping] until after the event of the "puffs," indicating the factual sequence (core collapse). The antenna collapses by about 10-20 feet, the "puff lines" occur, then the fire gets "fanned." The collapse of the antenna, says that the events started from the roof - not the burned floor, immediately above the impact! All forty-seven columns could NOT have given way at once - from fire damage! VISUALLY- everything started from ABOVE!

Again, in the images of the North Tower, the antenna is shown collapsing, independently of the outer shell. That says that the forty-seven core columns collapsed - FIRST. The floor panels didn't arbitrarily 'flake off' their mounts from fire damage.

The roof (furthest from the heat) obviously collapsed FIRST.


The North Tower antenna weighed 353 TONS! Thus, the 47 core columns would need to be strong enough to not only support that weight, but be able to endure the effect of wind (100 Knots - plus) swaying the antenna, in addition to some value for earthquake shock. Any such 'safety factor' would have otherwise served to also guard against thermal damage (loss of vertical support) from a fire.

On the engineering end of the antenna mounting, its weight would have rested upon some type of "plate," thereby distributing its weight over a broad area. The antenna weight would not be limited to something on the order of a single 'pole.' In some fashion, that 'supporting plate' area would have been distributed over a high percentage of the 47 columns. That design would protect against both gravity (vertical forces) and wind (lateral forces). Thus, the early - and near vertical - antenna collapse singly attests to nearly the ENTIRE 47-column core collapsing FIRST!

Additionally, later images attest to the antenna landing almost vertically; it didn't topple. (The top of the antenna was standing so vertically that the fire fighters used it for a flag pole.) That image attests to the LACK of any significant resistance until reaching the ground. Such does NOT attest to a "progressive" one-floor-at-a-time collapse, versus a near simultaneous collapse of ALL floors - the core!

The outer shell was fitted with "outrigger" segments, extending for approximately the top ten floors. Thus, the outer shell was designed to carry part of the antenna weight. Hence, the added rigidity of the upper floor walls attests to a radical and rapid collapse of the core - not the outer walls.

In the "official" account, the floor-plate attachments are supposed to have let go, (on cue - given the images) causing the accelerating cement "pancake" mass. According to that theory, only the first floor above the fire initially collapsed, causing the floors below to progressively collapse; one-floor-at-a-time. That requires a sequence of delays - however brief.

According to that presentation, the core columns would be left standing - however briefly; as the floor panels released from their attachment points. In theory, as the floor panels let go from their mountings, the load would be relieved from the core columns - leaving them to stand/balance, momentarily. We can be certain - just from the timed duration of the collapse - that such was NOT the factual collapse progression. In the case of BOTH buildings, everything let go at once. Thus, with the core columns obviously collapsing first, there had to have been SOMETHING to breach the vertical integrity of the 47 steel columns - EARLY in the collapse, not later.

Given the undeniable sequence, the floors fell as a consequence of the core column collapse, not the reverse. The pictures simply don't lie!

Remember that THREE buildings collapsed in this fashion. Beyond the description of the collapse, it should be noted that ANY mechanical dynamics which approach this description betray an extensive and remarkable engineering and operational feat; make no mistake about it. Such an effort couldn't possibly have come from the "Loyalist Islamic Caves of Afghanistan!"

Regress for a moment -

Put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist hijacker. Your last mission on Earth is to induce "terror" into the heartland of America - the "evil Satan" of the planet. So, what better way than to attack the symbol of America's wealth and power - The New York Stock Exchange! The blow would induce a radical and global economic depression and take years to recover from! But NO! Images are more important - prestige is the key! (Huh?) So, that leaves the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. (Image? Well, okay.)

With that decision, the mass casualties are the key, along with the toppling of the towers. As the towers fall over, more thousands will be killed on the streets below, and still more within any additional "financial" buildings that can be struck down by the falling mass! Of course; that's it! (So you hit them at the top??)

ONLY - if you want minimum physical damage and loss of life! That's called the "Least-Risk" point.

