HOW EXACTLY WERE THE TOWERS DEMOLISHED?
Trusty ol' fashioned dynamite charges, perchance?
We have now demonstrated on this forum (in every imaginable manner) that
ALL the 9/11 imagery depicting the crucial events of the day were fake - and that
includes the tower collapse imagery. In all logic, since the primary objective of the 9/11 psyop was to bring down the entire WTC complex - 9 buildings in all (and blame it on a bunch of muslim suicide-terrorists hijacking airplanes), the planners of this media-supported hoax would NOT have run the foolish risk to show the ACTUAL collapses on live TV, for the whole world to see. Common sense dictates that
, since the perps could rely on the news networks airing fake imagery, they would have used this asset to its full potential.
Yet, there are still some 9/11 researchers (whether trolls or honest truth-seekers) proposing that
the twin towers MUST have been brought down with some Super-Special explosives, such as "nano-thermite", "mini-nukes" or "directed energy weapons". On this forum, we are now familiar with the main proponents of such exotic and largely untested demolition methods: Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Dimitri Khalezov - and a few other clowns. All of them are, in my mind, obviously protecting the media networks' role on 9/11 : they've all reached their conclusions by staring at the available tower collapse imagery shown on TV (and by alleged "amateur cameramen")- which we have now proven to be totally fraudulent. All of them.
The problem for most people is, of course, to get to terms with the fact that
what we saw on TV was NOT the actual collapses of the towers. It stands to reason that
the 9/11 psyop planners perps would have used the oldest, simplest and most foolproof trick to hide the proceedings: to engulf the WTC complex area in military-grade smoke obscurants BEFORE the start of the demolitions. Yet this most logical of all schemes seems to be, oddly enough, a tough thing for people to wrap their minds around. Instead, we have had twelve years (on all sorts of "9/11 truth" forums) of incessant bickering about the EXACT TYPE of explosives used to bring down those tall, steel-framed towers. Endless circular debates about this ultimately irrelevant issue has monopolized the attention, the time, the efforts and the intellectual resources of scores of well-meaning truth seekers - and we now know that
the largest and best-funded "truther" organization, namely 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth'
, was set up to achieve just that
: to bamboozle everyone with a million 'scientific' theories.
I mean, come on: those "A&E for 9/11 truth" people do
not even question the inane, official NIST data which has Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in "9 and 11 seconds"
, respectively... Can anyone with a working brain buy this in-your-face insult of everyone's intelligence? Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in 9 and 11 seconds? Really? Well, PLEASE KNOW that
this is what the official NIST report states - no kidding, folks - look it up for yourself! Yes, NIST tells us that
the two towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds !
So all I wish to say is: enough is enough
. Let us stop giving the benefit of doubt to the above-mentioned clowns, blatantly recruited to waste everyone's time. Let's get REAL now, folks. And to those still wondering EXACTLY HOW the towers were brought down, I will simply ask: have you
ever heard of dynamite
handy explosive invented by my fellow countryman Alfred Nobel
? (Yeah, that
'genius' arms manufacturer after which the Nobel Peace Prize was named...) Do you
ALL building demolitions in the world have used dynamite
- for many decades now - and that
it is the most universally tested and reliable method employed to demolish buildings with? Why on Earth would the 9/11 perps use any other, untested method to bring down the WTC?
To those still on the fence about conventional, ultra-reliable demolition methods being employed on 9/11, here's my question: what's your problem? Do you think that dynamite
couldn't make the WTC towers collapse? That
this demolition technology wasn't up to the job, in 2001? Were the towers too tall for that
? Well, think
again: here's what the Loizeaux Controlled Demolition company achieved - back in 1977:
Hey, the Biltmore Hotel even looks like it collapses top down - (dynamite
charges were evidently put in the upper floors). So much for those naysayers retorting that "Duh! If they'd animated the 9/11 collapse images, they would have made more realistic-looking collapse videos"
SELECTED ARTICLES ABOUT THE BILTMORE HOTEL DEMOLITION:
"When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives. But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides."
"The Biltmore was thirty-three stories high and was heralded as the state's tallest building. On October 16, 1977 the Hotel Biltmore was demolished by a team of demolition specialists. Hundreds of low-yield explosives were planted throughout the building so that it would collapse and fall inward into an acceptable area only slightly larger than the hotel's foundation. The purpose was both to break the materials into smaller pieces that would be easily transported away, and to contain the blast and debris within the area, in order to minimize damage to surrounding structures. The razing was recorded by hundreds of camera buffs.'"
http://www.okhistory.org/research/hmres ... ion=Search
"The Biltmore was certainly the largest building to fall during the Urban Renewal era. The explosion that took down the 26-story, 600-room hotel in 1977 was televised across the country, so certainly it made an impression."
http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-the-b ... le/3470180
"The building is enormous. It is concrete. It is full of steel. It reaches many stories into the turquoise sky. All around it is a teeming city. There is traffic in the streets. Huge and delicate office suites of glass and steel are right next door. And nearly a million people live nearby. Yet the building is decaying. It is abandoned and crumbling. Police have had to remove squatters several times. It is a danger to the city, and must be removed. But how to do so without creating even more of a threat? There is a sound of sirens, then a deep, almost subliminal explosion. And slowly, almost gracefully, the building seems to melt into itself. The glass suites are unharmed. The traffic hurries on. The million people barely notice".
http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/200 ... ction.aspx
So this 33-story Hotel was neatly demolished in 1977 - with conventional dynamite explosives. Does anyone still contend that the 110-story WTC towers were IMPOSSIBLE to demolish with the very same / yet much perfected methods in 2001 - twenty-four years later? I sincerely hope we can finally get over this endless and tiresome debate.