Toppling the towers: why five purported methods?

Five propaganda campaigns focusing on five different methods of building destruction have been implemented in order for a lot of tail-chasing to go on among those interested in the 9/11 big event. And boy did the propagandists succeed in that endeavour!

• Fire

• Thermite / nanothermite

• Nukes / mini-nukes

• Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)

• Controlled demolition

Without investigation we can have a very good idea what the actual method was because only one method has ever been shown to bring down high rise steel frame buildings and while 9/11 is a fantasy story packed full of intriguing rabbit-holes … we live in the real world.

In fact, we will be very much hampered in our investigation of what brought the buildings down by the fact that no reliable data has been presented. What we cannot rely on:

• The footage of the destructions of the twin towers and WTC-7 (all faked)

• Other imagery including that of Ground Zero, molten metal and car wrecks (faked)

• What we are told analyses of the dust yielded (we can only expect propaganda)

• Seismic data (we can only expect propaganda)

• Witness testimony (we know a lot of it is false)

First and foremost, 9/11 was a movie.

Even though, ultimately, we can intelligently determine the method used, they drowned us in propaganda for all five … which so cleverly ensures that the proponents of each have a way of discounting the other four. Let’s take a look.

Fire

Of course, there needs to be a method that doesn’t incriminate the real perpetrators and what more appropriate method than fire.

Terror

Fire works wonderfully for the terror element - “Oh those poor people, stuck in the buildings, burnt alive” (but the evidence indicates the buildings were fully - not partly - evacuated as per standard demolition protocols)

The firefighter heroes

Those brave guys who really weren’t on the occasion of 9/11 - see Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter “oral” histories

Rebirth

Perhaps we can interpret 9/11 as the “official” start of the New World Order - the beginning of the massive mind control by psyop manipulation of a New World.

Verdict on fire

It is of no consequence that the explanation given by NIST for fire to have been the cause of destruction of three high rise steel frame buildings on one day has no basis in any precedence, forensic data or the laws of physics - propaganda works like magic.

Fire Protection Engineers, Scott Grainger and Ed Munyak, respectively:

Steel structural frame buildings, high-rise buildings, simply do not collapse due to fire. There has never been until 9/11 an experience where there was a high-rise building that was steel frame completely collapsed.

I became fascinated with the government’s version of the events on 9/11 because this was totally contrary to anything I’d ever experienced either working in the field of fire safety or knowing what I know about mechanical engineering. It defies many fundamentals of mechanics and materials and physics and just many fundamental engineering concepts.

Wasn’t fire.

Thermite / nanothermite

A propaganda theme used to support this method is that there was molten steel at Ground Zero “for weeks” after the big event which is, supposedly, explained best by the use of thermite. However, there is clear evidence of fakery of molten steel:

• A still image shown at the beginning of this video has been said to show molten steel, however, when you see the footage from which it was taken it is clear that the light representing molten steel is simply light from a flashlight.

• In this clip, taken from the propaganda film, Collateral Damages (reminds me of the propaganda film, Collateral Murder), FDNY Fire Rescue Captain, Philip Ruvulo, says: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel running down the channel rails.” Channel rails? According to ChatGPT, “Channel rails are commonly found in various situations where they serve as guides or supports for different purposes,” none of which corresponds with expectations of what you would see in the case of high rise steel frame demolitions.

• In the trailer of the film Phil, while smoking a cigar, says, “Being a captain during this year was a horror.”

What ChatGPT has to say in response to the question of thermite used to destroy high rise steel frame buildings:

There are no documented cases of high-rise steel-frame buildings being destroyed using thermite in controlled demolitions or accidental fires. Thermite burns at extremely high temperatures and can melt steel, but it is not a practical tool for large-scale building demolition due to several key limitations:

Limitations of Thermite for Demolition

1. Localized Effect – Thermite burns intensely but in a concentrated area. Large steel columns or beams require prolonged exposure to achieve significant weakening, making it impractical for controlled demolition.

2. Lack of Explosive Force – Unlike conventional explosives used in demolition (e.g., shaped charges or high explosives), thermite does not produce a shockwave to break apart structures.

3. Ignition Challenges – Thermite requires a very high temperature to ignite, making it difficult to coordinate for multiple structural cuts simultaneously.

4. Lack of Evidence in Real-World Demolitions – Professional demolition experts use explosives, hydraulic shears, and cutting torches to bring down steel buildings efficiently and predictably.

Thermite in Structural Damage & Sabotage

• Thermite has been used in sabotage operations (e.g., destroying equipment, cutting rail lines, or disabling vehicles), but not in the demolition of entire buildings.

• While thermite can melt through steel, controlled demolitions require precise structural weakening at key load-bearing points, which thermite is not well-suited for.

Verdict on thermite

Evidence of fakery, lack of clear evidence, lack of suitability and lack of precedence mean: not used.

Nukes / mini-nukes

Dimitry Khalezov, who we are told was a former Soviet military officer, but whom we can infer works for US intelligence, is a proponent of the nukes theory.