Just give that a moment of thought. Three amateur Cessna 172 pilots are supposed to have crashed three complex jetliners into three buildings, flying at over 300 Knots, at the "Least-Risk" point - on the first attempt!

Imagine yourself as the second pilot. The "theory of the situation" was that an airliner's speed and inertia could knock the towers over. BUT, "Mohammed the Ham-handed" just disproved the theory, managing to do minimal damage to the North Tower. So, what's your decision? You decide to emulate Mohammed?? You don't want to risk a low hit, toppling the second tower & at least trapping thousands in a guaranteed inferno?

Just give that thought an honest, "What if...?"

Go HERE for further thoughts on that scenario!

In a similar vein, it’s more than just “interesting” that nobody wants to go near the “coincidence” of the 7-WTC collapse, not even FEMA, in their WTC report. The collapse is "talked-around," but no viable cause is offered. The video captures of 7-WTC display every characteristic of a controlled demolition collapse. Once again, the core of the building led the collapse of the outer walls (below).

Additional video of the collapse is availabla at:


Note - quickly - in the action sequence, the "cap" of the building (the elevator motor housing atop the roof) falls first, then the building "breaks" and sags in the middle, as it falls onto its own "footprint." Notice also that there is no accompanying surge of smoke to accompany the collapse.

THEN, there's that tattle-tale "...something missing." - FIRE - There is no fire visible at the back of the building; not even a significant amount of smoke! So, why didn't the building fall on its face??

Remember that, 7-WTC was a 'standard' I-beam 'grid' structure - seen below - not the innovative 'tube-within-a-tube' design. So how did it collapse within approximately eight hours of burning? Or, if one considers nefarious motives, why wouldn't fire be enough? Specific property destruction? Evidence destruction? Who knows? It's enough that none of the buildings should have collapsed, let alone all three - identically; in record time.

About WTC-6 -

For some bizarre reason, FEMA took "no" for an answer, by not examining the collapse of WTC-6. While that's certainly suspect, the occasional assertions about the collapse of WTC-6 don't offer any viable suggestions of "...more wrong." By any reasonable examination, one would easily conclude that the collapsed holes in WTC-6 came from above - WTC-1 debris. By all clues visible, WTC-6 had quite a lower garage system which collapsed, leaving the deep 'cavern.' In the images shown, the alleged 'detonation smoke' color & texture is consistent with the powdered cement from WTC-2 - so timed as to apparently get caught in the horse-shoe enclosure of the plaza buildings, such that it shot skyward; as it lacked a horizontal path. Any curved path would have increase the speed of the 'wind' associated with the collapse. There are no reports of explosions, sufficient to account for the damage and there is no seismic data to suggest any explosives were involved.

FEMA - again!

FEMA’s association with the WTC should be instantly regarded in a jaundiced light – period. That statement is inspired by their "influenced" report on the Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City. The report was based on the force from a blast crater of 28 feet. The photographic evidence shows an 18-foot crater; clearly far too small to uniquely account for the damage.

The OKC seismic data demonstrated two blasts, not one. The argument of the secondary “reflected” (echo) signal doesn’t hold up, as the magnitude of a “reflected” signal would have been diminished, which it was not. Two seismic stations show identical timing between the blasts. A reflected” signal would have shown an increased time differential; between the close-in station, and the distant station (20 miles away).  

Returning to the World Trade Center towers, the one unexplained WTC issue is the continuing fire from below the collapsed debris. That was NOT jet fuel, just by virtue of the smoke color. Any residual liquid fuel would have been burned or dispersed - essentially evaporated, on the way down. Refer to FEMA's statement above - if jet fuel couldn't have induced the collapse, there could not have been enough remaining liquid fuel to account for the subterranean temperatures; jet fuel doesn’t “leak-down-and-smolder.”

By all evidence, and pragmatic thinking, the smoke was smoldering debris and escaping residual heat. BUT the post-collapse temperatures (gathered by satellite heat imagery) were radically too high to be just smoldering “building debris;” even with any remaining jet fuel being factored. Buried debris will not burn at a temperature hotter than its open-air temperature. Remember the millions of gallons of water which were constantly being sprayed on the 'pile.'

