(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In connection with this fall's debate around the theory that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished using planted explosives 11. September 2001, a pervasive question has been: Had this been possible at all?
In this case, there were two factors: the explosive technology and the crew with access to mount the explosives.
The technology of 2001. Many assume that if the towers were taken down by controlled demolition, then it must have been done as a regular commercial blast with looters and a large number of RDX explosives. This is both superfluous and illogical in view of the available technology in the field of 2001. There are many different ways to take down buildings.
In fact, there were witnesses who were close to the towers when they collapsed telling of systematic explosions inside the buildings.
In the case of WTC the 11. September 2001 – with a massive audience and at the risk of a greater scrutiny of the incident – one would have had to use discrete methods. An example of such a method is the use of termite explosives, which can cut beams in seconds without explosive sounds.
Furthermore, the demolitions could have been controlled by wireless detonators, which have been commercially available for decades. Each charge has a detonator that goes off when it detects a radio signal that matches its unique code. During each tower demolition sequence, radio signals could have been sent for the various explosives, while software on a PC connected to the transmitter would allow technicians to make last-minute changes to the programmed demolition sequences – for example, to adjust the detonation order of the deployed explosives. compared to where the planes hit the towers.
Collapse scenario. To start the collapse, termite would be the most practical to use in terms of sound level. Then ordinary explosives could have been used when the upper part of the building began to fall. You can see in CNN videos that something happened far below the collapsing part of the building stock while each of the towers went down. This may have been the core of the towers that were taken out and pulled down inside the building itself. The core is composed of 47 interconnected large steel beams, which in itself is a freestanding structure at the heart of the building. If this first fell, it would also carry all the floors because the core with its elevator shafts, stairs, mechanical rooms and so on weighed more than the floors attached to it. If there was termite planted on the upper part of the core that started the demolition, it would be difficult to differentiate between traditional explosives further down the core and the further collapse of the building mass.
In fact, there were witnesses who were close to the towers when they collapsed. These witnesses – including firefighters who were close by during the incident – told of systematic explosions inside the buildings.
Termite explosives can cut beams in seconds without explosive sounds.
From NIST's own database of pictures and video, one can form a picture of what may have happened inside the buildings. It is clear that several of the core beams at the bottom of the towers have been exposed to explosive pressure. This may have pushed the beams sideways, and at the same time blown off the top layer with iron up to the welding point.
Installation scenario. A group of about ten people with access to the right places and the opportunity to work undisturbed could have completed the installation of explosives in a few weeks. Of course, here too, the explosives must have been discrete and mounted under, for example, the cover of repairs in elevators and elevator shafts.
Ten months before September 11, 2001, this was actually the case – the biggest lift upgrade in history was then (supposedly) carried out, and the contract went to a company called Ace Elevator. Both WTC 1 and 2 underwent elevator upgrades.
It is important to note that there were technicians from different companies around these buildings every day – elevator mechanics, electricians, HSE inspectors, internet service providers. It was therefore difficult for both employees and other technicians in the buildings to notice abnormal activity, especially in the elevator shafts.
Witnesses, new research and flawed explanations in official theory mean that other theories have flourished in retrospect.
When Ace Elevator got the contract for the renovation of elevator shafts, they came in as a whole new company – in front of one of the world's largest elevator operators, Otis, who had had the maintenance contract in the WTC for several years. In the aftermath of 9/11, it has emerged that Ace Elevator went bankrupt after the towers collapsed, which is especially so when Larry Silverstein's insurance policy, which leased both WTC 1, 2 and 7, covered compensation to companies they had contracts with.
The company Ace Elevator that completed the upgrade has never been investigated by anyone, and therefore no longer exists.
The opportunity was present. In sum, both the explosive technology and the access to mount explosives in the WTC were present in connection with the collapse of the WTC in 2001. One should also bear in mind that when it comes to explosives and technologies related to such, one will adapt the technology to the needs of the mission – with enough resources you can configure your own transmitters and detonators, as shown in a patent from 2001. I emphasize that with this I do not speculate on who could have been behind; that's just the technical-scientific I'm concerned about.
It is because of witnesses, new research and faulty explanations in the official theory that other theories have flourished in retrospect, including among professionals. As of today it is No agencies or organizations that have been able to provide some definitive, complete explanation of how the towers went in total resolution. NIST even says, "We are unable to provide a full explanation for the total collapses" in their conversations with other engineers.
So let's not pretend that there is a consensus among engineers, architects and scientists about what actually happened that day. I call for a healthy debate, and expect a new and completely independent review – which victims' victims in the United States are calling for – and that all possibilities are explored.
- usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm (see especially the last paragraph of the article).
- For more about the lifts in the WTC, see:
Merritt and Harris Inc Property Condition Assessment Dec 6 2000: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/MH%20WTC%20Subgrade.PDF;
NY City Dept. of Buildings response to Aidan Monaghan FoIA request: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-16/nyc-dept-buildings-no-records-pre-911-wtc-elevator-rebuild-one-largest-most-sophisticated-ever
- NIST response: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AsejwN4K0386gcdCv0g8gmhTXEha1w