Most of us remember September 11, 2001 as a tragic and world-changing day. In the only major attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, over a dozen Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers, collapsing the buildings and killing thousands of people in New York.
While the explosions and fires were put out soon after, the social and political consequences for American and global citizens alike are becoming ever more severe. We spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to replace priceless civil liberties and security in our own country with draconian surveillance systems and militarized police.
More specifically, here is a summary of the borderline treasonous measures the government has implemented in response to the attacks:
- The Patriot Act, which eroded fourth-amendment provisions and made it almost impossible to conduct financial transactions and digital communications without government surveillance
- The Military Commissions Act, which confers “justice” to military prisoners without due process
- The War on Terror, which was not only unsuccessful in even reducing Islamic terrorism but has cost taxpayers $1.7 trillion and killed thousands of American soldiers
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which wastes exorbitant amounts of money while stripping away civil liberties and labeling all sorts of deviant groups (like white nationalists and people with too many bumper stickers) as “domestic terrorists”
- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the airplane security mafia that extorts law-abiding citizens who want to avoid cancer machines and full body pat downs, all while profiting from smuggled cocaine and fees for “easy access” lines
- The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which legalizes indefinite detention for supposed “terrorists” and consolidates surveillance powers for unnamed defendants without due process
It is obvious that we lost a lot in the fourteen years since the attacks, and the potential future restrictions on our civil liberties in the name of stopping “terrorism” are seemingly neverending.
With so much at stake now and in the future, it is therefore imperative that we know the full truth of the event that started it all– the 9/11 attacks themselves.
You might think that case has long been settled, but in what follows I will introduce several important facts that are left out of the official narrative.
While they seem to suggest more sinister motives at play than simply “Ay-rabs who hate ‘Murica,” the reader can draw his own conclusions based on the physical evidence. However, may the reader be warned: this article will pose more questions than answers.
Disclaimer: The remainder of this article is based heavily on the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I am not affiliated with this organization in any way, although I encourage the interested reader to support them however possible.
Steel Skyscrapers Don’t Collapse
Steel has a melting point of approximately 1370º C, while the typical temperature of building fires has been found to be 900-1000 degrees. This is why steel, and more specifically steel-reinforced concrete is chosen to build modern skyscrapers: it is unlikely to be structurally compromised from hydrocarbon fires, ensuring the building will not collapse even if all of its contents burn.
This is not just theory; in 1991, the majority of a 38-story building in Philadelphia burned for over 19 hours in a raging office fire of much larger magnitude than that of any of the WTC buildings. Yet it remained standing for 9 years afterward, despite minor structural damage caused by the extensive fire.
There are in fact countless documented cases of burning skyscrapers, and they have one thing in common: they do not collapse.
In contrast, the WTC buildings collapsed after only the upper portions burned for a few hours. Although they were hit by planes, the major cause for collapse was determined to be structural damage due to the fires. However, even with the added jet fuel the fire could not have burned hot enough to melt steel.
Although it receives little mention, WTC building 7 also collapsed in addition to the other two towers. A modern steel-frame skyscraper like the one in Philadelphia, the NIST report claims it fell after structural weakening due to office fires ignited from burning debris.
But in order for it to collapse, all or most of its steel support columns must have been structurally compromised. This poses a problem, as a few hours of moderate fires could not have caused such damage when similar buildings haven’t collapsed after being subjected to much longer and hotter fires.
Even if we pretend that the flames could have melted critical support structures, that would not have been enough to bring the entire buildings down at the speed with which they collapsed.
Which brings us to the next major point…
They Fell At Free Fall Speed
You may remember from high school physics that an uninhibited object will fall with constant acceleration due to gravity, while the presence of resistive forces like drag or friction will reduce this acceleration.
This is intuitive, but it may come as a shock to you that all of the WTC buildings fell with acceleration close to freefall. Video analysis of the WTC 7 and the two towers shows that they fell with constant acceleration due to gravity, much like a baseball in a high school physics problem.
For all three buildings to fall at this rate, there must have been little to no resistance under the upper floors that could have slowed down the collapse.
But buildings don’t have zero resistance, particularly steel-framed buildings whose columns have not been melted or even weakened by ordinary fires. And since the planes hit the towers on the upper floors, and the fire spread up, the lower columns were left untouched.
That the buildings did not collapse immediately suggests that the collision itself did not weaken the structure enough to bring it down. But the burning jet fuel and office furnishings could not have done the requisite damage to cause sudden freefall collapse either.
