A Feasible WTC Demolition Theory
As described at this site (apparently) by a guy named Jeffrey King*.
The basic idea is that thermite was used to melt the core columns at the base of the towers. If even just one floor's worth of these columns was melted, this would cause a huge shift in the tower's structure that could lead to systemic collapse. Basically, the core would drop down about ten feet, while the outer walls would remain anchored. This would put huge stress on the floors, and could therefore induce a top-down floor by floor collapse.
This makes sense to me and explains a few things:
1) the molten steel found at the bottom of ground zero during the clean-up.
2) the lack of a seismic signal clearly indicating an explosion that initiated the collapse (as I understand it, thermite burns more than explodes).
3) why the towers started collapsing near where the planes crashed-- these were the weakest points in the structure after the core was taken out.
4) why the antenna of the North tower, which was anchored to the core, started falling down at the very beginning of the collapse.
Finally, this theory only requires large amounts of thermite being brought into the basement area-- probably via the underground garages. Thus, we don't need to posit that tons of explosives were brought INTO the towers and set up where people worked.
As far as why the concrete was powdered, I will say more about that in another post. The gist of it is that the old concrete may have develped explosive proporties of its own. But I need to do more research on this.
In any case, this thermite theory fits the evidence rather well.
*Caveat: he makes a rather racist remark about Arabs in his essay, and I disassociate myself from that.
The basic idea is that thermite was used to melt the core columns at the base of the towers. If even just one floor's worth of these columns was melted, this would cause a huge shift in the tower's structure that could lead to systemic collapse. Basically, the core would drop down about ten feet, while the outer walls would remain anchored. This would put huge stress on the floors, and could therefore induce a top-down floor by floor collapse.
This makes sense to me and explains a few things:
1) the molten steel found at the bottom of ground zero during the clean-up.
2) the lack of a seismic signal clearly indicating an explosion that initiated the collapse (as I understand it, thermite burns more than explodes).
3) why the towers started collapsing near where the planes crashed-- these were the weakest points in the structure after the core was taken out.
4) why the antenna of the North tower, which was anchored to the core, started falling down at the very beginning of the collapse.
Finally, this theory only requires large amounts of thermite being brought into the basement area-- probably via the underground garages. Thus, we don't need to posit that tons of explosives were brought INTO the towers and set up where people worked.
As far as why the concrete was powdered, I will say more about that in another post. The gist of it is that the old concrete may have develped explosive proporties of its own. But I need to do more research on this.
In any case, this thermite theory fits the evidence rather well.
*Caveat: he makes a rather racist remark about Arabs in his essay, and I disassociate myself from that.
posted by spooked at 10:13 AM
2 Comments:
there was in fact a seismic signal BEFORE the collaps of BOTH towers (#'s 1 & 2).
You can watch a video at the link below that shows THE WHOLE GROUND FOR BLOCKS AROUND TOWER 1 SHAKING, and THEN the tower begins to come down.
This camera was PHYSICALLY attached (mounted) TO A BUILDING some distance away. The camera shakes, which means therfore THE BUILDING IT WAS PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO IS ALSO SHAKING. Which means the ground that building is sitting on top of is also shaking...and so on. You get the picture. A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WAS RELEASED, just prior to Tower 1 coming down. There is no doubt...this video shows that.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
Yes, I've seen videos that show the shake.
I guess I shgould say whether or not there was a seismic signal before the collapse is controversial. See:
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
"Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground.
Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.
The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground."
I guess it is not clear what that shaking movement was. Perhaps it was just after the thermite burned through the core columns and the core started falling down?
Post a Comment
<< Home