Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
Twin Towers ---
August 2007: Two years after creating this page, watch this video, long but damn convincing:
http://www.syti.net/Videos/Mysteres11Septembre.html
Some have specialized in analyzing the September 11 file. It is an enormous undertaking. On my site, where I address multiple subjects, in addition to my own personal work, I have included some elements regarding the Twin Towers and Pentagate files. I have received criticism from readers, some of whom had posted their own analyses on their own sites. It may have happened that I did not pass on this information. This is due to the flood of emails I receive every day. Not all messages are from "time-wasters." There is also a lot of very interesting information that forces me to spend hours each day simply passing it on. Regarding this September 11 file, my position is as follows. I think that different points of view must be able to be heard. There is always enough room on a site to add a link or a page containing a summary, and I am always ready to include things like:
- A reader, Mr. ..... thinks I am making an error by saying...... He points out his own analysis at such and such a place..... He develops the argument.... that .... which contradicts .....
We are not doing propaganda. We are only trying to see things a bit more clearly based on what is available. What we can say is that the broadcast of April 13, 2004, including the documentary film "September 11 Did Not Happen," appears to us to be an operation that not only completely discredited the Thema program and the Arte channel but also dishonors the journalistic profession. Indeed, we witnessed a program where multiple people spoke, creating all sorts of amalgams, to discredit Thierry Meyssan. Finally, the grand finale: the viewer was able to watch a "debate" bringing together several journalists, French and German (the program is Franco-German), including the editor-in-chief of Charlie-Hebdo, where Meyssan had simply not been invited. Personally, I cannot conceive that journalists could have participated in such a trial in absentia. This operation alone, a true monument to brainwashing, would be sufficient to draw attention to these files. A reader sent me a DVD copy of the broadcast, of excellent quality, which fits on a CD. I asked for this document to be compressed so that it could be distributed more easily. I think viewers should demand that the Arte channel allow them to download the broadcast in this form, so they can analyze it at their leisure, as it is a model of its kind. Finally, a reader promised me his own analysis of the various crashes, which support the official thesis. I am looking forward to it and will give it the same attention as those who cast doubt on me. If it is impossible for a debate to take place on a television set, contradictory elements should at least be made available to the public on a website.
As for me, I gave my position from the start. These affairs are of such gravity on an international level that they require proper reconstructions to be carried out, with the buildings and their contents, the planes and their full tanks of kerosene, suitcases, accessories, human bodies in place, etc. In a police investigation, one does not proceed otherwise. If all observed elements can be reconstructed, then the official thesis can be validated. Otherwise, doubt remains.
**
May 10, 2004**: Reported by Vincent Emery: A missile on one of the Twin Towers?
**
Source**:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Clearly visible in the video:
**
**http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/letsroll911/Web/ghostplane.closeup.wmv
This image is supposed to represent one of the planes just before impact on one of the Twin Towers. Unless this photo has been doctored, one can clearly distinguish, on the fuselage, attached asymmetrically, a "pod," a large external container such as military aircraft sometimes carry. This pod appears to have a larger diameter than the engines themselves. Those who have analyzed this video, frame by frame, point to what they interpret as a missile launch, just before contact. There are different videos of this impact, taken from different angles. Attached to the image at the bottom right is a side-view image showing what looks like an explosive impact (glow).
These documents call for several remarks.
-
One would need to see how the landing gear is mounted on this aircraft to see if its position would be compatible with attaching such a bulky pod. That said, it would suffice for this same gear to have just enough space to deploy.
-
If this is a "contact shot," this is not without recalling the method used by American submarines to destroy Russian submarines during "pseudo-collisions." See the file on the Kursk. Technically, this detonation a few meters from the target, after detection by telemetry, would pose no problem.
-
If it is a contact shot, why? Some have advanced the hypothesis of dispersing a product within the building to facilitate the ignition of the kerosene (an oxidizer). One can also think of a penetrating and explosive missile, possibly guided by homing on a transmitter placed for this purpose in the central concrete cage, intended to make a hole in it, large enough for the kerosene to flow through and, by burning, soften the central pillars serving as the building's backbone, causing its implosion.
-
Last remark: it is hard to imagine that a civilian aircraft presenting itself on a runway with such an unusual "gadget" could have gone unnoticed by airport controllers, or even by multiple witnesses, passengers, or employees. But, in this affair, everything remains possible, such as the fact that this aircraft was a military or militarized plane, specially equipped, while the airliner was hijacked to be destroyed over the sea, after its flight controls had been taken over by remote control and its telecommunications means neutralized. Consider the unusual nature of the destruction of the aircraft over Pennsylvania, where numerous debris were found kilometers from an impact point, devoid of debris, resembling that of a simple bomb.
-
Finally, of course, there remains the hypothesis of forged documents, etc.
July 10, 2005
Pods under military aircraft.
A reader sent me photographs of military aircraft equipped with "pods" or external loads, which strongly resemble the photographs and video excerpts showing the plane's impact on the tower:
Below, photos just before impact
Source
July 10, 2005
:
Pods under military aircraft.