His main arguments for this claim (taken from ChatGPT) revolve around the following points for which - as we know the imagery of the destructions and that of Ground Zero is faked - there is no compelling evidence:

Alleged knowledge of a "Nuclear Demolition Scheme"

Khalezov claims that he became aware of a supposed emergency demolition system built into the Twin Towers, which allegedly involved underground nuclear charges. He asserts that such systems were standard for high-rise buildings, though no credible evidence supports this.

Deep Underground explosions theory

Khalezov claims that a small nuclear device was detonated beneath each tower at a depth of about 50 meters (164 feet) and the explosion would have created a massive underground cavity, vaporizing the building’s core supports from below and causing the entire structure to collapse in a controlled manner and this explains why the towers appeared to disintegrate rather than topple over.

"Dustification" of building materials

He asserts that only a nuclear explosion could account for the way much of the towers’ concrete and steel seemed to turn into fine dust and claims that the enormous dust clouds, resemble the effects of underground nuclear tests. (“Dustification” is also used for the DEWs method.)

Seismic and thermal anomalies

He points to recorded seismic activity before the towers’ visible collapse, suggesting that it was caused by an underground nuclear detonation and claims that lingering high temperatures at Ground Zero, which persisted for weeks, were consistent with residual heat from a nuclear event.

The "China Syndrome" effect

He argues that the molten steel found beneath the debris pile was caused by residual nuclear heat, a phenomenon he likens to the "China Syndrome" effect seen in nuclear reactor meltdowns and dismisses explanations involving jet fuel or office fires as inadequate to sustain such extreme temperatures.

Alleged U.S. Government and media cover-up

He suggests that the U.S. government classified information about the nuclear demolitions to prevent mass panic and believes mainstream media and scientific institutions are complicit in suppressing nuclear explanations of the collapse. Yeah, right! They really overegg the omelette on this one.

Soviet knowledge of nuclear demolitions

Khalezov claims that, as a former Soviet officer, he was privy to classified documents regarding nuclear demolition methods for skyscrapers and argues that the U.S. and USSR had agreements regarding nuclear demolition systems for major urban structures, supposedly for controlled emergency use. Yeah, right!

Verdict on nukes

P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)

Engineer, Judy Wood, is the most prominent exponent of DEWs, however, as a great deal of both the visual and testimonial evidence which Judy bases her theory on is shown to be faked, we simply have no good reason to believe the DEWs explanation for destruction because there is no clear evidence of the alleged DEWs phenomenon anywhere - DEWs are no less a mythical phenomenon than nuclear weapons. Supposed evidence of DEWs in Hawaii has been debunked by Agent131711

The image of a car allegedly from the 9/11 event below shows a missing door-handle suggesting - as stated by Simon Shack - it is a junkyard car and if you put the image below into Google image search you will find numerous examples of similar looking cars all over the place, some of them involving fakery no doubt just like 9/11 (see below).

Images of “toasted” cars brought up by google image search when the image above was entered. Click here for responses to google image search.

Verdict on DEWs

Propaganda just like nukes.

Controlled demolition

Just like the four other methods, we see propaganda used for controlled demolition … but that doesn’t automatically mean that controlled demolition wasn’t the method used to bring down the buildings. We need to analyse the propaganda to understand its purpose.

Journalists allude to controlled demolition

In the video made to the music of the song, Free Fallin’, by Tom Petty a number of reporters are shown alluding to controlled demolition in relation to WTC-7.

Our first question about this work of art might be, who on earth is responsible for it? It appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, published by that well-known controlled opposition group, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (not saying there aren’t many genuine members of this group, however, it is clearly managed by CO). We aren’t told, but my bet is that the oh-so-generous propagandists made it for us truthers. They really are so good to us, those propagandists. They give us the truth on a platter … or do they?

9/11 analysts have taken the allusions made by journalists at face value, treating them as being made candidly, but in psyops, reporters are not let loose to make candid allusions that incriminate the perpetrators - that’s not part of psyop MO. Information coming out of a psyop in the MSM (and a great deal of alternative media) is very tightly controlled. Whether it’s the propaganda for the ~90% believers or the “truth” for the ~10% disbelievers, it is all CONTROLLED.

There is clear evidence of greenscreening in the alleged 9/11 reporting (see infamous footage of Mark “Psycho” Walsh claiming he “… saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.”) and there is no particular reason to think that a majority of reporting shown on the day of 9/11 wasn’t pre-recorded. Who’s to say that reporters weren’t involved in “drills” and that this “drill” footage just ended up being used on the day (or perhaps - in some cases - not even on the day but only emerging later and claimed to be used on the day). Sound farfetched? Not really when you ponder that we are told that the highly-coincidental NORAD training exercise, Vigilant Guardian, involving anti-hijacking simulations, was taking place in the north-east of the United States on 9/11. Recording reporters in “drills” provides them with - admittedly pretty ludicrous - plausible deniability.

If reporters are saying things that incriminate the perpetrators then we know right off the bat that they are scripted to do so … those in power know that the believers will simply not take that incriminating information onboard and need have no concern about it being public. The believers will generally be completely oblivious to it or if a disbeliever tries to shove it under their nose will find a way to explain it other than the obvious explanation. The thing is though that the truth that is suggested is never quite the truth and what does reporters alluding to controlled demolition mean anyway? Just because a reporter says that a destruction looks like a controlled demolition - scripted or not - that doesn’t mean it was. In the case of Brian Williams though, the scripting really gives itself away.

Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["To go in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."

Try telling a believer “to go in” is a demolition term. (In fact, it is not a widely-recognised term and the only reason I know it is from a comment on a video and one other example of its usage on the internet, however, it is easy to see why it would be an industry term and we would have to wonder at Williams’ usage otherwise.)

Journalists alluding to controlled demolition serves at least two functions:

1. It keeps the focus on the buildings and away from the more revealing faked plane crashes because faked plane crashes mean faked passenger deaths which is a slippery slope to faked deaths generally. Whatever happened to Pilots for 9/11 Truth? (Here’s a 40m film, Skygate 9/11, made by them that I just discovered. No doubt propaganda too but might be interesting to watch regardless.)

2. It creates the illusion that the reporters witnessed the destructions with their own eyes when we can infer that the destructions were masked by military obscurants - see next point.

Faked footage of the WTC building destructions

As covered on Clues Forum, the footage of the destructions of the twin towers and WTC-7 is faked. For a concise analysis see 9/11: The movie.

Twin towers
The top crush-down global structural collapses of WTC1/2 shown 'live on TV' with smoke ejected sideways and upwards, wall steel column panels 6 floors tall, 20 meters wide ripped off and thrown out and dropping down followed by dust clouds, corner structures breaking up floor by floor, etc, etc, is not possible physically (energy and force not available) or practically ... so what you see of global collapses is 100% animation Hollywood style. [cont.]

WTC-7
It makes no sense for the mechanical penthouse atop WTC-7 to crumple before the building comes down if the building is weakened at the base. More on fakery of WTC-7.

What was done to hide the real destructions?
The towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event. All collapse shots are computer-generated animations, much like the ones we saw in the Independence Day Movie (1996)... [cont.]

Why fake the footage?

The golden rule of psyops is fakery where possible. Psyops are about mind control, not doing or showing things for real in order that we believe them because believing action or imagery that is real eliminates an element of mind control and this isn’t wanted. Maximising dupery is the name of the game, not minimising it.

If the footage of the building destructions and other imagery are faked then automatically all analyses depending on the faked footage and other imagery are seriously undermined. All analyses will be, by definition, wrong and it’s always best when as many people as possible get it at least partly wrong. However, this doesn’t mean that none of the five methods were used.

We can infer controlled demolition was the method used because it is the only known method to bring down high rise steel frame buildings, however, footage of real demolitions would probably be too obvious - see below.

Twin towers and WTC-7 faked footage

We got two very contrasting types of destruction imagery with the twin towers and WTC-7, a contrast for which the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears serves as a helpful analogy:

• The twin towers’ imagery equates to Father Bear: It’s a top down destruction where it seems the building is being destroyed floor by floor. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, etc, but as explained above is against reality.

• WTC-7 equates to Mama Bear: Seemingly, the only weakening is at the base at which the whole building sinks ever so gracefully with no signs of destruction until the end.

• The reality - Baby Bear (just right): Very tall steel frame buildings aren’t destroyed floor by floor but we may speculate that in the case of both the twin towers and WTC-7 charges weren’t laid only at the base but also at intervals as we see in the demolition of Mina Plaza, Abu Dhabi in 2020. Assuming this to be the case, if we’d been shown the real destructions, the ejection of explosive material at intervals would have been too obvious.
  Note: As Mina Plaza was an incomplete complex it may not be the best example of how a typical controlled demolition of a very tall building is done - perhaps its lack of completeness made it more suitable for laying of charges at more intervals than normal. The important point is though that regardless of the reason for faking the demolitions, the evidence says they were and it is not unreasonable to speculate that the footage of the real demolitions would give away the method of destruction better than the faked footage that simply does not correspond with reality and simulates it poorly.

Verdict on controlled demolition

While so much data is faked we can nevertheless infer that controlled demolition was the method used to bring down the WTC buildings … because it is a method used frequently to bring down high rise steel frame buildings while there is no evidence of any of the other purported methods bringing down such buildings apart from manual removal floor-by-floor which obviously could not have been the method on 9/11.

Who did it?

Founded by the Loizeaux family in 1947 and owned by them since, Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) achieved three of its four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years prior to 2001 - two in 1998 and one in 2000 and they have a safety record of which they are justifiably proud. We are told that CDI was hired to remove the rubble from the WTC and presented a cleanup plan 11 days after the big event.

CDI also plays a role in pushing the molten metal > thermite propaganda:

In response to a letter from Garry Bryan questioning Mark Loizeaux’s sighting of molten metal, Mark responded (emphasis added):

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was
reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was
encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower
when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep
into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still
photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators.
I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131

Image shown in Wikipedia article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, with the caption “Excavating equipment was cooled by water spray due to concerns about melting from underground fires”

It would seem improbable in the extreme for CDI not to have played a major role in the destructions of the WTC buildings, don’t you think?

9/11 references