A lot has been said about "mysteries" surrounding the 9-11 attacks. This article itemizes the inconsistencies that have never been explained by official statements and reports. These details remain unanswered. And since the agencies responsible for investigating the attack are uninterested in examining them further, we are forced to apply common sense to assess the likely causes.


The Impossibility Of "Collapse By Fire"
Molten Steel and Explosives
Architectural Drawings & Explanations
Comparisons To The Oklahoma City Bombing
Evidence Hurridly Sold Overseas

NOTE: Because of the large number of photos, this article is divided into four sections to enable faster downloading.
Flight 93 - The Pennsylvania Crash
The CONSTITUTION & Police State Laws

Part 1: The WTC Attack

The haunting legacy of 9-11 is that the "official version" doesn't address the facts. Despite the "official" denials, there were warnings of suicide hijackers both from our own intelligence and from other nations. Yet no warnings were given to the public or airline pilots. These "security peculiarities" set the stage for the inadequate "official" version of 9-11.

To get a clearer picture of what happened on 9-11, we have to note that all warnings of the impending attack were blocked in a way that's out of step with even "everyday" aeronautical safety procedures. Equally strange is the lack of official repercussions against those who let the 9-11 attacks "fly below the radar". No reprimands, no resignations, no investigations at any office or department.


The more we read about the World Trade Center collapse, the weirder the "official" account sounds. Given the lack of any remaining hard evidence, a common-sense speculation is called for.


Because the investigators at the WTC site were hampered so severely, documentation efforts were equally hampered. And the debris was too quickly disposed of overseas.

9-11 was the first collapse of ANY steel-framed building from fire. This makes it complicated. What makes it more complicated is that three buildings went down - not just the twin towers. The third building, Seven World Trade Center (7-WTC), was not hit by an aircraft loaded with jet fuel. Also, there was NO FIREBALL from the "alleged" tank of diesel fuel burning or exploding - (diesel fuel does not "explode"). It cannot be explained-away as a "coincidence," since there were two different architectural styles, and an eight-hour delay. About this, as well, no "official" questions were asked.

ALL of the 9-11 events have an unusual appearance of "coverup" about them: from descriptions by witnesses conflicting with officials "explanations," to the incongruities of subsequent "investigations." That leaves the obvious question: "So, what IS being covered up? The planes hit the buildings, they burned & collapsed. What's the big deal?"

To really answer that, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE - AND EXPLAIN - THE COLLAPSE OF "7-WTC," the building that was NOT struck by a plane

One must first go to the reports and descriptions of the molten steel at the base of all three buildings, including 7-WTC. It is also necessary to make the assumption that these accounts are factual, as there have been no denials - or investigations - of these reports. These reports are too strange to ignore: particularly given the associated thermal imagery of the post-collapse WTC site. Those reports are not limited to a single individual, or group. The "pools of molten steel" descriptions, if investigated by a "military mind," would at once suggest something on the order of massive Thermite charges. There is no amount of mechanical energy associated with the collapse that could "melt and pool" any steel. Bending steel with horrendous mechanical energy is one thing - but melting it is quite another.

Certainly, a "demolition" would be a big undertaking (roughly forty-seven center-core steel columns would have to be rigged) - but certainly not impossible. After all, the "official" deceptions of 9-11 were massive undertakings in journalistic smoke-and-mirrors in themselves.

And motivated men are not so unclever as to be unable to conceive such an undertaking. The high volume of day-to-day traffic in those buildings could easily allow "workmen" - electricians, plumbers, etc., to have access to the necessary areas to place devices whose contents they themselves did not know of: a fuse box here, a water flow meter there - any of a hundred appliances that could have disguised explosive charges within, appropriately placed, to be activated by an external wireless signal.



