Were the world trade center towers brought down by controlled demolition?

I am suspicious, but not convinced.

Can anyone convince me?

People like Bobbi and Das_Spinkel certainly “appear” reasonable, don’t they? I mean, surely It would be “impossible” to set up enough explosives to bring the WTC down, right? And of course jet fuel burns like a “welding torch,” right? Hmmmm……actually, this is what I call “NEAR SIGHTED DENIABILITY.” They present a case that appears rational, but only because they have either omitted or are unaware of certain pertinent truths which are essential.

For instance, Das_Spinklel is suggesting that even if there was a plan to use controlled demolitions on the WTC, it would be impossible to set them up without arousing suspicion. He is saying that there was no opportunity. If we are talking about Muslim Terrorists here, then yes, I would have to agree with him. In fact, there is no way on Earth that Al-Qaeda could have slipped past security and set up enough thermite demolitions to roast a marshmallow let alone the Twin Towers.

However, if you consider the possibility that people in our own Government used demolitions on the WTC, then yes, there was a HUGE opportunity.

If you wanted to blow up a building, you would have to somehow get by the security of the building, right? Except in this case, the government didn’t have to “get by them.” Who was in charge of Security at the WTC? A company called ‘Securacom.’ And who is the Principle owner of Securacom? MARVIN P. BUSH, George W. Bush’s younger brother!!! Who was the CEO in 2001? One of his cousins!! Read about that here:


Several weeks before 9/11, employees reported odd maintenance details and whole floors that were blocked off for remodeling. They also reported seeing men with large spools of cable throughout this period. A week before 9/11, Securacom pulled the K9 dog units out of the building without explanation. These dog units were originally stationed at the WTC to sniff out explosives. A bit suspicious don’t you think. Thats not all though! Right before 9/11, WTC employees reported unprecedented power outages throughout the buildings, meaning the buildings security systems were completely down! Learn more in this video:


Bobbi’s scenario of the Twin Towers collapse is completely implausible given the laws of physics, and even NIST, the group that is payed BY THE GOVERNMENT to explain away the inconsistencies of the official story, ADMITS that the pancake theory is wrong.

The official story claims that the impact of the planes and the fire from the Jet Fuel heated the Steel Core columns of the WTC until they softened and collapsed. Under the laws of physics, Jet fuel CANNOT soften or melt fireproofed steel like that of the WTC. Jet Fuel is made mostly of Kerosene, which burns very quickly when fueling an explosion, and burns at around 1200 degrees F. NIST and others have claimed that it burns at 1800 degrees F, but this is only in PERFECT conditions (meaning a sterile lab). Steel core columns fireproofed with asbestos like those in the WTC DO NOT MELT unless exposed to long periods of 2500 to 2800 degree heat! This is a fact of physics, and irrefutable. Therefore, something else must have melted those columns. NIST and Popular Mechanics claim that the steel was not melted but “weakened” enough to give way. Unfortunately for them, the steel was not weakened, IT WAS MELTED.

NIST violently denies the existence of MOLTEN STEEL during the cleanup. They do this because the existence of Molten Steel is proof that Thermite Demolitions were used to bring down the towers. They have attempted to suppress any information on this Molten Steel that was seen by dozens of firefighters and clean-up crew. They think they’ve done a good job, but I have the proof of molten steel right here in a CNN on site report:


Notice that they point to the Molten “Meteorite” on camera and say “THIS IS MOLTEN STEEL,” and many of these molten meteorites were found during cleanup, which means NIST and Popular Mechanics has been LYING to the American public. For a deeper explanation, read this:


In order for the the buildings to collapse completely at near free fall speed into their own footprint as they did, all the steel core columns would have to have melted simultaneously. Never in the history of Modern Fireproofed Buildings has this ever happened due to fire. And yet, on 9/11, it happened three times! That’s right, I said three!

Many “debunkers” will claim that even though Jet Fuel cannot melt fireproofed steel, the buildings were so weakened by the impact of the planes, that it didn’t matter. First, the Engineers of the WTC themselves stated that the buildings were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 mph! The 707 is very similar in size to the 767.

Secondly, WTC Building 7 was not hit by an airplane at all, and yet it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own foot print due to fire like the others. Here is an example of a Steel Building (The Windsor Tower) on fire, versus the WTC 7 on fire. Notice that the first building burns for 15 Hours and does not collapse:


Debunkers will claim that the Windsor Tower was mostly Concrete, and that is why it didn’t collapse. This is false. The Windsor Towers main support came from its Fireproofed Steel Core Columns, just like the WTC:


The top floors of the Windsor Tower weren’t even Fireproofed, and still it did not fall.