That takes us to the last reasonable question, "Then, what WAS fueling that kind of temperature?"

About all that can be said is "Damned good question!"

To be fair, it is necessary to honor the challenge, "Give me one good reason to NOT believe that the aircraft fires brought down the towers!" Such a challenge begs common sense, more than scientific proof.

Once again, statistics alone demonstrate the obvious - to a reasonable mindset. The reason that the firefighters bolted up the stairwell was that they were totally certain that there was no danger of collapse. They had no fear; one may go to the transcripts of the radio traffic for evidence of their associated faith and courage. Steel buildings just don't collapse from fire damage. Now, there are three; one with no impact or jet fuel.

A reasonable mindset finds it simply impossible for three buildings to have done an identical collapse on the same site, within hours of each other, with two architectural styles, two distinct fire sources with all three structures being controlled by the same individual/group.

Then, one may go to the history of the insurance policies & claims.

Stopping momentarily at "No Questions Asked," try to imagine a million tons of steel being hurriedly sold - overseas - with no opportunity to do a reasonable forensic examination. Then, one may go to the question, "Who authorized the sale; and who made the profits?" Ask Donald Trump how quickly municipal decisions are made in New York!

If that's not enough, one should note the 'more-than-just-interesting' 'cause-and-effect' blank spot on the 7-WTC collapse in the FEMA report.

Most importantly go to the absence of any competent investigation. The Murrah bombing report should have sent FEMA officials to prison, just over the crater size specification.

Yet, FEMA was sent back in to do their "control thing."

History will record 9-11 as the ultimate limit/test of "Plausible Assertion," in the media & the world of PSYOPS. The "experiment" is still in progress for the test of "How much will the public actually buy into?" And; "....for how long??"

To many, 9-11 immediately and clearly displayed three strikes at the "Least Risk Point" - by amateurs; allegedly.

Beyond a certain point, it comes down to "If they said it, I refuse to believe it; that does it!"

Unfortunately, speculation is the best anyone can do at this point; there simply isn't enough remaining “hard” evidence, to say conclusively. Yet, the description above goes to the core issue, that the “official” account is far too inadequate - methodically so.

As to “Motivation” -

Documented history leaves no doubt that the Afghan war was pre-planned, by approximately a year. The money trail instantly answers the “que bono” question – who benefits? The cover-ups serve to certify the remaining conclusions. The history leading to the Iraq War leaves not one, but two invasions as nothing less than international War Crimes. The Geneva Conventions and the binding effect of the U.N. Charter leave no doubt.

The Viet Nam War leaves a pre-existing model of the cold-blooded Texas “corporate” greed. Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq - always with the uninterrupted theme of “blood-for-oil.” One just can't seem to separate Texas Presidents/leadership from war, oil, drugs and massive corruption. Any denials are wasted energy; the documentation is far to clear.

Given the billions – if not trillions – in profit potential and the indicators of history – before and after 9-11 - the above account should NOT be taken – or dismissed - as mere “Conspiracy Theory.”

Yet there is the expected question, ”WHY should ANYBODY buy into this rubbish?” Because there is NO “theory” associated with the non-investigations of the pandered “failures” which lead to 9-11. The "whistle-blowers" who tried to prevent what was to become 9-11 were hammered - and remain hammered. Their expertise is crucial, regardless of the alleged politics. Those facts alone point to the terrible truth of an obvious Inside-Job; whatever the relevant details may be - OR; not be.

Too much is terribly wrong, with a distinct money trail - a lot of money. This time, it's 'different.' In the dust of the money trail, America is witnessing a methodical bankruptcy, as well. Jobs and production are being exported at record rates. The Mexican border is forced open and kept wide open from Washington. Huge sums of money are pledged to foreign countries, as our military in the combat zones are facing a pay cut. The U.S. Constitution is almost gone, while the U.S. Attorney General - sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution - tours the states, insisting on increasing Gestapo powers.

As to the criminal deeds behind 9-11; just ask a government agency - "It's a SECRET!"


| HOME |