Shorter Wayne Trumpman

This guy.

Key points from his analysis of the WTCI collapse.***

1) plane damage and fire damage could not have caused the initial floor collapse.

2) the collapses of the first few floors had enough energy to take out the steel supporting columns of the floors below but not enough to pulverize concrete and expel such a large volume of smoke and dust.

3) the author proposes that the high explosive HMX was used to bring down WTC1.

4) the explosive was placed around key support columns, perhaps every other column, on perhaps 9 floors of the building. "The entire WTC 1 did not have to be wired. In the previously mentioned JL Hudson building demolition, 1,237 kg of explosives was used on 9 floors. The building was pre-weakened so small charges could be used. How much explosive would have been used without this pre weakening? Twice as much? That is 2,474 kg. The WTC 1 had over twice as much floor space. So if the JL Hudson building was the same size as WTC 1, that would require about 5,616 kg of explosives. That is 624 kg per floor."

5) the heat of fires within the WTC1 set off some of the pre-placed HMX explosives-- accounting for the premature explosions before the main demolition that were witnessed by many people inside the building.

6) "I believe far more explosives were used on the WTC 1 than would be typically used in controlled demolition. Keep in mind that a building the size of WTC1 had never been taken down before. This level of uncertainty would prompt the use of an overkill amount of explosives. There would be concern of collateral damage to surrounding real estate from miscalculation. The parties using explosives probably wanted to make sure that the building did a "pancake" collapse to support an official story. In addition, the charge detonation needed to be masked. If a normal amount of charges was used, the low number of detonations would easily stand out in video footage. But an overkill amount of charges, especially placed near concrete, would produce loads of clouds where little stands out (I note that adiversion of fire and smoke was also helpful in masking charge detonations)."

I think this last point is a particularly good insight, but the whole piece is essentially a tour-de-force. I think it is very sad that an amateur scientist (Mr. Trumpman) can do more detailed and better calculations than the government NIST team. NIST doesn't even bother to show calculations for how the collapse occurred.

***Note, this paper appears in an incomplete form at several Indymedia sites; it apparently was censored! People seem to be very afraid of the idea that the WTC was blown up-- why I don't know! It is fucking crazy that even Indymedia is afraid of this topic.