Some people say the WTC couldn’t have collapsed the way it did from fire damage alone, that there’s convincing evidence the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, and that steps were taken to obstruct any later investigations. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny?
- Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
- A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
- As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
- Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
- The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
- WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
- The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
- The towers fell at free fall speeds
- A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
- Molten steel found at the WTC couldn’t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
- DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
- Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
- And don’t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here
- But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
- Links to related sites