Evidence for Controlled Demolition
On 11th September 2001, three buildings were destroyed in New York City. The destruction was complete and saw all three buildings fall within the space of a few seconds. Two models have been proposed to suggest the cause for this destruction. The first, the official narrative, is that gravity alone caused it. The second is that it was caused by controlled demolition
In the last few years, a wealth of new evidence has come to light that points towards controlled demolition, and, as such, we now have a large portfolio of corroborating information. While this can leave us in no doubt as to our conclusion, the large and complex body of evidence can be hard to digest for newcomers to this field of research. In this article I hope to make this evidence more accessible to the reader by presenting the facts as a “Quick Start Guide”.
The evidence we have falls into a number of categories.
Let’s drill down on each one in turn and look at the detail.
This kind of evidenced involves observing the events as they happened. With most crimes, this is impossible. However, the events of 9/11 were some of the best photographed and videoed in history. This means we are able to look at the dynamics of the destruction and focus in particular on Newton’s Laws of Motion.
In a court of law here in the UK (and in many other countries), we need “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” to assure a conviction. If we can show that, for a particular story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to have been violated, then we have proof beyond all possible doubt that this story is false. This is a much greater degree of certainty than that which would be required in any court. For instance, in a murder case, if we can prove that the murderer would have had to have travelled at a speed greater than that of light, then we know that the story is false not just beyond all reasonable doubt, but also beyond all possible doubt.
To disprove the gravity-collapse model by this means, we would need to do two things. First, we would need to show that no gravity collapse could ever happen at freefall (whilst still following the laws of physics). Second, we would need to show that freefall did indeed happen in this case. Note that we do not need to show that freefall happened throughout the whole descent, just for a part of it. Nobody is claiming that the acceleration was constant.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth) have done most of the ground-breaking research on this subject. In this clip David Chandler, top physicist for ae911Truth, explains both why a gravity-collapse cannot result in freefall, and that WTC7 (plus the other two towers) did indeed come down at freefall for a substantial part of its descent.
This evidence alone is sufficient to prove the action of controlled demolition and disprove any notion of a gravity-collapse.
The thing about gravity is that it acts straight downwards on an object, never sideways or in any other direction. There may be a slight amount of scatter as objects fall and hit each other, but, if we see objects move horizontally with great speed, we must assume that a force other than gravity is acting. In the gravity-collapse model, there is no other force acting, so, if we observe this kind of behaviour, we can conclude that this model is false. Once again, David Chandler shows us in this clip his analysis that shows speeds of around 70mph for the lateral projection of components of the buildings.
Forensic evidence is similar to physical evidence, except that crime scene is examined after the event to give us clues as to what went on. In the case of 9/11, this is very difficult because the crime scene was disturbed and most of the evidence removed before it could be examined.
After the attacks, a number of people gathered samples from the thick dust that settled all over Lower Manhattan. Some of these samples have been analysed and have been found to contain thermite residue. Thermite is a chemical mixture that burns at a very high temperature. If handled correctly, it can be used to cut steel columns as you can see here (ffwd to 8m00s). After combustion, it leaves behind a tell-tale residue.
Probably the best study of thermite residues from 9/11 is that of Dr. Steven Jones. You can see his film here. Dr. Jones’s study is a scientific one and has been subject to peer-review. Yet, for following the rules of science and eschewing the non-science of the official story, he was forced out of his job at the university at which he lectured.
Video & Photo
As we know, this was one of the most photographed events in history, so evidence of this form is plentiful.
Steel melts at 1540 degrees Celsius. Aviation fuel burns at around 250 degrees Celsius and an office fire somewhat lower than that. So that means that neither the fuel fire nor the resulting office fire could have caused the steel to melt.
However, there is plenty of evidence of molten steel on the day as you can see here, so this must have been due to some other source of energy – the thermite that was used to cut the columns.
When the charges go off during controlled demolition, air pressure increases in the vicinity of the charge and this often causes windows to blow out and a puff of smoke to appear. These phenomena are called “squibs”. If we can see them, as you can here, then it is an indication of explosives.
A pyroclastic cloud is a mixture of very hot gas and small particles. The cloud usually emanates from a heat source and flows away from it at substantial speed as it is pushed by gas expanding at the source. These clouds are normally associated with erupting volcanoes or large explosions. They are not formed as the result of falling debris (that just forms a normal cloud). There is no shortage of evidence for these clouds.
Explosions are normally pretty loud and so easy to hear and record. If there were indeed explosions, then it is likely that these would have been recorded. Indeed, there are plenty of such recordings. See here and, once again from David Chandler, here.
Before we launch into this, let’s think for a moment about what we mean by miracle. A miracle is an event that is exceedingly unlikely to occur, yet does. Let’s look at an example:
On my desk is a glass of water. The laws of quantum dynamics say that there is a very tiny possibility that all the water could jump out of the glass and land on my keyboard – all on its own. The only snag is the word “tiny”. If we actually look at the statistics, we see that although it is possible in theory, on average the amount of time we would have to wait for this to happen exceeds the current age of the universe (by a big margin). Needless to say, nobody has ever observed this happening. Now, let’s say that the water does indeed fly out. What could be the explanation? We already have the scientific possibility above, but it is so unlikely that we can rule it out. Another possibility is that there was an intervention by some deity. Being an atheist, I wouldn’t accept this and most religious people I know, being deists rather than theists, wouldn’t accept it either. So I think we can rule this one out too. However, there is one further explanation: intervention by a human. In this case the most likely explanation is that I spilt the water myself and then kept quiet.
If an observed event is sufficiently unlikely to have happened on its own, then human intervention should be our first suspect.
Have a look at the descent of WTC7 here (ffwd to 1m40s). The first thing you will notice it that it falls straight downwards – at right angles to the ground. There is no tipping to one side or the other and the movement is continuous and smooth. The other thing is that the zone of destruction is in one place only – near the base of the building. As the building descends, a floor is destroyed at the zone of destruction, followed shortly by the next floor and the next, etc.
The building, as you can see here, had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order for the building to fall one storey, the anchor points between a floor and all the columns would have to be broken simultaneously (within 0.1s of each other). If some anchor points had snapped while others did not, then the floor would have tipped to one side with the intact anchors at the top of the resulting sloped floor. Any slight imbalance like this would tend to be amplified on collapse of the next floor as there would be more stress and weakness at the side of the building with the snapped anchor points (the lower part of the slope) and more rigidity at the side where the anchor points held out (the higher).
A fire is essentially a random and chaotic chemical process. For a fire to snap these 83 anchor points simultaneously would have been incredibly unlikely. Nature just doesn’t spontaneously create order from disorder like that.
After the collapse of the first floor, the next floor would then have to suffer the same unlikely demise. So now we have two exceedingly unlikely events separated by a fraction of a second. Not only that, the timing of the two events relative to each other would need to be precise if the whole descent is to happen at near freefall within a few seconds.
As each unlikely event follows the last, the laws of statistics demand that we multiply together the probabilities of each as we go. Multiply this up like this for the whole 47 stories and you start to realise that this is so enormously unlikely that it does indeed constitute a miracle.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that, even if this incredibly unlikely sequence of events had occurred, we would still see the central columns standing after the descent. In fact we saw no such thing.
So what would we expect to see in a gravity-collapse then? Once again, David Chandler explains this here.
Three Buildings, One Day
NIST tell us that fires raging in the buildings caused them to be weakened and that resulted in their gravitational collapse. Before 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed under gravity as a result of fire. On 9/11 (NIST tell us) three buildings did just this. Since 9/11, no further buildings have collapsed like this, even though a number of them have caught fire. This divergence from the norm would be very unlikely and, as such, would constitute a miracle.