Steel has specific properties that are well known to anyone who cares to research it. In order for steel to actually melt it must reach a temperature of 2890° F or greater. However, jet fuel burns at 1800° F maximum. Melting steel also requires sufficient time to allow thermal energy buildup and "peak" melting temperature. To obtain the melting temperature for steel, we need an external temperature of approximately 2,900 degrees (F), with enough time for the metal to convert from a solid to a liquid. The process can only be sped-up with a much higher temperature such as that produced by Thermite approximately 5,400 degrees (F). That's almost twice the heat of the burining jet fuel. All the jet fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel - under any conditions.


Concerning the "temperature" argument, the pictures and video of the WTC do NOT show the aluminum exterior of the WTC towers deforming as a result of "intense heat" from the burning fuel. So it is difficult to argue that the fire was so hot that it caused catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC's STEEL vertical support structure. Neither do the images of the OUTER steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell only mechanically destroyed (by the plane) - but no suggestion of collapse from a thermal cause (burning fuel). Considering the mechanics of heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what the fire dynamics were inside the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns would have been the structural "weak-link" - the first to bend or melt IF any melting went on.

Another assertion is that the elevators or stairways were acting as a chimney: But if any catastrophic temperatures actually "chimneyed", this would have caused the contents of the upper floors to burn violently - which was not the case, as seen in the images; instead we had the predominant brown and white smoke, indicating a relatively cool temperature.

It has been asserted that the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts. However, the WTC towers had three separate elevator segments, with only one elevator shaft going to the top. Thus, the ONLY other top-to-bottom avenue for central destruction were the 47 core steel columns. If there were "inspection ports," or a few holes cut in the core columns, the necessary charges could be lowered into place.


...Each 33-story portion is serviced by four zones each with six single-deck local lifts, with the local lifts of zone II and III separated by two sky lobbies. Building tenants or visitors desiring elevator transport to the floors of zone II or III must first travel on a sky-lobby shuttle elevator to the upper sky-lobby and then transfer to the appropriate local lift for final transport to their destination.... FULL ARTICLE - www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9805-003.html-ssi

The Naudet Brothers videotape/DVD demonstrates the lack of any prominent lobby smoke or sooting to indicate any amount of jet fuel pouring down the single elevator shaft & burning. Again, remember that the elevators were broken up into three separate levels. That only leaves the possibility of demolition charges. Strangely, in the Naudet documentary, the North Tower lobby windows were all blown outward - requiring a huge pneumatic force in a lobby of that size. The associated burn victims leave the source of the flames in question. The inherent nature of fire suggests that the fire or blast came from below the lobby.

In the evidence of the WTC collapse, the North Tower antenna starting down first was second only to the infamous tell-tale blonde, in the FEMA report, standing in the impact hole of the North Tower. Her presence attests to the fact that the fires were obviously too cool to collapse the towers, let alone so catastrophically.

A few sentences in the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) report [Chapter 2] add to the "mystery" of the collapse:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

The buildings were designed to NOT collapse from "normal" fire temperatures. The question of the likelihood of a collapse (especially a very rapid collapse) remains unanswered

Look to the compelling photos below. (Also used in the FEMA report.) In the center of the impact hole (look very closely) there is a woman standing there, leaning to the right. Therefore we have to consider just how cool the pre-collapse temperatures were at the point of impact - presumably the hottest point. The second picture shows her more clearly, standing fully upright.

SEE - Site about this photograph & the woman pictured here

Could it have been a "controlled demolition"? We would have to consider the matter of "explosives." Witnesses present at the site DID hear two explosions: one immediately preceeding the collapse, and a second explosion AT THE MOMENT OF THE COLLAPSE. Recordings of on-scene news reports reveal this dual-explosion occurrence prior to each building's collapse. Radio and telephone reports by people present at the site just prior to the collapse all commented on "3rd and 4th" explosions - then this kind of talk vanished from the airwaves shortly after 9-11.






Another major focus is the reporting of the "pools of molten steel," discovered at the very base of the WTC towers. The issue is that, between the molten steel reports and the relative silence, Thermite is the best probable candidate for such sabotage. It is vitally important to realize that if the metal had been heated by ANY conventional fuel, it would have to be heated from below. Jet fuel burning in open air will reach 1,100 degrees - insufficient to MELT steel.

A device such as a Thermite charge is the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION as to how the molten metal could be found at the bottom of the debris (as opposed to being melted OVER or WITHIN the debris).


WHY THERMITE? The "quiet" destruction of any significant portion of basement column segments would reduce the need for explosive charges ABOVE. Gravity would do the "dirty work" of collapsing the structure as the foundation is weakened by the blast from below. Also, the melting steel at the base would act as a "shock absorber," that would help disguise the blast from the surface.

All 9-11 reports acknowledge the molten steel. However, there is a bit of a mystery about the fact that incredibly high temperatures were recorded for approximately a week after the collapse.

The center-section supporting structure of the WTC tower buildings broke apart as it collapsed. Therefore "mechanical energy transmission" doesn't explain things. It's not the same as hitting a nail with a sledge-hammer - transmitting heat from the impact. A "shattering" nail would not transmit the force necessary to "heat" the opposite end of the nail. Therefore, the force of the collapse couldn't melt the bases of the core columns.

The URL video clip, below, displays the two occurrences of "cutter" jets - shooting to the right - of a classic controlled demolition -


The south WTC tower is most representative of the collapses. Remember that it lost its "cap"-

- therefore the energy from the structure above would in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure below. In theory, the "cap" should have torn loose and independently fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue vertically. The "cap" tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed "in formation" - with the rest of the structure. The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself. The "center of gravity" of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground! The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt - and fall - of the "cap."

If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the "cap" should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above: alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to "pancake," as was witnessed. It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!

With the outer walls being vertically self-supporting, any interior dynamics (action) would be hidden from view. Remember that the shattering of the outer walls progressively followed the collapse of the building core.

It is worth noting that there was an expected delay in the core collapse, as evidenced by the videotapes and pictures illustrating heavy free-falling external debris gaining a slight lead on the building collapse. Again, a stopwatch is a key forensic instrument.

The basic mechanics of the collapses offer another major clue - BOTH buildings were damaged so as to create a segmented "cap." Yet with a radical difference between the mass (size) of the "caps," both towers collapsed - identically!

In the extreme, the individual floor "plates" might have been able to let go ("peeling" from around the columns and the outer walls), but - at a minimum - the lower (ground level) segments of the heavy steel inner columns should have been left standing, somewhat vertically, like stray swizzle-sticks. Yet, clearly something major also happened at the very base of the building - a search warrant is required to find the strongest vertical components in the surviving structure - but not so with the weakest!

Given that the lower columns were radically thicker steel, and obviously stronger, some of the columns should have still been standing in some significant number. Yet, from the post-collapse photographs, the outer walls appeared to be the strongest vertical sections; which they were not. Still, the lower outer walls were left standing; not the more massive "core" columns. The magnitude of both vertical and lateral forces - even considering location - doesn't make sense, not even in the context of "chaos."

It IS certain that not all of the columns collapsed at their base, evidenced just by the blessed group of survivors caught in the remains of the sole-surviving stairwell.

While there are pictures to show "stubs" of some core columns, the numbers of the core columns are few.

Depending on the descriptions available of the amount of "molten steel" witnessed, the reports lead to the possibility that there might have been "over-kill" Thermite charges at the very bottom, guaranteeing a totally vertical collapse. Strictly as a guess, one might estimate an eight-foot section abruptly melted down or was taken down by some form of Thermite "shape charges."


How The Architecture Defies the "Collapse By Fire" Explaination

In the videos & pictures of the collapsing segments, it is clear that the lower windows were exploding significantly below the collapsing section above. That imagery should not be confused with the more prominent "jets" indicative of demolition squibs. The window expulsion would be a "plunger" effect, expelling the air as the core collapsed - independently of the outer shell. In simple terms, those images represent the differential between gravity accelerating the core's collapse, versus the outer walls resisting collapse (due to their independent vertical support). As the core collapsed, the outer shell segments let go from the lateral forces, a stress that they were not designed for. The images also demonstrate the unique force concentrations in TWO events - not just one; with a third such collapse to follow: 7-WTC.

Let's compare this to the "official" position. Remember those "heated and deformed bolts," which we're to believe gave out almost simultaneously? In chapter two of the FEMA report, it is revealed that the bolts of the "weakened" floor beams were lateral (sideways) supports; not vertical. The vertical support plates (L-shamed "hanger brackets") for the floor joists were welded!

They additionally infer that the "corner" bolts ALL lost their thermal insulation, that no heat was radiated away by the steel-on-steel contact; and that the usual volume of heat was not ventilated out through the shattered windows - along with all that smoke. The "manufactured presumption" is that the heat totally accumulated to produce the cited temperatures - not from burning jet fuel, per FEMA - but from burning furniture, interior finish materials and paper. With all that "contained" heat, the cooler outer steel walls are supposed to have heated and expanded sideways - independently of the heated & expanded steel floor joists - That's not how fire physics operates.


FEMA glosses over another detail: the focus of the report's analysis should have been on the stronger MAIN floor trusses, not the "transverse" (90-degrees to the main joists) floor joists. The floors were supported by an "x-y" grid of vertical supports, not a single row of parallel trusses - as otherwise suggested.

The reality is that the expansion of the heated/expanded floor trusses and joists would have initially added strength, not taken it away! Until the heat reached approximately 700 degrees, would there be any weakening of the trusses & joists. The heated floor structural elements would have "snugged-up" to the cooler outer walls. The outer walls [cooled by external convective air currents], being vertically channeled, would not have "expanded-away" from the steel floor joists, leaving the floor panels to pull away from their supports and then collapse.

While any expansion of the trusses and joists would have definitely affected the outer walls, the effect should have been negligible. The fact of the outer walls being the last to collapse attests to the validity of that argument.

This brings us to another interesting point - the windows ran to the top of the full ceiling - thus the heat accumulation would have been relatively negligible, given the open ventilation from the volume of broken windows - evidenced by the wind carrying the smoke away. The internal components and the outer walls would not have been subject to a massive and uniquely "contained" (non-ventilated) "heat treatment," relative to a reasonable amount of time which would have been required to cause ANY significant collapse.

These counter-arguments radically diminish the idea that the rigidity of the cement floors and their deeply corrugated steel containment "pans" were somehow "destroyed," with the subsequent "dead weight" causing the floor joists to abruptly "bow" downward and inward and collapse. The "official" presentation also ignores the insulated steel pan acting as a contact "firewall" for the cement floor, as well as an effective "heat-sink." It must not be forgotten that the deep corrugation of the steel pans constituted additional vertical support, similar to rebar [a steel reinforcing bar, a component of reinforced concrete structures].

Again, the obviously brief time of intense heat exposure negates the possibility of a collapse from burning fuel.

A heat-induced floor collapse may be possible - for limited numbers of local floor segments, affecting one floor at a time. Given the surviving thermal insulation - in some part - around the steel, the heat could NOT have been universally distributed over an entire single floor, let alone over ten floors, particularly in the case of the North Tower.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel. However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat unnaturally accumulated, rather than ventilated, enough to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel, and in such a short period of time.

It must also be considered that the elevator shafts and the stairwells acted as chimneys. The fires on the floors above the impact floors attest to the probability of those fires being started by the "chimney effect." What started as a conduit for flame, later became a conduit for ventilation.

Such ventilation would also have acted to cool the 47 vertical columns, diminishing any tendency to weaken & buckle - to any appreciable extent. It's important to remember how quickly the collapse occurred - if the purported cause-and-effect was factual- to ascertain the impossibility of the "official" report.

As evidence of the heat escape, one picture of the events shows the woman STANDING at the edge of the burned-out North Tower entry hole (Illustrated in figure 2-15 of the FEMA report). If she could have stood upright at that location, she would have come from the interior of the building. Therefore, it's academic that the interior temperatures couldn't have been hot enough to produce an abrupt event - such as the nearly instant collapse.

