How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis

[James Lewis]

And if you really believe that, I have a nice piece of swampland in West Texas to sell you. Sorry, but not all buildings are imploded from the bottom up. Most sports stadiums, for example. And if they weren't brought down by demolition, please explain in a logical way how else they could have come down.

If you really believe that mere fire caused this, I refer you to the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, which burned for over 24 hours and not only did the core of the building remain intact, but even a crane that was on top of the building remained standing. And the core of that building wasn't nearly as robust as those of the World Trade Center.

As far as I can tell, there was no controlled demolition of any building at the WTC site, and they were all brought down by flawed design, airplane cashes and fire. There was an earlier attempt to bring them down by a truck bomb that failed. Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos - such as the destruction of the Traymore Hotel on the Atlantic City Boardwalk in the early 1970s which clearly show the building being brought down from the bottom up while the WTC clearly went down from the top down.

I agree with Tony and Robbyn Summers in that these false conspiracy theories do nothing for our understanding of what really occurred on 9/11 other than to distract from the real issues that should be addressed.

Bill Kelly