Official 9/11 story believers continue the odd tactic of demanding a thorough explanation from 9/11 skeptics as to what we think happened that day. I have attempted this previously for the WTC 7 collapse. Now I’ll attempt to do this for the Twin Tower collapses. What follows below is what I regard as the most scientific theory available for the Twin Tower collapses on 9/11. For this article I’ll call this theory the thermitic controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, or TCD theory for short. Note that this is not my theory. It is a theory developed over the years by several scientists, engineers and other technical people. I am simply doing my best to document it in terms most people can understand.
Many will claim that I should be calling this a hypothesis rather than a theory. However, let’s look at how others define a scientific theory. The United States National Academy of Sciences says:
The formal scientific definition of “theory” is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science says:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
From the first definition, the sticking point may be the “vast body of evidence”. However, the official story has 0 scientific evidence, as we will soon see, and the TCD theory has considerable evidence. So comparatively speaking the TCD theory does have a vast body of evidence. For the second definition, the sticking point would be the “facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment”. Again, the official story, which is regarded as fact by believers, is based on models and analyses that are either unverified, do not model significant aspects of what they are supposed to be modelling or ignore key evidence. So the official story has zero confirmation through observation and experiment. The TCD theory is based on the observations derived from decades of building controlled demolitions. Other more unique aspects of the theory have been replicated though experiment and have not yet been refuted by anyone. By both accounts then, calling the TCD explanation a theory seems sound enough. Any disparagement would seem to derive from prejudice rather than any true scientific basis.
Note that both definitions exclude string theory which has 0 observational support. I think this shows both definitions are lacking. Really, a theory is simply a comprehensive explanation for something. String theory is extremely important because only it can unify the four fundamental forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational) into a unified whole. The explanation is more important than evidence. However, if there is evidence, the explanation definitely does need to explain all this evidence.
The first step in providing foundation for the TCD theory is to dispense with alternative theories. The main contender for the TCD theory is the official story. The main problem with this explanation is that as explained before, it has no scientific evidence to support it. The 9/11 Commission Report contains no technical data whatsoever. The NIST report on the Twin Tower collapses provides sketchy evidence only for the collapse initiations and not the falls of the twin towers themselves. Assuming that the NIST explanation is correct as to how each upper block of the buildings started to fall onto the lower buildings, there is no evidence whatsoever that the falling blocks actually destroyed the lower structure. All that NIST references for this event is the purely theoretical Bazant/Zhou paper. This paper also contains 0 evidence for its explanation. Some official story believers like Steven Novella have claimed that the Bazant/Zhou study is a mathematical model which then constitutes evidence by itself. Assuming it’s true that the Bazant/Zhou explanation counts as evidence, then that evidence must survive scientific scrutiny. That evidence must be verified by others and if it is a model, it must be accurate. It must explain all observations not just those they choose. If other researchers find serious problems with a model, the model has not been verified. The Bazant/Zhou analysis has elicited much criticism that has yet to be challenged. So the analysis has been shown to be unverified. The Bazant/Zhou explanation, as with all other published analyses, also does not explain a great many observations seen. For example, as Crockett Grabbe explains, because Bazant/Zhou relied on 1D equations they cannot account for any horizontal effects such as the rapid focalized gas ejections (“squibs”) seen or the rapid horizontal ejections of large sections of structural steel. No experiments have been conducted nor have any computer models been built to support the idea that these phenomena could have resulted from any other means than explosives. So like all other analyses supporting the official story, the Bazant/Zhou explanation cannot account for key observations. As per the scientific method taught to fifth grade school students, official story believers must either fix their explanation to account for the missing observations or reject it. Proclaiming that the “squibs” are due to air pressure from the falling building or that the horizontal ejections of large sections of structural steel resulted from bouncing doesn’t cut it. They need evidence to support their explanations not idle speculation. As it stands the official story of the Twin Tower collapses is 100% pseudo-science believed only by those that don’t understand science at even a fifth grade level.
The only credible alternative to the official 9/11 story is the TCD theory. The TCD theory states that thermite-based incendiaries along with traditional explosives were used to bring down the towers on 9/11. Thermitics would be ideal at removing the redundant structure to weaken the building before demolition. Thermitics are far quieter than traditional explosives which make them ideal for a covert demolition.
