9/11 Review

Web Site:
 Home Page
 Site Navigation
 Sign Up
 What's New

Top Topics:


 More topics...





This page on the Twin Towers' demolition, the only one on 911Review.org's outline, is presented as if a footnote. The core of the attack -- the murder of thousands of people through demolition of the buildings -- incontrovertible proof of an inside job -- is given much less attention than the Anthrax Attacks. And it's discredited with pages such as TwinTowersMach10.

The TwinTowers didn't collapse, they exploded outwards as far as 70 m.
See the analysis by Eric Hufschmid in his book "Painful Questions"

This is the only image of a collapsing tower on the site, save the thumbnail image on the FrontPage. It is about two seconds into the fall of South Tower and before the dust cloud had grown very big. In fact both clouds expanded to over 150 meters in radius before they reached the ground.

Watch the Sept11Videos carefully:

That's a great paragraph. Too bad none of the links work. Therefore it stands as a series of unsupported assertions, just broken links away from the pictures that thoroughly support it.

The Twin Towers exploded outwards as far as 70 m.

  • The tremendous force exploded the walls and entire structure out horizontally.
  • This implies that the walls were blown out horizontally from the outset. In fact, both towers began to telescope and clouds of dust began to emerge before the walls were ripped apart and thrown outward. This feature of the collapse, the smooth and continuous conversions of the towers into dust and steel fragments from the crash zones downward, contrasts with the image of large discrete explosions evoked by exploded the walls.
  • The buildings came down in about the same time as a free fall - there was no friction of a collapse.
  • In fact the buildings took about 50 percent longer than an object in free-fall would have taken to fall. By failing to be accurate, 911Review.org discredits the important observation that the towers' rates of fall were far too fast for a gravity-collapse scenario.
  • The buildings were exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. "Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?" asks King,Jeff.
  • This implies the entire buildings were converted to dust, when in fact the most of the 90,000 tons of steel in each tower remained in pieces ranging from a few feet to several stories long.
  • The demolition of the Twin Towers was not a conventional Controlled Demolition like the Building7Collapse. A more exotic process must have been used to get the buildings to explode outwards, as far as 70 m. See Sept11Physics.
  • The Sept11Physics page, which is mostly about the Pentagon attack, does not make the case that a more exotic process was used. There is nothing particularly exotic about the use of numerous radio-controlled explosive packages that could be detonated by computer starting at the crash zones in order to simulate a progressive collapse, for example.

Jet fuel can't melt steel:

  • No fire in history has lead to the collapse of a steel office building, even after hours of raging fires; when the Twin Towers exploded, the fires had almost gone out.
  • This statement is true of the South Tower, but not the North Tower. Large fires extending over large portions of whole floors were visible in the North Tower moments before its collapse.
  • The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceed the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.
  • This is false. No-one had the ability to measure temperatures in the core of the rubble pile. The NASA/USGS aerial survey measured only the surface of the pile.
  • The maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel; to use jet fuel to melt steel would be an amazing discovery: MuslimsSuspendPhysics
  • Actually jet fuel can melt steel if it is mixed with sufficiently pressurized or pre-heated air. The temperatures inside the combustion chambers of modern jet engines exceed the melting point of steel, for example. (See Jet Engine Thermodynamics.) The use of accurate qualifiers, such as "in building fires" in the above statement, is not a strong point of 911Review.org.

(!) See our pages: Guardian (WTC Demolition Links), Sept11Physics and MuslimsSuspendPhysics.


Or try one of these actions: LocalSiteMap, of this page (last modified 2004-01-03 19:51:38)