However, there was evidence of another material that might have been capable of doing so…
Evidence Of Thermite And Explosives
Thermite is a highly reactive mixture of aluminum and iron oxide (rust) that burns hot enough to melt steel and iron. There are two pieces of evidence that suggest this material was present at the World Trade Center explosions.
The first is actual unburned thermite that was found in the dust and debris. This material would not have been present unless it was put there specifically to aid in destroying the buildings.
The second reason is evidence of melted steel and iron. As discussed above, the steel beams would have barely been weakened, much less melted by the jet fuel and other materials that were supposedly present.
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that steel did melt: remnants of the I-beams themselves were eaten away and in some parts evaporated by a molten liquid slag. Not many materials can do that to steel, but thermite (or other explosives) certainly can.
The additional evidence for melting is the iron “microspheres” found among the dust that fell all over the city. These tiny spheres are formed by liquid iron droplets rapidly cooling.
Therefore, there must have been some fuel present capable of liquefying iron. This suggests thermite or another compound was used specifically to melt it.
Imagine investigating the collapses as if you knew nothing about the official story. Here we have three modern, steel framed skyscrapers collapse from fires when no such building has ever collapsed in the history of skyscrapers.
Planes flew into the two taller towers, impacting 2/3 and 5/6 of the way up. They remained standing for a few hours while oxygen-starved fires (read: low temperature) fueled by jet fuel and office furnishings raged on the upper floors.
Suddenly they collapsed, neatly and symmetrically falling on top of their own footprints at close to free fall speed despite the lower portions of the buildings remaining structurally sound and untouched by fires.
Meanwhile a third building, with fires supposedly ignited by debris and untouched by flying planes, collapsed in a sudden onset and at close to free fall speed, even though its dozens of steel support columns remained unharmed by the seemingly inconsequential fires.
In the aftermath, residue of explosives and evidence of liquefied steel and iron were found in the dust spread all over the city.
If NIST’s claim that the ordinary fires brought the buildings down is incomplete, as we have shown above, what could explain all these peculiarities of the collapse that are unanswered by their theory?
The only logical conclusion to the above evidence is that another motive force, separate from the fires or the plane’s impact, caused the buildings to fall. In fact, these circumstances are not that uncommon. In fact, old and defunct buildings are frequently imploded using controlled demolition.
Lined with explosives, the main columns are sequentially cut one floor at a time such that all the support structures are rendered ineffective. This is timed very carefully such that the penthouse falls in first and the rest of the building collapses on top of it.
It lands in its own footprint, and while dust and debris spread out, the bulk of the building lands on top of itself. Many examples on Youtube can be found of controlled demolitions of buildings.
These examples all have one thing in common: they almost exactly resemble the manner in which the three WTC buildings collapsed.
I myself am not entirely convinced of the veracity of this theory. There are some good counterarguments to many of the points made in favor of it. On the other hand, there are other points that the government report does and cannot logically counter.
Particularly, WTC 7 is the smoking gun of the 9/11 farce. Its collapse cannot be explained by plane crashes, yet it uncharacteristically collapsed due to routine office fires. This is by far the strongest piece of evidence in favor of the coverup theory.
Compelling as that may be, the evidence presented here still poses more questions than answers. If explosives were used, who planted them? How were the attacks coordinated with the Muslim terrorists? Who organized the attacks?
We know that the CIA supported al-Qaeda-connected Muslims fighting against Russia in the ’80s. 9/11 also would not be the first time the CIA joined forces with foreign rebel groups at the expense of the American people and managed to keep it secret.
Despite fairly obvious motives and the potential for the government to have successfully carried out the attacks, it is still hard to imagine how exactly they would have been able to carry out and cover up this false flag event.
Of course, the improbability of the events is no reason to assume impossibility; we must continue to suspend judgment until more satisfying answers can be found.
To that end, another investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center that accounts for the additional evidence ignored or denied by the official report must be carried out.
This investigation should be conducted by multiple cross-disciplinary governmental and non-governmental agencies with unrestricted access to all of the evidence yet remaining.
Although this interpretation of 9/11 has been labeled a conspiracy theory by the government and media, it is often the very ideas most vilified by the popular opinion that are necessary to think about. They use the term conspiracy theory in the same way as they use “racist” or “sexist”; that is to say, as a way to silence dissent and uncomfortable ideas.
But we have lost a lot since the attacks and the government has and continues to gain even more at our expense. We citizens have an obligation and a right to learn the truth, whether that be the official narrative has been correct all along, or that the government has duped us out of our essential liberties.
Only then will we have a better grasp of the truth and be in a better position to determine the value and necessity of the legal and social changes that have taken place since the attacks.
Read More: Inside The Mind Of The Social Justice Wanker