A good theory is supported by evidence. The easiest to understand evidence is the speed and symmetry of the collapses. Every time in the history of modern human civilization when a skyscraper has come down in a similarly rapid and symmetrical manner as the Twin Towers, it has been a controlled demolition. All straight-down CDs have a similar degree of symmetry that natural collapses have never ever exhibited. The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers then are currently only scientifically explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. The symmetrical and rapid nature of the Twin Tower collapses are indeed, at the present time at least, features specific to CD and only CD. If they weren’t specific to CD official story believers would be able to cite a situation where they occurred without CD. This speed and symmetry observation then constitutes evidence that supports the controlled demolition explanation of the twin towers. The entire history of building controlled demolition supports the notion that these buildings could have come down by controlled demolition. There has never ever been a case where a skyscraper has come down in a similar manner as the Twin Towers without using some form of controlled demolition. Note that a great deal of observational support for the theory of evolution comes from precedence, the patterns found in the fossil record. Those that claim that the precedence of CD does not count as real evidence for the TCD theory must also believe that the patterns in the fossil record are not real evidence for the theory of evolution as well. Official story believers that don’t like this precedence evidence can easily falsify it. All they need to do is find an example of a total natural collapse that was as fast and as symmetrical as any known successful straight-down CD collapse. All they have to do is create a valid verifiable scale or computer model of the Twin Tower collapses.
The other evidence is extensive but includes: eyewitness reports of explosions, eyewitness reports of molten metal, photographic evidence of molten metal the color of molten iron, highly focalized ejections of gas and dust, lateral ejection of multi-ton steel sections and unreacted nano-thermite chips in the WTC dust. All this evidence and more is documented in the film “9/11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out”.
A good theory makes testable predictions. The TCD hypothesis predicts the existence of the following evidence buried at Fresh Kills landfill: unreacted nano-thermite chips, massive amounts of iron-rich microspheres, either tiny bits of detonating cord and regular detonator parts or wireless detonator parts. It predicts that the structural steel would have eutectic formations caused by intergranular melting. It predicts molten iron streaming down the building and pooling underneath. It predicts copious production of dense white almost odorless smoke before and after building destruction. It predicts many rapid releases of focalized gas (“squibs”) during demolition. It predicts a high temperature fuming demolition pile for months afterwards.
Many like to claim that it would be impossible to prep the buildings demolition without anyone noticing. But key perimeter columns and all core columns on at least every few floors could have had bands painted with nano-thermite under the guise of applying fire-resistant primer paint. When activated this would remove the redundant structural support which is normally cut by hand in overt controlled demolitions (CDs). Every perimeter column was accessible through the removable ceiling panels. Every core column was accessible from the elevator shafts. Small timed kicker chargers could also have been installed perhaps under the guise of installing network switching equipment. The charges would cut the remaining support to get the building moving. These charges were possibly wired with cable that looked indistinguishable from network cable. The people performing this work may not even have been aware of what they were installing.
Another possible criticism is that the heat from the fires would set off the explosives or ignite the thermitics. However, explosives can be engineered to withstand extreme heat or encased in protective shields. Even if some of these thermitic devices did ignite, their reactions would go largely unnoticed as such reactions produce only heat, white smoke and molten iron.
Some express incredulity that the planes could hit precisely where the explosives would be set off to initiate the demolition. Others wonder why the planes would even be needed. It is entirely possible that wireless CD devices were positioned all over the building and controlled with a computer program that could be easily reconfigured in a very short time frame to start where the planes hit the buildings. Anyway, if a pilot could easily perform the insanely complex maneuver of hitting the Pentagon why couldn’t they also hit pre-determined positions of the Twin Towers? Why were the planes needed? The planes were necessary for diversion and to make the official story believable. If no planes hit the building and the buildings simply fell down everyone would be incredibly suspicious.
