The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
6.  Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?

When considering the possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives there is an interesting variation which is worth considering: What if the Twin Towers were designed — or re-engineered — so that they could be destroyed in a controlled demolition if circumstances required?

What circumstances might lead to an order to demolish the Twin Towers? A situation in which it was believed that they were in danger of collapsing in an uncontrolled manner and falling onto the buildings surrounding them in Manhattan's financial district. In such a case, it might be held, better to demolish one or both of the towers in a controlled manner so as to minimize death and destruction in the surrounding area.

A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City after its demolition and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.

So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on September 11th.

It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.

According to this theory, then, the plane (and possibly missile) attacks on the WTC triggered this fail-safe mechanism, and one or more engineers were obliged (in consultation with the owners of the WTC — or perhaps the owners acted alone) to decide whether the damage to one or both of the towers was sufficient that there was a significant danger that they would collapse in an uncontrolled manner upon the surrounding areas, and that it was thus necessary to push the button which would detonate the charges and bring the towers down, which they did.

[Testifying before a congressional inquiry] Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers — crucial for evaluating the wreckage — until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency [that is, against FEMA]. — New York Daily News, 2002-03-07

Was this because a close examination of the blueprints might reveal clues that the Twin Towers had been engineered to make possible a controlled demolition?  And that FEMA was aware of this?

Since it was this very same FEMA which took charge of the "investigation" into the WTC collapse (and which later released a nonsensical report repeating the official explanation) one might be forgiven for suspecting that their "investigation" has been something less than an unbiased attempt to discover the truth of what happened.

Assume now, for the sake of argument, that a "fail-safe" mechanism as described above was actually engineered into the Twin Towers (probably in the mid-1990s). The explanation given above, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, still leaves open one important question:  Did those who demolished the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11th plan in advance to do so? Did they have prior knowledge of the plan to strike the towers and was the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (and the deaths of thousands of people in the buildings) already planned by the perpetrators of the attacks and those who assisted them?

Given the existence of the fail-safe mechanism, a small number of people would have known about it, including officials at FEMA and possibly including the most senior members of the Manhattan business community (especially if such a mechanism was there to persuade them to remain in Manhattan). Even though this mechanism was presumably built in to the Twin Towers hoping it would never be used, some people would know that it was there and that it could be used — provided one had the authority to initiate the demolition procedure and a putatively sufficient reason to exercise that authority.

Who had such authority? Presumably the owners of the World Trade Center (though perhaps they could not have pushed the button without first obtaining permission from FEMA).

Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents — payable to new beneficiaries. — The Blockbuster

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and [Larry] Silverstein the office portion.

The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July — just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.

Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect. — The Blockbuster

The "arguably sufficient reason" was provided by the impacts and the subsequent structural damage and fire. According to this scenario, then, the purpose of the impacts was not themselves to destroy the Twin Towers but rather to provide the "justification" for detonating the explosives which brought them down in a controlled demolition.

It is interesting, in considering this idea, to look at the actual times that the Twin Towers stood after the impacts. As noted in Section 2, the North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m., in a direct hit and most of the plane's fuel entered the building, causing a huge fire. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most burning up outside. In both cases the fires within the buildings died down after awhile, giving off only black, sooty smoke. If the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, and the intention was to blame the collapse on the fires (as the official story has it) then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower. And in fact the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. These times are consistent with the hypothesis that the progress of the fires was being monitored by whoever was handling the demolition, and that they collapsed the towers at the last possible time, just as the fires were dying down.

Secret Government

We arrived on, uh, late Monday night [September 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning [September 11th]; and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site. — Tom Kenny (FEMA), speaking to CBS anchor Dan Rather on September 12th.

Previous section Contents Next section