http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

Has to be read to be believed. This is a perfect example of LIHOP limited hangout disguising itself as real truth. if OILEMPIRE is not funded by Silverstein himself he might consider a small donation...

demolition theories
NOT needed to prove complicity
once the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen was established (which was documented within a few weeks of the events), everything beyond that is merely detail.

on this page:

* evidence for AND against demolition of the Twin Towers
* disinformation about demolition - are fake claims being promoted to discredit real evidence for demolition, or to get the skeptics to believe in something that did not happen?

related pages:

* pull it quote - bait and distraction
* WTC Building 7
* faulty design: the overlooked scandal

I have a legal case that will convict Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, General Myers, right now in court based upon evidence that is not scientific in nature, I don't need to go there, that is a red herring when we focus on the crime that has been committed against this country. We've already proven who did it, the how doesn't have to be fully fleshed out. ...
These discussions of what possibly induced that [collapse of the towers] is a major psychological operations campaign designed to keep the American people from looking at the evidence of guilt.
-- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, "The Party’s Over"

The case of 9/11, now being tried in our metaphorical court of the corporate media and public perception, leaves no doubt as to who could produce more expert witness testimony or present them in the most impressive manner. ... It is something else to analyze the temperature at which steel is weakened and determining whether or not an unproven amount of burning jet fuel, in unspecified concentrations and unknown locations could have weakened steel supports in the World Trade Center to the point where an unspecified amount of weight might cause them to buckle.
-- Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, pp. 13-14

The position of OilEmpire.US is that a faction of the Bush administration demolished the towers by allowing the planes to be hijacked, but explosives were probably NOT in the buildings.

It is likely, but unprovable with public domain evidence, to prove the theory that remote control technology that can be built into Boeing planes was used to "hijack the hijackers."

It is reasonable to assume the impacts of the planes plus the blast furnace type fires were sufficient to ensure the collapse of the towers. It is fortunate they remained standing long enough for those below the impact zones to escape.

The official complicity to let it happen and provide technical assistance resulted in demolition, but not in the scenario that much of the "truth movement" postulates.

The evidence for suppression of numerous warnings, interference with investigations of the flight schools before 9/11 and the multiple exercises on 9/11 is more than enough for an impeachment and conviction for aiding and abetting. Further details are like arguing whether the Reichstag in Germany was burned with gasoline or kerosene -- while the camps for dissidents are being completed for use. As with the Kennedy assassinations, the real issues are WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen, not the fine details of how it was technically accomplished. We are as unlikely to know the precise mechanisms behind 9/11 as the identity of the shooters of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, but why these crimes were committed is much less obscure, and a more fruitful path for serious investigation that could lead to positive social changes.

If there is any truth to the demolition theories, it is unlikely to be found in the loudest promotions of these claims (Loose Change, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which is why the media strategy is to focus on these alleged investigators and not those who highlight much better evidence that is not easily attacked.

The third skyscraper that collapsed - Building 7 - was hit by substantial debris from the collapsing towers, had more significant fires than reported by most 9/11 "truth" websites and videos, and the firefighters had concluded hours before its collapse that it was going to fall down, too.

The three collapses do look like controlled demolitions, but that is not proof that they were -- and there is an increasing volume of easily debunked nonsense promoting demolition theories in websites and videos. There are good claims for demolition, good claims against it, and silly hoaxes for it that are easily debunked. Whatever the truths for or against demolition theories, they are not needed to show complicity in 9/11.

As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, there are not any verifiable, unshakeable proofs for demolition (even the best claims are inferential). Meanwhile, there is well documented evidence that shows abundant warnings from close US allies that were very specific to time, plane, means.

Some of the gaps not explained by any demolition theories:

* no analyses of the damage to the structures from the impact of the planes, which caused considerable damage. (Some who were in the towers thought the building was going to fall over when it happened.) The claim that fire alone caused the collapses is not the official story, even if many claim that it is.
* there was a noticeable bulge in the buildings just before collapse seems to refute the demolition theories -- although photos on websites are not of sufficient resolution to prove or disprove this aspect.
* how could potential explosives survive the impacts and infernos? How could they have been detonated at the same locations as the impact zones while surviving the fires (in the North Tower, for more than an hour and a half). While black boxes used in aircraft data recorders can survive the shock and heat of plane crashes (and they were found from all four 9/11 planes), their integrity is merely to ensure data recorded before the crash remains retrievable, they do not continue to function after extreme force and heat.

The only "physical evidence" investigation making a serious effort to carefully evaluate "physical evidence" is wtc7.net / 911review.com / 911research.com. Most of the other web based efforts focused on demolition still promote the hoax that Flight 77 did not hit the (nearly empty part of the) Pentagon and therefore are not careful in their efforts (even if they are sincere, which some of them are). Some pro-demolition efforts fail to mention the word NORAD in their efforts, which suggests there might be a deliberate effort to misdirect the truth movement.