So then, why did WTC 7 collapse after 5 hours into its own footprint at near free fall speed?

Remember your physics now, even if there was generator fuel inside WTC 7 as officials claim, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to melt the fireproofed steel. PERIOD. Something else would have to melt the steel. Many steel building Architects have come forward to speak out on 9/11. There is a video symposium below by Architect Richard Gage on why 9/11 could only have been an “inside job.”


No one has presented a scientifically plausible theory for the collapse of the WTC other than Controlled Demolition.

Also, I defy anyone to explain the molten steel and the 2800 F heat found in the wreckage of the WTC using solid science. If NIST can’t do it, and the 9/11 Commission ignored it, then the official story is a sham. Period. And, Controlled Demolition must be officially investigated.

There’s a wealth of information out there on 9/11 truth!

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth Website.. this is a good place to start. They’re very scientific and professional in the way they examine and present REAL evidence.


I found this Website to be very compelling! It includes quotes from Senior Military Officials, Physics Professors, Pilots, Engineers, Ex-CIA Officials etc etc. … These professionals give reasons why they believe the 9/11 ‘Official Story’ to be a cover-up based on their own expertise


When I consider the opinions of these professionals I try to think of how they will be effected in their professional lives as well. That gives more credibility to those who support the 9/11 truth movement, because they’re actually putting their reputations on the line. And they have a lot to lose by supporting 9/11 truth. On the other hand, the debunking professionals have everything to GAIN by supporting the ‘Official Story’. The Government has tremendous control over these professions and they can make or break a career.

BMF.. that’s absurd. Ignore what facts? Please explain. I’ve been thru all of the 911 truth sites and the debunker sites, and the 911 truthers examine ALL the available evidence. It’s the debunkers who ignore the facts.

The thing I find most suspicious – more so than the *visible* squib explosions; more so than the offices being cleared out the weekend prior to the collapse; more so than the testimonies of all the firemen, policemen and witnesses (and even all of that is fairly persuasive) – is that the BBC *reported* that WTC 7 had collapsed while it was still standig in the background. The live satellite feed conveniently vanished within a few minutes, and the BBC have since claimed they’ve lost the tape of it – “due to cock-up, not conspiracy.” Is that even possible? Fortunately others kept it and uploaded it, so we can all see it for ourselves.

Lots of documetaries out there; lots of rebuttals and lots of scientists and chemical engineers on both sides giving diametrically opposing opinions on the same data… but there’s really no rebuttal for the fact that the BBC knew it was gonna collapse, a full 20 minutes before it did. That’s the most damning piece of evidence, because it was so unintentional. It really is like someone mis-read the memo, or maybe the ink on the fax got smudged, and they made a monumental mistake unintentionally, panicked, then compounded it by trying to cover it all up. So, yeah, I don’t think it’s as simple as “Dubya is ebil and the gubmint doned it” but imo they were controlled demolitions.

I think they were brought down using controlled demolition. Just watch the movie called “Loose Change” on YouTube. Plenty of evidence. Go listen to the FDNY radios on 9/11. Even firefighters said on their radios that they keep hearing extra explosions after the planes hit the buildings. No way the twin towers could collapse on each other so perfectly without any resistance.

And to answer that question someone said, why would they bother with planes if there were bombs in the towers? That’s simple. The planes were used to cover up any thoughts of bombs. That way they show you a video of planes going into the WTC on TV and show you a picture of a terrorist and you believe it. I mean look, it worked. In concluson, planes were used to cover up and make a fake terrorist story so americans believe and Bombs were used to bring down the towers. I’m sure of it.

to that question one might ask another, why did they remove bomb sniffing dogs from the building a week before the attack..reading some of these answers…it looks like MOST of the people hear aren’t slaves that believe everything they are told and thats good…so I don’t need to go into all the EVIDENCE and real questions about this matter.. notice the people who say that jet fuel doesnt have to melt steel, it just weakened it enough for the buildings to collapse, THEN WHY WAS THERE MOLTEN STEEL POURING OUT OF THE SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS? and not to mention pools of molten steel found beneath the rubble weeks later.. 9/11 was an inside job.. im gonna stop before I really get started lol

independent voting RON PAUL < he'll get some answers on 9/11

Good luck. All of the physical evidence that could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt was protected by the government and whisked away while the country was still in shock. Once people started asking questions, conveniently there was no physical evidence to be evaluated.