To be fair, the pictures do show what is apparently a well-fed conventional fire on a floor approximately two stories upward from the woman. Again, the building was designed and "rated" to deal with that temperature level.

The aircraft impact would have taken out approximately 30 exterior shell columns, weakening the face of the building. However, it is clear that the exterior collapsed as a result of the building core collapsing, with the interior material having enough lateral energy to shatter the outer shell as the core collapsed - with the cement flooring shattering into so much dust.

Returning to the argument of the mechanics of a basement "core collapse," the lowest floor in the buildings would only have traveled the distance of the missing "basement" segment - whatever that level may have been. [For the sake of argument, again, let's call that eight feet - literally at the last level.] The lower floor would have traveled eight feet, then stopped. However, with that collapse (transmitted the full length of the core to the very top of the building) the upper segment would experience an acceleration effect in the classic "mass-times-acceleration" equation. Thus, with the aircraft impact and fire damage at the top, the weakened and "segmented" upper portion would be dynamically converted into a "plunger." Gravity did the rest.

To keep the concept of such an operation simple, it's necessary to consider the idea also that ONLY the base of the columns were rigged with Thermite charges. With enough induced force (collapse), the upper "core" column attachment joints (bolts/welds) could conceivably shear/shatter in a vertical "accordion" effect from the downward accelerating mass.

However, such a collapse could not take place at the "free-fall" velocity. There is no escape from that fact. A cheap stopwatch gives the whole thing away.

In all the images of the collapse, there is nothing seen to suggest that the broken-off upper-building "caps" (in their entirety - including the outer walls) collapsed onto the lower floors (making contact with the lower floors) - until impacting the ground. The South Tower "cap" tilted onto the lower floor: it did not pancake onto that floor. What is NOT seen is a solid initial "crunch," of the upper floor collapsing onto the lower segment.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see a solid initial "crunch." Without such an event, logic looks to the argument: "No pancake from above; no pancake below." The "caps" could only BOTH fall in "formation" if the lower sections were falling at an equal speed - identically timed. Both sections would need to be subject to the same "trigger event" for that kind of timing. TWO such occurrences are too much for coincidence. With respect to this argument, the collapse of the North Tower gives a remarkable example.


Image 1 Image 3
Image 4 Image 5


In the online images, freeze-framed, during the collapse of the North Tower, it is observed that one FIRST sees the antenna collapse by approximately 10 - 20 feet. It is necessary to compare the top right corner of the building exterior, versus the first "segment line" of the antenna. Note the wind-driven 'trail' of the smoke, versus the smoke being ejected into the wind - from an "event" inside the building.

Next, (looking through the general smoke) an intermediate set of "puff lines" of smoke are uniquely seen - ABOVE the aircraft impact entry hole: from the top floor, down to the impact point. The "puff lines" extend along the entire floor line, escaping from the windows. Those unique uniform linear "puff lines" are the smoking gun, as the "puff line" can ONLY occur if the floor BELOW the "puff line" is solid, allowing the necessary compression, which pushes the smoke outward. No solid floor = NO "PUFF."

Any significant fire would have been at least one floor below the last "puff line!" That indicates the collapse of the cooler upper floors (core column collapse) and not the heavily fire damaged floors - immediately above the fire.

Note that the corner post in the images is rigid, relative to what is obviously happening within the building. The additional outer structure, which helps stabilize the antenna, reveals how the upper external walls are particularly resilient to independent collapse. The collapsing internal floors from the TOP of the building caused the entire cascade; not the fire-damaged floor - exceptionally.

The nearly simultaneous occurrence of the "puff lines" - and the light smoke color - indicate that the alleged fire/heat would need to be uniform up to the top-most floor. In other words, independent fires burning on multiple floors, producing simultaneous and identical temperature profiles. IMPOSSIBLE!