A reader sent me photographs of military aircraft equipped with "pods" or external loads, which strongly resemble the photographs and video excerpts showing the plane's impact on the tower:
Below, photos just before impact
:
Source
:
May 14, 2004: Regarding the collapse of the neighboring building, "Building 7"
We know that after the collapse of the Twin Towers, a neighboring building also suffered this spectacular collapse. A map first indicates its location. It is not right next to the towers, but two blocks away. The Twin Towers, with their square cross-section, are easily identifiable. This building is indicated in navy blue and marked with the number 7.
Then an image showing the site, in perspective:
Below, an animated gif showing one of the many videos referring to this destruction. Finally, a wider view situating the destroyed buildings. Why this third building and not another?
There are others cited on the page:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html
For reference, here are the occupants of a certain number of floors:
Floor Tenant 46-47 Mechanical floors 28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) 26-27 Standard Chartered
Bank 25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS) 25 Department of Defense (DOD) 25 Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) 24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS) 23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM) 22 Federal Home Loan
Bank of New York 21 First State Management Group 19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group 19 National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management 11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission 9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International 7 OEM generators and day tank 6 Switchgear, storage 5
Switchgear, generators, transformers 4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear 3 Lobby, SSB
Conference Center, rentable space, manage 2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper
level, upper level
switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
The information that this building housed CIA and intelligence services archives is therefore confirmed. This is not just another "rumor." Here is the plan of its foundations:
The destruction of this building, which occurred several hours after the implosion of the Twin Towers, was, according to the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) report (FEMA). This report refers to the collapse of this World Trade Center Building 7. The authors of the document presented on the mentioned site conclude:
- Report on World Trade Center Seven Collapse is reviewed and found to be seriously lacking. At points it is shown to be totally fraudulent. The reviewer concludes that the FEMA Report must be a JOKE.*
This report contains serious omissions, to the point that it can be shown to be totally fraudulent. This FEMA report is a bad joke.
We refer the reader capable of reading English to the aforementioned site, which contains a whole technical study and shows in particular that technical documents have been falsified. In these affairs, we have numerous photos and video documents that corroborate each other, coming from different sources, which make falsification difficult. This photo showing Building 7, with the Twins in the background having just collapsed, is particularly spectacular:
Read in this site all the technical details provided. WTC7 is not designed in the same way as the Twin Towers. The latter are built around a sort of "backbone" consisting of a square shaft with concrete walls, enclosing a structure made of metal beams. The successive floors are then attached to this structure.
This geometry lends itself to a thesis according to which the kerosene from the planes, entering through an opening in this concrete cage, could have flowed inside, burning (with what source of fresh air?). Hence a softening of the metal structures and finally an implosion of the two buildings. For Building 7, the structure is different. See below. This is what is called a "cantilever" structure, where the building is held within a network of crossed metal beams.
**
The load-bearing structure of World Trade Center Building 7**
Detail of this structure, at ground level.
One can clearly distinguish the vertical, horizontal, and inclined beams. For the building to "implode" so regularly (vertically), the fire would have had to heat all the beams in the lower part to the same temperature. Otherwise, the building would have tilted as it collapsed. However, it seems that this fire only affected part of this level of the building. Decidedly, in these affairs, no matter which way one turns, nothing is clear. But it is probably "lacking patriotism," playing into the hands of terrorists, being anti-American, anti-democratic, or even .. anti-Semitic (Arte's Thema broadcast of April 13, 2004) to even dare to ask these questions.
August 22, 2004: Seismographic data concerning the collapse of the Twin Towers
Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
This source corresponds to an American web-journal: AmericanFreePress.net. The article is by Christopher Bollyn.
Time passes. The events of September 11 tend to fade into our past. Note the intervention of Dominique Baudis, director of the CSA (Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel), who, having been the representative of the Carlyle group in France (interests of the Bush and Bin Laden families), allegedly lobbied by letter (source, "Voltaire" newspaper) with France-Télévision to discourage any intervention by Thierry Meyssan, under the pretext " that he was disseminating obviously false information ". See the page dedicated to the extension of the CSA's coercive powers (August 2004).
This September 11 affair continues to be investigated by American private investigators. We had (see an image reproduced earlier on this page) considered a thesis concerning the cause of the implosion of the Twin Towers. We know that structurally speaking, they were literally attached to a sort of central pillar, consisting of metal elements housed in a kind of concrete cage. The idea was that the aircraft, hitting the towers and easily passing through, as the films demonstrate, the fragile structures (floors, glass walls) constituting the floors, could have hit these concrete cages and created openings inside which the kerosene contained in the tanks (the planes' tanks were full and corresponded to transcontinental flights) could have flowed. But for kerosene to burn, oxygen is needed. Now, how to ensure its combustion in these closed cages, a priori without any possible air intake? We run into a new problem where the answer could only come from technical studies, or even full-scale simulations.