9/11 was a crime. Since when is evidence of a crime destroyed?

I am suspicious too but not hopeful the truth will ever be revealed. Perhaps if the government honors the growing call for an independent investigation, some light may be shed on the topic.

Rather than ask, “DID They” or “Could they have” …ask yourself…”does our gov’t have the kind of people with a WILLINGNESS to do such a thing?”

IF you find that the answer is yes…then you must entertain the possibility that they did it.

INstead of focusing on 9/11…do your homework on the Aspartame/Rumsfeld connection the millions he made and the deaths/sickness aspartame causes,,,,and the continued political muscle to keep aspartame on the market..oh yes..and the dozens of former FDA officials who quit and went to work for Searl..the company who made aspartame…..The history of the Bush family and its ties to selling suplies to Hitler during WWII, current and past business partnerships with the Bin Laden Family, Saudi Oil, Military defense contracting income, the 90 billion dollar savings and loan scandal, the Florida election scandal and the sudden and inexplicalbe declaration by the Supreme Court that the election was over ( they do not have that authority)

The whole purpose of a controlled demolition is to bring a building down into it’s basement. This is precisely what happened on 9/11.

Debris cannot crash through steal and concrete floors as fast as it falls through the air. And there was no slowing.There was no resistance from the other undamaged floors beneath the towers. And you think that a few scattered fires burning at temperatures less than the stove in your kitchen weakened steal, and caused the building to collapse into it’s own finger print?

What about the record number of put options in the days before 911? You were aware of the unprecedented amount of insider trading that took place prior to the attacks, right? How can you possibly explain that?

So we look to forensic analysis to find the evidence for such bombs.

Did you know that Appendix C of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on the world trade center steal?
The New York Times called this the greatest mystery of all. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron and iron oxide. Iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steal. Sulfur used with thermite (FE2O3+2AI+Sulfur)is called thermate, produces much faster results. The white smoke you see on the pre-collapse footage of that day shows white plumes of smoke, which is characteristic of a thermate burn!

Thermate, my friends, is MILITARY GRADE EXPLOSIVE!

Not to mention the main stream media’s coverage of that day showed molten steal pouring from the twin towers before they collapsed! POURING!!! Like lava! Kerosene jet fuel is not even close to being hot enough to melt steal, and even if it was, the F.E.M.A and N.I.S.T report both stated, as did the 9/11 commission, that MOST of the jet fuel was burned up on impact!

The short answer is yes.

And you shouldn’t need convincing. This debate should have been over a long time ago. The evidence is overwhelming.

At this point, anyone who still doubts that the 3 WTC buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition either hasn’t done their homework, or is simply in denial.

We’ve got photographic and satellite evidence of extreme temperatures and molten steel. Don’t tell me we don’t, because we do. And don’t tell me jet fuel melts steel. Don’t tell me Bush is too stupid to pull it off, that’s a cop-out, and you know it. If you see him as an imbecile then you know full well that he is simply a pawn acting on behalf of higher interests. Don’t you dare give me your ‘pancake theory’ bullsh*t (no matter how tasty it sounds, it’s still wrong). I have two words to say to your pancake theory: “freefall speed.”

And don’t try to accuse me of suggesting there weren’t any planes. There WERE planes. But there was also THERMATE. And, thankfully, lots of witnesses with video cameras.

The buildings were instantaneously pulverized in MID-AIR and fell into their own footprints at freefall speed.

Either those jets were MAGICAL, or someone planted explosives in those buildings. Someone who had the influence to plan a mock terrorism exercise on that same day, and someone with the authority to order NORAD to allow to happen what their own S.O.P. would have STOPPED on any other day.

Either 9/11 was an inside job, or Osama Bin Laden is a f*cking WARLOCK. Given all the evidence available, ask yourself, which seems more plausible?

my friend has a theory that says that our own government (the US) brought the twin towers down just so we could go to war. He believes such a thing because there is no direct evidence at all to show Al Queda or any other groups were involved….

Only the evidence itself can convince you my friend. Watch, study, research, cross-reference….and learn.


…oh and also; notice how most of the people who believe our government, they won’t offer you explanations or debunking devices of their own….they just get mad and throw around terms such as “conspiracy nuts” and “tin foil hats” and “drinking kool-aid” ……. you know, much like you experienced in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. They simply cannot carry on a civil debate about the issue.

One argument you will hear from the ‘believers’ is “that would have taken thousands of people to be involved, someone would have come forward by now. No way they can keep a secret that long.” To them I say……ever heard of the Manhatten Project?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *