9-11/anomalies/collapse/debate

Editing is currently in progress on this article, and the author or editor has saved their work to prevent loss. Please check back later by reloading the page, and do not edit while this message is still showing. Thank you.

WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed by controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition goes from the bottom up, while the twin towers clearly collapsed from the top.

Standard protocols were probably not followed.

The demolition was not for legitimate purposes, so the demolition engineers were not necessarily constrained by convention, law, or ethics.

Top-down demolition is more in line with the goal of being frightening ("shock and awe"), since it is more dramatic.

Top-down demolition aids the goal of supporting the appearance of structural failure due to the impact, thus hiding the sabotage.

The pattern of attributes matches controlled demolition much better than any other previously-known cause of collapse.

WTC7 did collapse from the bottom.

It is extremely improbable that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there.

They didn't have to know in advance; CD is usually radio-controlled. The demolition controllers presumably started the demolition near the impact points in order to support the appearance of structural failure due to the impact.

WTC2 did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall, but rather began tilting from the point of impact.

There are a number of reasons why an otherwise-controlled demolition of WTC2 might have resulted in the observed tilt.

If structural elements were being severed by thermite shortly before collapse, this might have been enough to start the top of the building tipping over before the main demolition began.

There is strong evidence that structural elements were severed by thermite.

Diagonally-severed beams were found in the rubble.

Thermite was found in dust collected after the collapse but before rescue operations had begun.

There is significant evidence that steel was being melted by something other than the impact fire minutes before WTC2 collapsed.

Streams of molten metal were seen pouring from one corner.

The impact fire never reached temperatures sufficient to melt steel.

The tilt might have been an extra bit of drama to add to the "shock and awe" effect.

Some elements of the controlled demolition rig might have been set off prematurely, either due to events within the building (metal beams falling and shorting something out, heat from the fire melting something and crossing wires or initiating some chemical process) or due to human error on the part of the remote control operator(s).

In order for controlled demolition to have taken place, hundreds of people would have to be involved.

"Everyone involved in setting up the controlled demolition (no easy task) has to plan, prepare, and execute the task."

? How many people does it take to set up a controlled demolition, if they have a weekend or two of unobserved time in which to do it?

Every witness has to be found and suppressed

This assumes that there were witnesses who were not part of the conspiracy and who knew enough to be damaging.

Many witnesses of suspicious events in which the charges might have been planted have, in fact, come forward.

Everyone in the chain of command to plan, order, and fund the project has to keep mum.

? How do we know who this would be, if we don't yet know who did it? (How do we know that not only haven't they been silenced, but that they have in fact been questioned?)

? If a rogue subordinate with access to the necessary materials were able to plant them, how would her/his superiors ever know that those materials had gone missing if they did not specifically check inventory?

? What companies had access to this sort of material, and did all of them check their inventories before and after 9/11?

? Was there, indeed, any investigation at all along these lines?

Everyone whose job it is to monitor activities like this has to be kept quiet.

? Who would that be, and were they ever asked about any suspicious activities?

? Was there, indeed, any investigation at all along these lines?

Just because you can't explain how something was accomplished does not negate the evidence.

The evidence for controlled demolition is considerably stronger than that for pyromechanical failure.

Rounding up a small crew to do the operation while ensuring their silence afterward does not seem that implausible.

Several public figures have declared openly that we need another 9/11 in order to unify the country behind President Bush and the Iraq war. It seems quite conceivable that a well-funded organization could have, though a careful selection process, found enough similarly-minded people before 9/11 to help with this project.

The "volunteers" might have been pumped full of patriotic fervor that they were going to be involved in some great and terrible event which would cost many lives but would unify the country as never before... then given specific instructions (you go into this building, and set these devices at the following locations) without explaining the expected results beforehand. With luck, you might convince them that what they did had nothing to do with demolition -- or, with the alternative being overwhelming guilt over a terrible crime, they might cling so fiercely to the rationale you've given them that they would never, ever betray you. There are less-extreme parallels which are better documented -- fraternity hazing, "first blooding" of gang members, etc.