Demolition Theory Hypothesis

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Mar 2009)

The following is a quick outline of what I believe happened to cause the collapse of the World Trade Centers on Sept. 11, 2001.  It is an attempt to show that conventional demolition materials could have been, and probably were used in the demolition process. This is only PART of a larger work that I am putting together incorporating technical information of PETN (det cord), findings of Steven Jones (iron rich micro-spheres), dust particle contents reported by several sources, images showing the different colored clouds formed during the demolition of the towers, lateral ejections of large (complete) sections of exterior column assemblies,  missing floor systems (trusses and floor pans), and images of the steel and concrete dust at ground zero.

This is only the images of my hypothesis of the demolition process. More info to follow.



(The images of human figures included in these are needed for perspective. It is not intended to be graphic in any way. They were only included after careful consideration and it is not my intent to cause undue harm or discomfort to anyone connected with those that lost their lives on Sept. 11th.  But too be honest, the vast majority of the innocent people that perished on that day died as a result of the “collapse” of the towers, and not from the initial impact of the planes. Therefore, though it is uncomfortable for me to include them, I feel I must for these two reasons.  We are talking after all about an act of murder, and leaving the images out, I believe would do a disservice to those victims who lost their lives when the towers came down. I apologise to all who may be offended by their inclusion in these illustrations, but know that care was taken in the decision to include them.)

demolition wave

[more images after the break]











With only the disconnected exterior column units supporting the structure, the remaining upper floors collapse in on the rest. The first stage is repeated all the way down, blowing out the floor systems prior to the detonation of the core columns. This is a different process that the “bottom up” typical demolition process,  as displayed on Building 7 some 6 hours later in the day on Sept. 11th.

As you can see, this process would explain the pulverization of the concrete floor systems and the piles of steel core support beams all located at ground zero right after the demolition of the towers, as evidenced by many photos, but perhaps best by this one.



Another closer angle of ground zero debris field…



I look forward to any feedback as I am still working on this hypothesis.

25 Responses

  1. Guess S & N stand for North and South Tower…….those big pieces were in the center? and the smaller rod like pieces were on the outside? or do I have it backwards?
    so the center core was not made up of numerous thin steel columns? they were made up of like joined multiple steel crossed and vertical supported gates? (look like especially strong huge gates to me.)

  2. will,

    Thank you for the diagrams and further clarifications.

    I am no engineer and so the details of the structures and what you are indicating in them has to be explained pretty clearly.

    I am struck by the fact that I had no doubt that when I saw this happening on TV on sept 11th, that there were explosives involved. The work of the establishment argument has been, in my view, an attempt to one) keep an honest person from asking questions about it, and two) make the case that what looks like a building being taken down by explosives is really a case of a fire caused by planes taking it down.

    The first task is done by intimidation, it seems to me. You argue that people who have family members killed in this tragedy are going to be harmed more if you question the fact that Arabs did it in planes.

    The second task is done partly by making building construction complicated, so complicated that you really don’t know what a building blown apart looks like and how to tell it from a building coming down from a plane collision.

    Our copuntry invaded Iraq and killed a million people, costing us a trillion dollars. How are we ever going to admit that we were wrong about the establishjment’s account of planes and Arabs when we killed so many and spent so much because of it?

    There is a lot of weight behind the establishment story and too much for many people to revise.

    • Steve;

      You are absolutely correct; there are many industries with a vested interest in keeping this war on terror going who will do whatever is needed to see that it does. Just like in the article by Hedges that I put up this morning, there are entire organizations dedicated to ensuring that certain questions are never “seriously” addressed in certain places; like the MSM and the educational system. In the Hedges article, he talks about how this system works to protect the status-quo with regards to the economic system, but the same holds true with many other aspects of our lives.

      Things we learn as children and young adults, are sometimes better forgotten.