As to the supposed dearth of explosions, there were extremely credible eyewitness reports of explosions in the Twin Towers before collapse. Some claim that the lack of seismic spikes proves no explosives were used. However, it would be very unusual for seismographs to detect CD explosions. This is because such explosions are small, usually staggered and happen above ground. Further, the sounds of these small explosions would be undetectable amid the roar of the falling building. Explosions do make themselves known however, by the rapid release of gas. We see that in the “squibs” observed as the Twin Towers come down. These releases have been clocked at 160 to 200 feet per second. Note that some of these “squibs” are seen in the corners of the buildings which consist of two box columns bolted together. So there are no windows or vents in the corners and the dust ejections could therefore not be “dust puffs” due to air pressure from the falling floors. We’ll notice about these “squibs” that they have only ever been seen in explosive controlled demolitions. Non-explosive demolitions such as Vérinage never exhibit this sort of behavior.
Some may claim that since no thermitic devices were found in the rubble no such devices could have been used to bring the buildings down. There was also no evidence found in the rubble that the buildings came down from the upper blocks falling onto the lower buildings. I guess you can’t find something if you don’t look for it.
Some claim that the molten metal seen dripping from one of the towers could be aluminum. To get the color seen you must reach the melting point of iron which is 1,538 °C (2750°F). Yes aluminum could be heated to that temperature to get that same color but there is no conceivable way such a thing could have happened in the Twin Towers. Currently, the only scientific evidence-based explanation for this molten metal is a thermitic reaction.
Many claim that rigging the Twin towers for CD would involve a grandiose conspiracy with thousands upon thousands of conspirators. It would be impossible to keep quiet. Someone should have talked by now. There is no evidence that a multitude of people would have to be involved. This would have been a military operation. All large covert military operations use the tactics of compartmentalization and need to know. Every complex operation is split up into a series of subtasks. The people performing their specific task do not necessarily know what others are doing or even what they themselves are really doing. For example, someone is tasked with spraying on nanothermite but is told it’s simply a new form of fireproofing primer paint. This person has no idea what they are actually spraying on. So for all we know only one person at the very top would have known the full plan for the tower demolitions. Anyone who claims that official 9/11 story skeptics are conspiracy theorists is therefore making a purely faith-based evidenceless claim. The believer who makes a claim has the burden of proof to support his claim not the skeptic.
As to who and why were the twin Towers demolished that is not a question for science. That is a question for law enforcement agencies, security agencies and journalists. If there is any question to be asked regarding this it is why are these groups not doing their jobs?
Science is science. Science took us to the moon. Science allowed us to build the computer you are reading on right now. Science allowed us to build the Internet that allowed you to access this website. Science is telling you that the Twin Towers could only have come down by controlled demolition. The US Government, the mainstream media and mainstream “skeptics” are all trying to manipulate you into believing that the official story is correct. They aren’t using science for this though. They are using ridicule, empty unsupported pronouncements and pseudo-science. In other words, propaganda. If you can put aside the intense desire to believe the comforting but false official story and you can force yourself to think at the level of a fifth grade science student you can see past the psychopathic lies and accept the ugly terrible truth.
1. “Science, Evolution, and Creationism”, National Academy of Sciences, 2008. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11
2. AAAS Evolution Resources http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
3. “9/11 Commission Report” http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
4. “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” (NIST NCSTAR 1), December 0, 2005 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
5. Zdenek P. Bazant et al., “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”, March 2002 http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
6. Steven Novella, June 22, 2014 [7:44 a.m.] comment on Steven Novella, “9/11 Conspiracy Debate – Part IV”, NeuroLogica Blog, July 12, 2014 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-iv/#comment-81666
7. S.V Hoover and R.F. Perry, 1989. Simulation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 696 pp.
8. Steven E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 – September 2006
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf (section 9)
9. Gordon Ross, “NIST and Dr. Bazant – Simultaneous Failure”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 11 – May 2007
10. Crockett Grabbe, “Discussion of ‘Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth’ by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, October 2012. http://www.sealane.org/writings/Bazantrpy.html
11. “9/11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out” http://911expertsspeakout.org/
12. “Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition”, 911research.wtc7.net http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#positioning
13. “WTC – Super Thermite liquide paint”, August 1, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As
14. “Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories”, 911research.wtc7.net http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Debunking The Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face Up to Reality – Part 6″, Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, September 28, 2012 http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/668-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html
16. “FAQ #5: What Caused the Ejections of Dust and Debris in the Twin Towers?”, Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, December 8, 2011 http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html