9-11 Review
articles critiques
9-11 Research
reviews essays
9-11 Review
sections
Attack & Cover-Up
Means & Motive
Info Warfare
contents
Means & Motive
means
remote control
NORAD's no-show
stand-down
war games
demolition tech
energetic materials
covert demolition
wtc explosives
military command
motive
manufacturing enemies
empire expansion
attack on Afghanistan
invasion of Iraq
drug trafficking
petroleum pursuit
corporate profiteering
corporate welfare
urban renewal
gold heist
precedent
20th century attacks
Reichstag Fire
Operation Himmler
Pearl Harbor
Gulf of Tonkin
Operation Gladio
Operation Ajax
1990s attacks
Kuwaiti incubators
WTC 93 bombing
Oklahoma City
attack scenarios
Northwoods
Operation Bojinka

Demolition Technology

The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, and the implosion of the Building 7 all exhibited the key features of controlled demolitions:

  • The destruction of each building was systematic and thorough, leaving no large intact structures.
  • The three tall buildings were brought down in a highly symmetric fashion, each tower depositing its mass in a radially symmetric pattern around its central axis.
Bringing tall steel-framed buildings down into their footprints is a considerable engineering feat since it necessitates overcoming the natural tendency of such structures to topple. It is accomplished in conventional controlled demolitions by the synchronized detonation of numerous small explosive charges, placed adjacent to support columns throughout the building. Through precise timing of the detonations of the hundreds or thousands of explosive packages, interior structures are destroyed ahead of exterior ones, pulling the exterior walls toward the central axis in a classic controlled demolition implosion. Presumably the detonations throughout the interior or exterior could be simultaneous, or marched up the building as it sinks into its footprint.

Building 7 Compared to the Twin Towers

The destruction of Building 7 exhibited numerous tell-tale signs of a conventional controlled demolition:

  • The building sank into its footprint at near free-fall speed.
  • The remarkably short rubble pile was mostly confined to the building's footprint, with exterior wall sections lying on top.
  • The destruction produced a cloud of dust with at least the volume of the building.

The destruction of each of the Twin Towers differs from a conventional demolition in several respects:

  • The destruction proceeded from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
  • The time to complete destruction was about 50% longer than free-fall time.
  • The destruction was hidden behind a descending mushrooming cloud of pulverized materials and metal pieces.
  • The rubble pile was spread out, the vast majority of the fallout lying outside the towers' footprints.
  • The destruction produced a cloud of dust that continued to grow after the last piece of steel hit the ground, when it was already twice the volume of the building.

If the destruction of Building 7 is explainable as a conventional demolition, then perhaps the different features of the Twin Towers' destruction are explainable as modified controlled demolitions, in which far greater quantities of explosives are used, and the charges are set off in a top-down instead of bottom-up sequence in order to simulate "progressive collapse" from the crash zones.

The main differences between the destruction of Building 7 (and conventional demolitions) and the destruction of the Twin Towers can be summarized as follows:

  • The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down instead of either from the bottom up or simultaneously throughout.
  • The Twin Towers were destroyed much more thoroughly than buildings destroyed by conventional demolition.
  • The destruction of the Twin Towers killed over a thousand people.
Because of these differences, most people less readily entertain controlled demolition of the Twin Towers than they do of Building 7. Ironically, the first two differences actually support a stronger case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers than Building 7. Their more thorough destruction required the input of more destructive energy, and their top-down sequence of destruction meant that less mass was available above the collapse zone to accomplish this greater degree of destruction.

Computerized Demolition

The use of computers and radio links could greatly facilitate the ease of deployment and operational flexibility of a scheme employing numerous individual explosives to destroy the towers from the crash zones downward. Eric Hufschmid has written about how such off-the-shelf technology could be used in the controlled demolition of the towers.

e x c e r p t
title: Were explosives detonated by computer via radio links?
authors: Eric Hufschmid
Packages of explosives could be installed on nearly every floor, in the areas used by maintenance personnel.
...
Each package would have a battery powered radio link that connected it to the main computer. This master computer would be able to detonate specific packages of explosives at specific times simply by sending signals to the packages.
...
After determining that the airplane hit the 77th floor of the South Tower, the master computer would be set to detonate the explosives on the 77th floor, and then 250 milliseconds later the explosives on the 76th floor, then then 180 milliseconds later the explosives on the 75th floor, etc.

The scenario described by Hufschmid is not far-fetched. While most controlled demolitions still use detonating cord to set of the demolition charges, technologies for the wireless detonation of explosives are already commonplace. For example, HiEx.bc.ca sells the TeleBlaster "VHF or UHF telemetrey [sic] blast initiation system intended for commercial blasting operations." 1  

Aluminothermics and Nano-Composites

Other means of designing the demolitions for ease of covert deployment could have involved the design of the explosives themselves. For example, an explosive material that could be applied as a surface coating, would remain stable for long periods of time, and would be triggered only by the very high temperatures emitted by their detonators, would be ideal, particularly since even its application could be disguised as perfectly innocent-looking fireproofing or primer coatings applied like paint.

Perhaps surprisingly to people who don't follow military-funded research at the U.S. national labs, such materials have apparently existed for at least a decade, in the form of high-tech nano-structured aluminothermic composites.

e x c e r p t
title: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority's engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of "alternative materials" (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

References

1. The HiEx TeleBlaster II, HiEx.bc.ca,

page last modified: 2009-04-18
Copyright 2004 - 2011,911Review.com / revision 1.08 site last modified: 12/21/2012
Puffs of dust below the zone of total destruction in the South Tower may be from explosive charges.
The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example of a high-tech blast initiation system that eliminates the need for detonation cord. The HiEx website describes its operation:
The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device.