Some people have postulated that the lateral projection of debris we talked about earlier could be caused by steel beams’ being put under tension and then being allowed to spring apart. If such an event were to happen, it would be very unlikely. Looking at the videos we can see these projections happen over and over again. This unlikely “springing apart” to be happening many times like this would constitute a miracle.
Eyewitness testimony is very important when it is the only kind of evidence available. When there is plenty of evidence, it can still be useful for corroboration.
Witness to Explosions
There are an enormous number of witnesses who reported explosions throughout the day as you can see here.
For someone to be convicted of a crime, it has to be demonstrated that they had the opportunity to so do. There is some evidence of opportunity for the planting of the explosives for the demolition, but perhaps the complete story will only be uncovered if there is ever a proper investigation.
During the weeks and months leading up to 9/11, there were numerous reports of power-downs, strange evacuations and drills. You can hear about them here.
One can tell a lot about what happened by observing people’s behaviour. Their behaviour at the time can be analysed along with their behaviour subsequently.
Foreknowledge is important because, if we can show that someone had knowledge of an event prior to its happening, then that means that either they planned the event or they have come into contact with the people who did. Any investigation should start by talking to people showing foreknowledge.
Evidence for foreknowledge is plentiful. The most famous example of this is the BBC’s Jane Standley announcing the destruction of WTC7 some twenty minutes before it happened. This was not something unique to the BBC, as the same thing happened with other news outlets.
Next we have the “Dancing Israelis”. These individuals were seen filming the event as it happened while laughing and cheering. You can hear about their story here.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the lease on the World Trade Centre site, has admitted that he gave the order to have WTC7 demolished. You can see his interview here (ffwd to 1m45s).
Irregularities in market trading can indicate insider dealing, which, in turn, is evidence of foreknowledge. In the days leading up to 9/11 there were large increases in the volume of Put Options (ffwd to 0m30s) on the stock of the two airlines involved. For those of you unfamiliar with financial markets, a Put Option is effectively a bet that the stock price of a company will go down in the near future. Put Options (and the opposite, Call Options) are placed in the market all the time and are not in themselves proof of anything. What signals the insider dealing is when there is a massive increase in traded volumes coupled with a large shift towards, in this case, the Put Options (as opposed to the Calls).
Scientists can build a case by analysing data, but what do you do if you’re not a scientist? The short answer is that you can do the same thing. Most physical science is just a formalisation of what most people term “common sense”.
2 planes, 3 buildings
The official narrative says that two planes were involved, each plane hitting one of two towers. The third tower was not hit by a plane. Still, however, the third building, WTC7, came down with acceleration close to that of freefall. Even if there were two buildings and two planes, we have seen that to assume that the planes were the cause is to commit the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. The destruction of the third tower augments this logical fallacy to the level of a farce.
We have already talked about the fact that the three towers descended at right angles to the ground. But how often do we see such a thing in nature?
How about a tree being felled? At the moment of descent, the upper part of the tree rotates around the cut that has been made with the axe and falls to the side. You would not expect to see the upper part pass vertically through the lower part, reducing itself to sawdust as it went. If we saw this, it would be very strange.
Another great example is a Jenga tower. When it falls, the upper part rotates around a point some way up the tower. Because the blocks are not held together, the motion soon degenerates into chaos. If, instead, we saw an ordered event in which the tower collapsed onto its own footprint and everything was converted to sawdust, we would think that something very odd had happened.
How often do we see orthogonal collapse in nature? The answer is: never.
We have seen that the body of evidence for controlled demolition forms a consistent and convincing portfolio and that the conclusions are unavoidable for anyone who takes the time to research. But why is it that, nevertheless, a lot of people have a hard time accepting it?
The Free Press (here for example) cover the issues we have talked about here and also the broader issues surrounding 9/11 as a whole. Why is it that the Mainstream Media never touch it?
These are questions which I will address in my next few articles.