      I have recently been talking to someone close to me about the demise of the truth movement. Many would argue that merely pointing that out makes me a disinfo agent or something, I guess, but the facts are what they are. The AntiWar movement and the Impeachment/Accountability movement have also suffered a substantial slump in the past year. “CHANGE” I suppose plays part of it, but I think you just hit on something else. Fear.

      The power to change the world into the tyrannical vision of your fathers and grandfathers is something to behold indeed. Never before have these people been so close to seeing their centuries old plan come to fruition. Since they control the media outlets and both the democrat and republican parties, throughout the federal and state levels for the most part (ie. Rod Blagojevich), not many dare to stand outside the palace gates defying their dominance. And if they do, like Blago, all the press has to do is paint his efforts as some kind of “grandstanding” and then pump as much ink as they can into the pending trumped up legal charges that either put him in prison, or impeach him. Then no one questions the facts of the case or where the “evidence” came from in the first place.

      There was a time when unchecked power had to work to conceal it’s tyranny. Now, their mistakes are glossed over by a complicit press, all in the name of “progress”. And since both parties are bought out as well, that leaves a scarce, and increasingly reluctant few, to cast their hearts against that wall.

      Yes we invaded Iraq based on a lie. But let us not forget the deal they offered the Taliban in July of 2001; if they allowed the U.S. to put bases in Afghanistan to protect the Trans Afghan Pipeline, they would pay them with a carpet of gold. If not, they would remove them with a carpet of bombs. They refused to allow U.S. bases in their country.

      They also refused to hand over bin Laden, except under one condition; present the evidence and you can have him. They wanted to see the “White Paper” that Colin Powell promised the American people that would prove bin Laden carried out 9/11. He never produced it for us, and they never even responded to the Taliban’s public offer either.

      We just bombed them and their children at night, in their beds.

      They called it “Shock and Awe” and Americans cheered this depravity and called it “justice”.

      And now, some many years later, untold human suffering behind us, we are driven to focus on the outrageous comments of people like Rush or Hannity or Beck, because other talking head sock-puppets like Maddow or Olbermann or Maher tell us to, while the suffering continues, the resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying or being renditioned to far off lands under the cover of night and “HOPE” and “CHANGE”.

      But nothing has changed.

      Except the resolve of many of our brethren. They have fallen off by the wayside, their blogs grown dim and overgrown with weeds. The American intellectual resistance is folding right before our eyes. So we too must chose our path. Grow silent or grow bold.

      I am glad you commented on this thread. Sorry to have gone off again like I have a tendency to do.

  3. […] an update on the WTC drawings that I am doing (more here).  I am modeling a 12 floor section of the Trade Centers and my little computer here doesn’t […]

  4. […] believe that conventional materials commonly used in the demolition business were used to pulverized the lightweight concrete used in the floors as well as destroy the trusses and the interi… (furniture, file cabinets, ect.) and I am proposing a way to prove […]

  5. Five years independant research & verification leads me to the exact same conclusion as WillyLoman – see above..
    Many know it but find impossible to acknowledge & discuss.
    Blocked out.
    What’s the key? Where to from here?
    Are there pieces of the system even ‘salvigeable’?
    Do we request & insist from those who are in the employ of ‘the peole’ & under oath to do so? And to say so? Publically?
    This, if left unchecked and ignored, will surely jeapordise our civilization. Fact.

  6. […] my revised controlled demolition hypothesis , detcord floor system demolition theory , May 2008 “Open Letter to Steven Jones on the Subject of […]

  7. The twin towers exploded from top to bottom, and turned to dust as they fell.

    1360+ feet tall, and they both fell in about ten seconds. That’s 93 mph.

    Complete destruction of both towers and everything and everyone in them, from top to bottom, at 93 mph. (That’s the average speed over ten seconds…not “starting at zero mph then speeding up to 93 mph”.)

    There are no pics of “110 collapsed floors”. There should be lots of pictures and videos showing two piles. There are none. Because they didn’t collapse…they exploded, then turned to dust in mid-air.

    In this video, you can see long trails extending upward off of all the pieces as they fall.

    That’s not smoke. That’s not ash. That’s the building and all its contents, pulverized.

    There were no piles of 110 pancaked floors afterwards. (Should’ve been two piles.)

    The next morning on ABC Peter Jennings asked George Stephanopoulos what happened to all the debris. He claimed he was told by a volunteer (“Robert Gurlinsky”) the buildings “simply fell down into the ground and were pulverized-evaporated.”

    Two 110 story buildings—“pulverized-evaporated”—“simply”.
    Everything—the buildings and all their contents—“vaporized”.

    Vaporize – to convert into a gaseous state.

    I don’t know how the buildings were turned to dust. But it certainly wasn’t “conventional” demolition materials.

    • I had an enlightening discussion with Liam Scheff, author of Official Stories, who is firmly committed to the nano-thermite hoax. He posted on Facebook, a rant against Flat Earthers (and justly so) but then lumped in anyone questioning the explosive demolition assumption. I asked him why he dismissed the unmentionable alternative theory and he went off like a butthurt schoolboy. At the end of exchange, he was obviously so embarrassed by his tantrum that he deleted it and blocked me from posting.

      What was truly telling was his defense of Steven Jones in the face of facts about the man’s many disinformation campaigns. I even pointed him to Scott’s excellent refutation of the nano-thermite distraction but he dismissed it as ad hominum.

      Nothing says we all have to agree but there’s no harm in being civil about it.

      • I noticed long ago that people will do that instinctively if the are disinfo shills, but also, sometimes, if they are simply emotionally invested in a pet theory of theirs. Case in point, the “flyover Boys” of CIT. I had a chance to chat with one on WTCdemolition website and any question I brought up, no matter how mundane or seemingly innocuous, was immediately met with vicious attacks by them (CIT) and that was par for the course for them. Not just with me, but anywhere folks asked them tuff questions about their “research”. Blogger was full of such examples back then when they were still a thing in the Truth movement. In my discussions with Jones himself, both on public forums and emails, I found him to be much more accomplished at dealing with criticism. He was much more subtle. Fact is, even Jones himself for a time had to admit “nanothermite” could never reach the level of being classified as a high explosive, which is what it would have to do in order to be the primary material used in this, or any other controlled demolition. And for a while there (quite a while actually) he was trying to get away with saying his “hundreds of tons” of unexploded “nanothermite” was there as a primer for the actual high explosives. That would be quite a lot of fuses if you ask me and that’s just the ones that didn’t go off. You can see how that explanation wouldn’t hold water under any scrutiny. Also, his religious background is something to look into as well along with the fact that BYU never fired him and they actually kept paying him while doing his “research” and paid for the “nanothermite” study he did.

        I’ve also noticed, when something is really key as far as serving as a means to make other people understand what happened, the emotional rage of those defending the disinfo is cranked up a couple notches. Take for instance what hit the Pentagon. It’s pretty fucking obvious when you look at the scene before the building comes down, that a massive 767 did not hit that building. Something did, but not a massive jumbo jet. That’s pretty clear. But mention that while talking to Mike Rivero live on the air like I did years ago and watch what he does.

        To that point, when you take the time to read the RJ Lee report (WTC Dust Composition and Morphology, 2005) it makes it very clear what those microspheres are and details the only possible way they could have been created: “a combustion event”. So it’s again, very clear, WHY Jones et al were dispatched to come up with a diversionary tactic to undermine the effectiveness of that discovery. And he was very successful at it.

        The Mormon church at that time had a lead who met with the Bush administration once a year. There are pictures of them hanging out in Utah in an office somewhere. The then leader of the church, a man who is said to be in direct contact with God, said that it would be a sin to undermine the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror and yet BYU paid for Jones’ research and kept him on the payroll all that time? In fact, the first of the paper’s “peer reviews” came from someone on staff at BYU. Jones admitted all of this later.

        How does his “nanothermite” theory hold up to that understanding of BYU and the Mormon doctrine from GOD about supporting Bush’s Global War of Terror? Curious, isn’t it?