Again, in the images, the fire below is not "fanned" [billowing flames escaping] until after the event of the "puffs," indicating the true sequence (core collapse). The antenna collapses by about 10-20 feet, the "puff lines" occur, then the fire gets "fanned." The collapse of the antenna says that the events started from the roof - not the burned floor immediately above the impact! All forty-seven columns could NOT have given way at once from fire damage! VISUALLY- everything started from ABOVE!

Again, in the images of the North Tower, the antenna is shown collapsing, independently of the outer shell. That says that the forty-seven core columns collapsed FIRST. The floor panels didn't arbitrarily "flake off" their mounts from fire damage.

The roof (furthest from the heat) obviously collapsed FIRST.


The North Tower antenna weighed 353 TONS! Thus, the 47 core columns would need to be strong enough to not only support that weight, but be able to endure the effect of wind (100+ Knots) swaying the antenna, in addition to some sway-endurance value for earthquake shock. Any such "safety factor" would have otherwise served to also guard against thermal damage (loss of vertical support) from a fire.

The engineering requirements of the antenna mounting would have its weight resting upon some type of "plate," thereby distributing its weight over a broad area. The antenna weight would not be limited to something such as a single "pole." In some fashion, that "supporting plate" area would have been distributed over a high percentage of the 47 columns. That design would protect against both gravity (vertical forces) and wind (lateral forces). Thus, the early - and near vertical - antenna collapse singly attests to nearly the ENTIRE 47-column core collapsing FIRST!

Additionally, later images attest to the antenna landing almost vertically; it didn't topple. (The top of the antenna was standing so vertically that the fire fighters used it for a flag pole.) That image attests to the LACK of any significant resistance until reaching the ground. Such does NOT attest to a "progressive" one-floor-at-a-time collapse, versus a near simultaneous collapse of ALL floors - at the central steel core!


The outer shell was fitted with "outrigger" segments, extending for approximately the top ten floors. Thus, the outer shell was designed to carry part of the antenna weight. Hence, the added rigidity of the upper floor walls attests to a radical and rapid collapse of the core - not the outer walls.

In the "official" account, the floor-plate attachments are supposed to have let go, (on cue - given the images) causing the accelerating cement "pancake" mass. According to that theory, only the first floor above the fire initially collapsed, causing the floors below to progressively collapse; one-floor-at-a-time. That requires a sequence of delays - however brief.

According to that presentation, the core columns would be left standing - however briefly - as the floor panels released from their attachment points. In theory, as the floor panels let go from their mountings, the load would be relieved from the core columns - leaving them to stand/balance, momentarily. We can be certain - just from the timed duration of the collapse - that such was NOT the factual collapse progression. In the case of BOTH buildings, everything let go at once. Thus, with the core columns obviously collapsing first, there had to have been SOMETHING to breach the vertical integrity of the 47 steel columns - EARLY in the collapse, not later.

Given the undeniable sequence, the floors fell as a consequence of the core column collapse, not the reverse. The pictures simply don't lie!

Remember that THREE buildings collapsed in this fashion. Beyond the description of the collapse, it should be noted that ANY mechanical dynamics which approach this description reveal an extensive and remarkable engineering and operational feat; make no mistake about it. Such an effort couldn't possibly have come from the "Caves of Afghanistan!"

Look back for a moment -

If you put yourself into the mind of a terrorist hijacker, certain things are apparent. The "hijacker's" last mission on Earth is to induce "terror" into the heartland of America - the "evil satan" of the planet in his mind. So, what better way than to attack a symbol of America's wealth and power. Images were important - mass-media coverage would be key. So, that left the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

But, once making that decision, the mass casualties are the key, along with the visual effects of the toppling of the towers. It's academic that as the towers fell over, more thousands would be killed on the streets below, and still more within any additional "financial" buildings which could be struck down by the falling mass! BUT: they hit them at the top! Why?!

ONLY - if they wanted minimum physical damage and loss of life! That's called the "Least-Risk" point.

The world is left to believe that three amateur Cessna 172 pilots crashed three complex jetliners into three buildings, flying at over 300 Knots, at the "Least-Risk" point - on the very first attempt!