Some advocates of the silliest complicity hoaxes aggressively promote the idea of demolition with "evidence" that is easy to expose as fake. There are two possible explanations:

1. the towers were not actually demolished, and the fake claims get the 9/11 skeptics to support a position that is not true (the plane crashes, shattering of the structure and the blow torch effect of the fires was sufficient to cause the collapses)
2. the towers were demolished, but the fake claims are used to discredit the idea in the media so that calls for a real investigation remain as marginalized as possible, for as long as possible

refuting top claims for demolition theories

David Ray Griffin has compiled a list of some of the top claims for demolition. Here are a few rebuttals to the assertions. Tactically, it would be much more helpful to have credible structural engineers and other relevant experts present these claims, instead of theologians. The 9/11 debunkers who support the official story have had much fun pointing to the scanty technical qualifications of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" regarding the physical evidence issues -- while ignoring a large volume of evidence that does not require scientific analysis to show the government lied about 9/11.

http://www.truthmove.org/content/demolition-wtc-7/
has a copy of Griffin's list

No large steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. The official explanation given by the government teams is that fire destroyed both towers and building 7. The damage from the aircraft and debris are admitted to have played an insignifcant role.
rebuttal: the WTC did not fall just because of fire. The damage from the aircraft had a major role, it was not "insignificant." The official explanation for WTC7 is the tower falling onto it caused much of the damage, and there are many claims the firefighters knew for hours it was going to collapse. These claims for 7 may (or may not) be true, but ignoring them is not honest.

The collapse of all three buildings occured in a symmetrical, straight down fashion, into their own footprint. While dust and debris may have been ejected outwards, the structures essentially fell in on themselves, leaving surrounding buildings essentially undamaged.
rebuttal: All of the surrounding buildings had gouges in them from the collapses.

The buildings collapsed at almost free-fall speed. This means that each building must have experienced some spontaneous global structural failure so that there was no resistance or delay in the collapse. The official “pancake theory” for the towers is untenable because as upper floors supposedly collapsed onto those below, there would have been structural resistance. Instead the collapses began almost instantly and showed no signs of resistance.
rebuttal: There is no reason to expect the lower floors to substantially slow down 100,000 tons (or more) of material from falling down.

According to the 9/11 Commission, “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (p. 541). In fact, the core of the towers was actually a support system of 47 massive steel columns. The commission just ignored these because their existence conflicted with the official story of spontaneous global collapse.
rebuttal: It would more relevant to examine what the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) said about the core columns, since they did the investigation. Plus, it is reasonable to assume that the plane crash caused considerable damage to the core columns. There were very strong core columns, but technically it is true that the center of the building was hollow (the elevator shafts surrounded by the core columns).

All three buildings were completely destroyed. The resulting piles of rubble were only a few stories high and there were no large, structural pieces left. If you consider the structual engineering strength and redundancy put into the buildings, it is ridiculous to attribute this result to a “structural failure” or simple “collapse.”
rebuttal: again, there is no reason to assume that the collapse would somehow stop once started.

Nearly all the concrete and non-metallic substances in the towers were pulverized into a fine powder. The gravitational energy of a simple “collapse” would not have been sufficient to cause this pulverization.
rebuttal: Controlled demolition is not an explanation for this either, unless you assume each floor was blown up, which is not credible. Some of it may have become ash from the fire.

Molten Steel was also observed by multiple witnesses at ground zero, even weeks after 9/11. The energy needed to melt steel would only been possible through the use of explosives or other foreign, high-energy devices. Jet fuel and the collapse of the buildings could not have created enough heat or energy to leave molten steel.
rebuttal: controlled demolition does not cause fires for months. Jet fuel was not the only thing that burned in the towers -- paper, furniture, plastic (made from oil), other synthetic combustible materials all added to the conflagration. Strong winds through broken windows and up the elevator shafts turned the towers into chimneys and got hot enough to weaken steel and melt some aluminum pieces of the plane. Perhaps an explanation for the "powder" is "ash" from fire? It would be helpful to ssee primary evidence for "molten steel" (and not molten aluminum from the planes) that can actually be verified.

Firefighters, initial news reports and other witnesses prominently reported secondary explosions within the towers.
rebuttal: Many have suggested these noises were a combination of very large short circuits and the floors pancaking, which would definitely sound like that. How do you separate the real noises from those sources from the alleged explosions?

WTC 7 housed the New York offices of the CIA, Secret Service, SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and Rudy Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management bunker.
The New York Times on WTC 7: “no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire… Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat….A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”
rebuttal: You can't simultaneously have "high temperatures" and claims that the fires weren't hot enough to bring down the buildings. The insinuation tons of thermite burned for weeks is not credible.