Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the
pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and
the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire
State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World
Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The
767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits.
But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the
point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower
would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of
course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame
structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.
How to destroy a skyscraper.
So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to
build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits
from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is
swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it
is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a
hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as
controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points
throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously,
destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part
of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass
is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the
structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational
potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into
kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the
fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth.
Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of
smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like
controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it
takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2,
where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per
second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the
building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about
the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to
fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was
over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin
air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not
been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared
into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would
expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the
explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported.
Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire
building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole
thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a
feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full
effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade
Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of
the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to.
We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that
the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No
kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of
the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum
of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls
of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on
national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and
would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The
fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would
have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend.
This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on
those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the
structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel
skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail
catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the
intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper
story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while
any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the
tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip
and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building
below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be
coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below
would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting.
At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy
absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more
destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise
and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the
gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to
destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete,
they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that
case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to
pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward
stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was
barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to
happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have
taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.
How it was done.
The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry
Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the
buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants
from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and
noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at
least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.
There was more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were
seen on the TeeVee.
The events of 9/11, summarized.
Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of
9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of
the Israeli and US governments.
Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in
flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in
Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one
A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates
that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as
art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as
they moved about the country.
The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to
hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played
in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned?
It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed
in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting
to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight
At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they
might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have
quickly been foiled for two reasons.
First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with
remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was
stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a
former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems
is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been
operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the
Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet
fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are
reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable,
and an airliner cannot hope to match them.
For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an
ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security
measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a
problem for many years now.
But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes
home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed
highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational
background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade
Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was
The World Trade Center towers are designed to withstand aircraft impact,
which they did for about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the
ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings,
in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions.
The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and
this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat
of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed
in the fireballs outside the towers.
If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could
have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was
destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there
is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into
rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7
immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been
While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George W.
Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the US
military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight was
also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently struck down by some sort of
missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania.
Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and
specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has continued
to the present day. Our traditional American form of government,
unfortunately, may not survive -- the Patriot Act appears poised to
supersede the Bill of Rights.
Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that
there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness
about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of
logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely
responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that the
Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is
gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic
response to the enigmatic events of that day.
Here are links:
Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com
Michael Rivero http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Eric Hufschmid http://geocities.com/erichufschmid/index.html
Jared Israel http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
Posted 3/28/2002 by Jerry Russell; Updated 3/31/2002
The author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University,
and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.
Don't fall for this Jerry Russell, PhD bullshit. This is just another one
of Osama's boys trying to stir up shit in the USA. This guy's a fake and a
fraud and not worthy of rebuttal. Not to mention his pseudo physics suck.
Boiling your argument down:
You start from the postulate that controlled demolition causes skyscrapers to
fall down smoothly and quickly. The Trade Center fell down smoothly and
quickly. Therefore the collapse must have been a controlled demolition.
See the classic logic flaw?
>Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole
Do you have any evidence at all for truth of this naked assertion, as applied
to a gigantic, extremely heavy hollow metal structure?
>The author has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University,
>and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.
From the "evidence" you have presented here...........I would strongly
recommend that "the author" contact the above mentioned institutions of higher
learning. Proceed with a request for a refund of tuitions paid tor the
If you exist, you are a very sick individual. Were you in New York on that
day? Did you see or hear the impact of those jets slamming into the towers
on that fateful day? Did you stand on the roof of your building on that
fateful day watching the towers collapse in an instance of collossal
structural failure? I was. A mere several blocks away.
Controlled collapse? Why don't you go down there in person and see
for yourself how spread out the damage zone was compared to the actual floor
area of each building.
Here's another one for you to think about: 7 WTC was a mere 60 feet (a
standard block in NYC) way from the North tower. As were 2 (South
Tower)- 3-4-5 and 6 WTC. Now look out the window of your own home. What
distance is it to the next nearest dwelling including property setbacks and
street width? 70-80-90 feet? Maybe 100? Ok, now imagine the dwelling
across being 110 stories tall. Would you and your dwelling survive if it
were to collapse? I don't think so.
You should consider a career in fictional writing in Hollywood, California.
Your theory is assonine though could make an entertaining Hollywood script,
I suggest you try to sell it to the movie companies. Or would they be
plotting against you in some sort of conspiracy against you?
Pierre Levesque, AIA
"Jerry Russell" <je...@regena.com> wrote in message
And now this clown creates a sick, stupid conspiracy theory that isn't even
viable in concept. Makes you appreciate that the level of discourse on the
internet is generally pretty uneven, and you have to watch for the trolls!
Jerry Russell <je...@regena.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Russell" <je...@regena.com> wrote in message
I agree with you on every point
One of the first paragraphs gives this guy away as a fraud. He says, "Fires
do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures
has a single one been destroyed by fire." Obviously, anyone with the least
bit of engineering schooling immediately knows the author could not possibly
have been an engineer. Further, the statement is so outlandish, it could
not possibly been written by a Westerner. It was written for an ignorant,
gullible audience who will reach out and grab any information, no matter how
unlikely, as long as it feeds their pre-existing, deep-seated hatreds. This
was written for and by a Middle Eastern populace. It won't play well in the
Or..... maybe it was written by a clever, vengeful Westerner trying to fan
distrust and hatred of Middle Easterners by making us think it was written
by a Middle Easterner. Dang, this bigotry thing is really hard to get the
hang of. :-)
hence, you get Jerry Russell
Yeah, that's it, that's the "REAL" conspiracy!
"John Taylor" <tayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
LOL!!! What a brilliant deduction! Finally, mystery solved.