Then imagine the thought processes of the second pilot. Their "theory of the situation" was that an airliner's speed and inertia could knock the towers over. BUT, "Mohammed the ham-handed" (the first pilot) just disproved the theory, managing to do minimal damage to the first strike on the North Tower. So, is the second pilot going to emulate the failure-result of the first pilot? Logically, the second pilot would go for a low hit, attempting to topple the second tower, in an attempt to at least trap thousands in a guaranteed inferno.

If such elaborate thought was put into it by the hijackers - training for a 757, coordinating their pre-hijack movements precisely so as to be undetected, hitting the targets within minutes of each other - wouldn't this be a likely action by the second hijacker?


ABOUT "Seven World Trade Center".

In all the "coincidence" associated with 9-11, imagine the probability of three vertical collapses (two WTC towers + "7-WTC") by buildings under the same person's or group's control/ownership! AND - two different structural architecture styles.

Just the 7-WTC collapse brings to mind the TV imagery of commercial demolition.

Yet, nothing has "officially" been said regarding the obvious. No official questions have popped up STRANGE! WHY?

Nobody wants to go near the "coincidence" of the 7-WTC collapse, not even FEMA in their WTC report. The collapse is "talked-around," but no viable cause is offered. The video captures of 7-WTC display every characteristic of a controlled demolition collapse. Once again, the core of the building led the collapse of the outer walls (below).

Additional video of the collapse is available at:


Note - quickly - in the action sequence: the "cap" of the building (the elevator motor housing atop the roof) falls first, then the building "breaks" and sags in the middle, as it falls onto its own "footprint." Notice also that there is no accompanying surge of smoke to accompany the collapse.

THEN, there's that tell-tale "...something missing:" - FIRE! There is no fire visible at the back of the building; not even a significant amount of smoke! So, why didn't the building fall on its face??

Remember that 7-WTC was a "standard" I-beam "grid" structure - seen below - not the innovative "tube-within-a-tube" design used in the twin towers. So how did it collapse within approximately eight hours of burning? Or, if one considers nefarious motives, why wouldn't fire be enough? Deliberate destruction of specific property within the building? Evidence destruction? Who knows? It's enough that none of the buildings should have collapsed from fire, let alone all three - in record time.

About WTC-6 -

For some unknown reason, FEMA took "no" for an answer, by not examining the collapse of WTC-6. While that's certainly suspect, the occasional assertions about the collapse of WTC-6 don't offer any viable suggestions of "...more wrong." By any reasonable examination, one would easily conclude that the collapsed holes in WTC-6 came from above: WTC-1 debris. By all visible clues, WTC-6 had a lower garage system which collapsed, leaving the deep "cavern." In the images shown, the alleged "detonation smoke" color & texture is consistent with the powdered cement from WTC-2 - so timed as to apparently get caught in the horseshoe enclosure of the plaza buildings, such that it shot skyward (as it lacked a horizontal path). Any curved path would have increased the speed of the "wind" associated with the collapse. There are no reports of explosions sufficient to account for the damage, and there is no seismic data to suggest any explosives were involved.


While the "remote control" possibility is sometimes viable - certainly "passionately" - argued, there is no known suggestion which allows the aircraft to be taxied among other aircraft; or taken off via remote control - particularly at a busy public airport. Just the required human communication with ATC would be on the edge of impossible. Once airborne, remote control is possible. However, the imagery of the second aircraft striking the WTC demonstrates a bank angle beyond the limits of the autopilot system; it was hand flown. Any guidance on the order of GPS-only wouldn't permit the bank angle. Could a "special" autopilot or control program be installed? Yes, that is possible. Still, a camera would be too noticeable to the "regular" flight crew (assuming such were present). To be brief, reasonable probability is not contained in the Remote Control scenario.

  FEMA again...

