WTC Demolition: Atomic Weapons Versus Beam Weapons
This piece tries to make the case for a 4th generation hydrogen bomb for the demolition of the WTC.
The article makes several good points, but I think the case for a space-based microwave beam used to take down the WTC towers is better in terms of the overall evidence:
Here are the principal data that must be explained:
1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive
9. Office paper was densly spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely
What theories are available to explain these phenomena?
We can identify seven theories:
1. Natural causes such as earthquakes and hurricanes
3. The official theory of airplane impact, fires and weakened steel collapsing
4. Conventional demolition with explosives such as RDX, dynamite, etc.
5. Demolition via thermite or its variants
6. Fission or fusion nukes (and clean bombs)
7. Beam weapons
No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.
In fact, the data refute theories a to e –- natural, arson, official, conventional and thermite demolition -– in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors. The arson and thermite theories fail to explain every data point, but all the unburned paper in particular refute any high-temperature base hypothesis.
The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.
All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. Similarly, some 1,400 cars were toasted in inexplicable patterns, and no alternative explanation to energy wave reflections has been offered. As Sherlock Holmes declared,
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Ground Zero Clean-Up Was Much Faster and Cheaper Than Expected
There are many articles that say this, here is one example
The article explains that part of the reason the clean-up was cheaper was because the "bath-tub" that had the foundation for the towers, was much less damaged less expected. This is consistent with what Wood and Reynolds are saying here
I wonder if the clean-up was quicker in part because there was much less steel than expected to haul away.
Ground Zero Smoking Gun #3: What the Hell Happened to the North Wall of WTC1?
In comments, a couple of posts back, Shep linked to this picture of ground zero showing the shell of WTC6 (center) and the sad remnants of WTC1 (right)(and the WTC7 pile off to the left):
This picture, for some reason really made me wonder, what happened to the North wall of WTC1?
This is the wall that would have faced WTC6, and is supposedly what fell down and made this huge gaping hole in WTC6:
The problem is that there really wasn't much in the bottom of that hole in WTC6:
Picture from here.
And the bottom of WTC6 didn't cave in because the parking garage under WTC6 was still intact!
Picture from here.
The Northern wall of WTC1 was a rather massive structure:
1360 feet tall
206 feet wide
of 14 inch thick steel box columns.
The only place it realistically could have gone is into WTC6.
But think about it-- if you chopped up this wall of steel into nice 100 foot by 50 foot sections, and then stacked them up, you'd have a 63.5 foot pile.In an ideal situation.
If you threw this wall down, so that it fell into a jumble, it would easily be twice as tall-- over 100 feet of debris.WHERE THE HELL DID ALL THAT STEEL GO????????
It is not in the WTC6 hole-- heck there is not even enough debris in there for the collapsed 8 stories of WTC6!
The wall is not in the footprint of WTC1.
It is, for all intents and purposes, the steel of the north wall is GONE.
The only conceivable explanation is that, indeed, some high-energy weapon disintegrated the steel as it fell, at the same time making huge holes in WTC6.
The other reason this makes sense is that the north wall of WTC1 was predicted to fall right ON THE EDGE OF THE BATHTUB surroundong the WTC complex. Thus, whoever planned the demolition was sure to take extra precuation not to have this massive mega-ton wall fall right on the edeg of the bath-tub.
Keep in mind, when they "pulled down" WTC6, they were very careful to do it so it wouldn't damage the bathtub. This was a major concern.
If the 8 story remnants of WTC6 were a worry to damage the bathtub when it fell down, how exactly was it that the mega-ton WTC1 north wall didn't destroy the bathtub when it came down?The only possible explanation is that the wall was disintegrated as WTC1 came down.
WTC5-- Normal Versus Abnormal Building Damage
The side view is informative:
(double click to enlarge images)
Side view pic from here
The main point here is that there is some strange damage here that is consistent with a beam weapon fired from above, but of course these holes do not prove it.
In my view, overall, the beam weapon hypothesis is the best explanation for the accumulated phenomenon associated with the destruction of the twin towers.
Note, the beam weapon was almost certainly not a "laser" but rather a microwave weapon with particular affinity for concrete and steel. The idea is that the beam (or beams) vibrated at the proper frequency to blow apart steel and concrete and turn them into fine dust.
Ground Zero Smoking Gun #2
The strange circular holes in WTC5
(double click to enlarge)
(double click to enlarge)
There are some other holes that are also very suspicious, but not as perfectly rounded.
I don't think there is any official explanation for these round holes, although I guess if an official HAD to explain them, they would say probably they were caused by falling debris from either WTC1 or WTC2.The main problem is that there is NO conceivable way that irregular-shaped clusters of outer columns falling from WTC1 or WTC2 would cause such rounded holes!
So, we are left with the explanations that the holes are:
1) photo-shopped into the photo.
2) caused by shots of the beam weapon that was also used to take down the twin towers from above.
Since explanation number 2 explains things significantly better than explanation number 1, it seems like the logical choice.
Another problem with the holes is that WTC5 was at the corner of the complex and was not in a good position to get heavily pelted by debris from the towers:(from here)
For instance, note how part of WTC4 was much closer to tower 2, but survived roughly intact.
Ground Zero Smoking Gun #1
(double click to enlarge)
I don't know quite how they did this, but somehow they tilted this huge section of WTC1 wall so it fell UP the street rather than fall accross the street and damage the World Financial Center:
(double click to enlarge)
This all goes to the point of how little major collateral damage there was to NON-WTC buildings.
Judy Wood has an amazing picture of this section of wall from the street perspective on this page.
This section was laying right in West Side Highway, ready for trucks to come and haul it away, and was one of the first things they cleaned up-- therefore is not visible in many pics of Ground Zero.