What happens when part of the kerosene filling the tanks of an airliner enters a concrete cage and flows inside it, hundreds of meters down? Can it burn effectively? Nothing is less obvious when one thinks about it, because any start of combustion would quickly exhaust the available oxygen contained in the bottom of these cages. They are a priori too narrow for it to be renewed by convection. Would the heat generated then be sufficient to soften the metal structures? The article specifies that the melting temperature of the steel of this structure is high: 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. For information, this load-bearing structure of the towers consisted of 47 huge hollow steel columns, anchored in the Manhattan bedrock at a depth of 70 feet (23 meters).
The Agence France-Presse, according to Loizeaux (President of Controlled Demolition Inc. and questioned as an expert for the assessment of the debris), mentioned, in addition to this combustion of kerosene, that of "masses of paper, fuel tanks, and carpets stored in the base of the building." But, one: would the heat generated have been sufficient, two: where would the oxygen ensuring this combustion have come from? Experts would contest this version of events. Eric Hufschmid, author of a book devoted to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, titled Painful Questions ("Douloureuses Questions", available from Editions du Premier Amendement, 160 pages, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100, Washington DC 20003. Telephone contact 1-888-699-6397) states for his part that this mixture of kerosene and paper, carpets, and other combustibles that were supposedly stored at the base of the building's concrete cage and in the elevator shafts could only have produced a mixture that burned with difficulty, lacking the strong air intake indispensable for their ignition. An argument to keep in mind.
We are still at this point because, in fact, a sort of taboo still weighs on any technical study of the events of September 11 that would tend to contradict the official thesis.
Considering the events, the experts' conclusion (Loizeaux) is that the implosion was an extremely brutal phenomenon, affecting the entire building. That is to say, the 47 load-bearing columns would have given way together, all at once. Loizeaux notes: "if I had wanted to bring these towers down, I would have blown up the base of the load-bearing structure. The weight of the building would then have been sufficient to cause its total collapse, its implosion." Could such an implosion be due to the softening of these structures by heating? One is now beginning to doubt this, as long as this problem has not been technically elucidated.
This is where new data appears, emanating from seismographic recordings made by Columbia University, in a laboratory located 21 miles (37 kilometers) north of New York City. The south tower collapsed at 9:59:04 and its collapse took ten seconds. The collapse of the north tower lasted eight seconds and occurred at 10:28:31. These phenomena produced signals of magnitude 2.1. The impacts of the planes themselves did not produce significant signals. Logically, the strongest signal should have been recorded at the end of the implosion, when the entire mass of the building, literally in free fall, would have hit the ground and created a strong tremor. But exactly the opposite was observed. On the seismographic recordings, on the contrary, a very pronounced peak is noted just at the beginning of the implosion phenomenon, just before the descent of these structures began, images of which everyone has kept in mind, knowing that they meant the death of thousands of people. These recordings were examined by seismologist Thorne Lay, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, who speaks of short-duration peaks, suggesting an explosion. These are indeed peaks, and the intensity of this signal would be 20 times higher than the entire signal corresponding to the collapse of the buildings. All this, according to experts, is incompatible with the official thesis of an implosion due to the softening of the structural elements, a phenomenon that would not be accompanied by any particular seismic signal. According to Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of the Center for Research on Risk Phenomena at Columbia University, this phenomenon must be elucidated and studied. According to him, a signal reinforcement of an order of magnitude would call for an energy release one hundred times stronger. It concerns "short-period surface seismic waves, indicating an interaction between the ground and the building's foundations."
Other technical data:
-
It takes 40 tons of ammonium nitrate to produce a seismographic signal with a magnitude between 1 and 2.
-
When in 1993 a suicide attack took place against the World Trade Center using a truck loaded with explosives, this did not produce any seismographic signal because the phenomenon "was not coupled to the ground." Consequently, the intensity of the recorded signal would support an explosion transmitted to the ground by the metal structural elements sinking into it to a depth of 23 meters.
-
The recorded signal does not match the kinetic energy linked to the implosion of the towers. It is several times higher than what one might expect. A question then emerges: where did the energy come from?
-
Despite the statements of numerous witnesses who reported explosions in the towers, the engineers commissioned by FEMA did not carry out comparative tests in line with the hypothesis of an intentional explosion. These, specifying "that they were not metallurgists," were mainly concerned with selling the debris, in different countries, to clean up the site.
-
The metal debris are now beyond the reach of any expertise, having been sold by weight to companies located outside American territory, in Shanghai, India, or various points in Asia. One must not forget that analyses could have revealed traces of explosives on the various fragments, which have all disappeared, as have the debris from the destroyed wing of the Pentagon, moved within 48 hours after the event. In any case, at the time when this debris was still accessible, it is likely that no analysis of this type was carried out, so unthinkable was the intentional destruction by dynamiting. The plane impacts were there to justify everything.
Thus, as with Pentagate, we come across a collection of obscure points and a series of events dispersing debris that could be subject to later analysis. The hypothesis that, after the towers were hit by suicide planes, their collapses were deliberately triggered by shearing the load-bearing columns at their base cannot be rejected a priori. The seismographic clues go in this direction, on the contrary. But what American could humanly consider such a hypothesis?
Back to Guide Back to Home Page
Number of views since May 10, 2004: