Possible Explanations for Demolition of the WTC
There's really NO DOUBT the WTC twin towers were blown up by some powerful form of demolition.
The big question is: HOW was it done?
There are really five major possibilities for how they did it:
#1 is an interesting idea that is hard to rule out completely, but overall seems unlikely in that the explosives would probably decay in the 30+ years since the towers were built
#2 is the easiest to propose, but the major problem is it is not clear how the towers could have been loaded with so much explosive without people not in on the plot seeing it
#3 is easy enough to propose, and it also gets around the problem of needing to lace the towers with explosive as presumably only a few devices would be needed. I made the part of the case against mini-nukes here. I tend to think a small number of mini-nukes don't quite explain the demolition sequence of the towers-- how they were blasted apart into dust in a progressive manner.
#4 is the least obvious but the most interesting and I think most likely explanation. A directed energy beam weapon from above is the best way to explain the top-down demolition sequence and the apparent melting and dustification of the steel. The technology is no doubt out there for this energy beam, but the problem is that it is top-secret and we don't know exactly what it is.
#5 is a reasonable position, and it seems quite possible beam weapons plus conventional explosives were used. Maybe if there were built-in explosives, they activated those as well. A mini-nuke or two may have been added into the mix as a back-up.
The big question is: HOW was it done?
There are really five major possibilities for how they did it:
1. the towers were pre-built with demolitions embedded in them for future re-activation
2. the towers were loaded up internally with essentially conventional explosives
3. the towers were taken out by a few extremely powerful bombs, such as mini-nukes
4. the towers were demolished by some external force, such as a directed energy beam
5. the towers were demolished by a combination of the above
#1 is an interesting idea that is hard to rule out completely, but overall seems unlikely in that the explosives would probably decay in the 30+ years since the towers were built
#2 is the easiest to propose, but the major problem is it is not clear how the towers could have been loaded with so much explosive without people not in on the plot seeing it
#3 is easy enough to propose, and it also gets around the problem of needing to lace the towers with explosive as presumably only a few devices would be needed. I made the part of the case against mini-nukes here. I tend to think a small number of mini-nukes don't quite explain the demolition sequence of the towers-- how they were blasted apart into dust in a progressive manner.
#4 is the least obvious but the most interesting and I think most likely explanation. A directed energy beam weapon from above is the best way to explain the top-down demolition sequence and the apparent melting and dustification of the steel. The technology is no doubt out there for this energy beam, but the problem is that it is top-secret and we don't know exactly what it is.
#5 is a reasonable position, and it seems quite possible beam weapons plus conventional explosives were used. Maybe if there were built-in explosives, they activated those as well. A mini-nuke or two may have been added into the mix as a back-up.
posted by spooked at 11:43 PM
6 Comments:
I have to say an all-encompassing explanation is what has been very difficult for me to grasp, but I have to say that Christopher A. Brown's analysis of the demolition just about does it for me. It makes so much sense if the towers were built with demolitions in them. Who would know that? Silverstein. The "sparks" from the plane shots? used to ignite the C4 in the floors. The very tools the perps needed were already available in the building! The last point that has had me stumped -- the toasted cars. If thermite was used in the basement areas the extreme heat could produce such an effect. .... A lot of people have done a lot of work, but Option 1 on here is beginning to make a lot of sense to me. Just my thoughts.
"The big question is: HOW was it done?"
That's easy: some idiot called Spooked just made it up.
Certainly the "built-to-be-demolished" idea deserves consideration, but I don't think it comes close to fitting the evidence. The toasted cars cannot be explained by thermite in the basements (at all, no matter how hard you try.)
There is unburned paper all over lower manhattan, and the tops of the cars are toasted, not the undercarriages.
I'm open to all ideas, but it's very hard to explain some of the strangely jellified cars in fire engines without exotic weaponry having played a role.
Fred
uh-oh, do we have to add Rez to the "wall of shame" ? i think the demolitions were "5", a combination, cause the Perps would need back-up plans, although it looks as if whatever exotic weaponry they used was more than sufficient (add some mega-bombs, as caught by R Siegel's video)...the problem i have with "built to be demolished" is: that any REAL terrorist group (if they had access) could demolish the buildings with not much physical labor, it'd be too dangerous/risky...unless the govt planned this Psy-Op back in the 60s-70s during the construction of the complex...
Many large buildings were built with the idea they weren't going to remain used forever. I don't believe pre-planted explosives were initiated as part of a psy-ops plan back in the 60s and 70s, only that that information was used for their benefit in 2001. And if the details of such plans are kept secret -- which one would assume based on your terrorist argument -- who better to know than Silverstein. AND it totally explains his "pull it" comment because he knew the WTC buildings could be "pulled" without much trouble.
#6. it was magic that destroyed those towers at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second.
Post a Comment
<< Home