WTC Destruction Theories: "DEW" versus Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate versus Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
In theory, all of these may have been used in combination with conventional explosives (e.g. C-4) -- and each of these may also have been used in come combination together. But let's discuss the PRIMARY mechanism used for the WTC tower demolition, since there still is apparent controversy over this.DEW = directed energy weapons; typically described as a powerful beam weapon; type of energy has not been specified; originally proposed by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate = high temperature incendiary mixture (thermite) and hypothetical explosive variants (thermate and super-thermate); originally proposed by Steven Jones
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes = explosive nuclear fusion or nuclear fission devices; proposed by several different people: Finnish Military expert (advanced fusion devices only), Ed Ward, Bill Deagle, Anonymous Physicist
The complete massive destruction of the WTC towers was characterized by several key features:
1) incredible pulverization/"dustification" of all building contents in a matter of seconds
2) pulverized debris violently bursting outward during the destruction
3) a consecutive series of "explosive" waves traveling down the towers during the demolition
4) disappearance/vaporization of large numbers of interior core columns
5) various odd phenomena-- likely EMP effects on vehicles and some electronic devices, odd holes in the ground and in surrounding buildings, early basement explosions, "hanging skin" in some surviving victims
6) extreme high heat in the ground zero rubble (widely-reported/well-substantiated)
7) large number of sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders
8) suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel-- washing, extreme security on trucks taking it away, rapid sale to China
I will now go over pros and cons of these hypotheses, focusing solely on the WTC evidence, without any discussion of the character or reliability of the proponents of the various theories. I am taking for granted that the towers were demolished by added energy devices -- not by fires and gravitational collapse. Further, I am assuming that there has been some sort of active cover-up of the demolition on the part of the official agencies and the media.
--------------------
PROS for DEW:
1) malleable nature of the "DEW" can explain everything associated with the tower destruction except the lingering heat at ground zero
2) towers did not need to be pre-loaded with devices
CONS for DEW:
1) type of DEW-emitting device and what type of directed energy was used on the WTC is completely unspecified
2) no DEW technology known that can explain the vaporization of steel and the extreme pulverization of concrete and the majority of inner building components-- all in seconds
3) huge amounts of energy required for DEW that can dustify the towers but no source of energy has been specified
4) needs to make the major assumption that the extreme heat at ground zero is a massive lie
5) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
6) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Paper-- I do not think the presence of unburnt sheets of paper in the WTC dust can be construed as evidence for DEW, as the towers were undoubted filled with paper, and it's not at all clear what percentage of paper was destroyed. Paper is also light and some paper would thus would be expected to be blown out and away by explosive blasts, ahead of the highest energy wave.
Aluminum versus Steel-- I do not find the argument convincing that aluminum cladding intrinsically avoided destruction whereas the steel columns were vaporized.
Lack of bathtub damage and intact shops and tunnels beneath the WTC-- any sort of extreme pulverization of the towers from the top-down would lessen the overall impact on the ground of the towers' destruction; it's not clear where the intact shops and tunnels seen in pictures were in relation to the two main destroyed towers, thus this is inconclusive
Lack of large explosive sounds-- I do not think there is completely convincing case that can be made for lack of explosive sounds
DEW Pro/Con = Negative 4
--------------------------
PROS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) can explain some of the loss of steel as thermite can melt iron
2) might explain the lingering high heat and reports of molten steel
CONS for Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate
1) difficult to imagine an incendiary chemical mixture being used to rapidly demolish a building
2) difficult to imagine how explosive thermite/thermate could be used to vaporize steel columns if the incendiary mixture is being dispersed by exploding at the same time
3) not clear that super thermate can account for the pulverization of the towers or that it even exists
4) not clear that residual thermite/thermate/super thermate can account for the extreme heat that lasted for at least six weeks at ground zero
5) requires massive pre-loading of the towers with large incendiary/explosive devices
6) does not explain the sicknesses/cancers in ground zero responders as easily as radiation from nuclear devices
7) does not explain the suspicious treatment of remaining WTC steel
Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate Pro/Con= Negative 4
----------------------------
PROS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) can easily explain all the features of the destruction of the towers
2) powerful, well-known, well-established destructive technology
3) small but extremely powerful and so do not require massive emplacement of devices in the towers
CONS for Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes
1) cover-up required for radiation at ground zero
One common argument I have seen made against nukes is that extremely bright flashes from nuclear explosions are not seen in videos. However this is not a definitive contrary argument as it is not clear what kind of flash would be seen from a very small nuke going off in the middle of steel tower-- especially once the first explosion has occurred and there are massive dust clouds that could shield the flashes of further explosions. Further, for tower 2, definitely, a few small bright flashes can be seen going off coincident with the tower going down.
Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes Pro/Con= Positive 2
-----------------------
Does anyone have a reasonable argument, based on the evidence, not on personalities, to add here?