FEMA's association with the WTC should be regarded in a jaundiced light. Few know or appreciate the "military" capabilities of FEMA. FEMA is not a "federalized" version of the Red Cross. Question marks have surrounded FEMA since its "influenced" report on the Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City. That report was based on the force from a blast crater of 28 feet in diameter. The photographic evidence shows an 18-foot crater; clearly far too small to account for the damage to the building. The families of the OKC bombing victims were allowed to stand at the edge of the exposed crater for a Public Relations event, but the report-investigators were never allowed to see or go near the crater - nor examine appropriately.

The OKC seismic data demonstrated two blasts, not one. The argument of the secondary "reflected" (echo) signal doesn't hold up, as the magnitude of a "reflected" signal would have been diminished, which it was not. Two seismic stations show identical timing between the blasts. A reflected" signal would have shown an increased time differential; between the close-in station, and the distant station (20 miles away).

Returning to the World Trade Center towers, the one unexplained WTC issue is the continuing fire from below the collapsed debris. That was NOT jet fuel, just by virtue of the smoke color. Any residual liquid fuel would have been burned or dispersed - essentially evaporated on the way down. Refer to FEMA's statement above: if jet fuel couldn't have induced the collapse, there could not have been enough remaining liquid fuel to account for the subterranean temperatures; jet fuel doesn't "leak-down-and-smolder."

By all evidence, the smoke was smoldering debris and escaping residual heat. BUT the post-collapse temperatures (gathered by satellite heat imagery) were radically too high to be just smoldering "building debris;" even with any remaining jet fuel being factored. Buried debris will not burn at a temperature hotter than its open-air temperature. Remember the millions of gallons of water which were constantly being sprayed on the 'pile.'

That takes us to the last reasonable question, "Then, what WAS fueling that kind of temperature?"

About all that can be said is "Good question!"

To be fair, it is necessary to honor the challenge, "Give me one good reason to NOT believe that the aircraft fires brought down the towers!"

Once again, statistics alone demonstrate the obvious. The reason that the firefighters bolted up the stairwell was that they were totally certain that there was no danger of collapse. They had no fear; one may go to the transcripts of the radio traffic for evidence of their associated faith and courage. they knew steel buildings just don't collapse from fire damage. Now, the world is expected to believe that there were three such collapses on 9-11 - with one building receiving no impact or affected by jet fuel.

To be clear: There is no known history of steel buildings collapsing from fire, even after days of burning. Yet the two WTC towers collapsed within an incredibly short span of time. The color of the smoke from the towers indicates that the jet fuel was burning very rich and cool. Steel - not raw iron - melts at approximately 2,900 degrees (F). The jet fuel was probably burning around 1,000 degrees.

It simply impossible for three buildings to have done an identical collapse on the same site, within hours of each other, with two different architectural styles, two distinct fire sources with all three structures being owned by the same individual/group.


Evidence Hurridly Sold...

Then, we should take a look at the history of the insurance policies & claims.

Questions arise immediately at "No Questions Asked:" Can we accept that a million tons of steel was hurriedly sold - overseas - with no opportunity to do a reasonable forensic examination? We then have to ask, "Who authorized the sale (and who made the profits)?" Ask Donald Trump how quickly municipal decisions are made in New York!

The Justice Department should have prohibited the sale of that material until it had been examined; yet...

Additionally, we need to explain the "cause-and-effect" blank spot on the 7-WTC collapse in the FEMA report.

More importantly, we have to consider the absence of any competent investigation. The Murrah (OKC) bombing report should have resulted in charges against FEMA officials, just over the false crater-size specification.

But FEMA was sent back in to do their "control thing."

History will record 9-11 as the ultimate test of "Plausible Assertion" by the media. The "experiment" is a test of "How much will the public believe without evidence?" It comes down to "If they said it, I believe it; that does it!"

Unfortunately, speculation is the best anyone can do at this point; there simply isn't enough remaining "hard" evidence to say conclusively. Yet, the description above goes to the core issue: that the "official" account is far too inadequate - and methodically so.


Look at some basic facts about the Pentagon attack and Flight 77. Among the alleged "wreckage," no tail, no wings, and no... CONTINUE...