        • Religious and political mores as well as just plain everyday morals seem to be flexible for quite a few people who purport to hold high standards. I suppose most observers would be too polite to call them out on this!

          Have you seen the video of Jones sitting on a committee pushing everyone to vote against the existence of Cold Fusion. It’s available in various forms on the tube but suffice it to say that he put science to a show of hands and led the vote in the direction he wanted it to go effectively stifling the development for several decades. Not sure on whose behalf!

          • yeah I wrote about that a while ago. The department of energy needed him to come in and submarine the research those two guys did, like the night before they published their report. It was disgusting. Look at who he got started with in the Truth movement: Judy Wood of “ray beams from space” and Morgan Reynolds (Commerce sec. for bush) who pushed “TV fakery and holograms hit the towers” theory. And they were called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”… hee hee. cute, that one.

  8. I am surprised to see such negative attitudes toward Professor Jones and his nanothermite theory on this site, which I view favorably. I think other explosives besides nanothermite were used in the Twin Towers, but the evidence that nanothermite was used is very strong, in my opinion. And the strong evidence of nanothermite proves that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Please read my 2013 article on the Bollyn site: http//

    • Why don’t you read Scott’s 9-11 investigation
      a lot of info about demo and structure of buildings… and it was a demo

      • Right now I’m busy with a book I’m writing. As soon as I have time I will read all that Scott has written about 9-11. For the moment I just want to say that I regard Professor as a man of intellectual integrity. And I am in a position to judge. I grew up in the scientific community. My father was a Senior Scientist at Argonne National Lab. I grew up with physicists in the house all the time, and I think I can tell the real deal when I see it. Professor Jones is a man of intellectual integrity, in my opinion.

        • ah. appeal to authority huh? nice touch. But uh… Jones himself finally admitted that the “nanothermite” wouldnt’ be used to actually demo anything and he said it was “probably” used as an “electric match” in the detonators. Of course Niles said there was as much as a couple hundred thousand pounds of the stuff in the debris. Unexploded that is. That’s kind of a lot of electronic matches don’t you think?

          And of course… jones flat out refused to test for high explosive residues in ANY of the dust samples he had in his possession. So yeah, Jones and “nanothermite” are bullshit.

          • My appeal was to experience, not authority. My father was a world class atomic physicist. I grew up in my father’s house. I have had personal experience with physicists. That is my only claim. I doubt that Jones claimed that nanothermite was the only explosive used in the World Trade Center. If he did it’s not important to the point I am making. I personally think that what the perpetrators wanted was a spectacular spectacle for television, the objective being passage of the Patriot Act. Thus nanothermite was painted on the floors to blow them into dust for television. But whatever nanothermite was used for, it was definitely used. And that is the indisputable proof that is needed for the conclusion that the WTC Towers were wired with explosives before the airplanes flew into them.

            • ” I doubt that Jones claimed that nanothermite was the only explosive used in the World Trade Center. ”

              then you would be wrong because he did at one time.

              “Thus nanothermite was painted on the floors to blow them into dust for television.”

              “nanothermite” burns… it doesn’t explode. It’s not a high explosive even in it’s “nano” form. That said, you should know, being a scientist and all, that if something doesn’t burn at a certain rate it’s not going to create a shock wave or a demolition wave… ergo… it can’t “blow up” anything. Not even a dog house.

              ” And that is the indisputable proof that is needed for the conclusion that the WTC Towers were wired with explosives”

              Absolutely wrong. The evidence already exists. It was disclosed quite by accident by the RJ Lee Group in 2004-05 when they wrote about the “Morphology and Composition” of the dust from the WTC. They concluded the molten metal and all the microspheres they found in the dust (which Jones mistakenly identified as “nanothermite” in order to derail the truth movement investigation) could ONLY have been created by a “combustion event” i.e. HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

              Not only that… but all that dust Jones had back in the day could have been tested for nitrate residues of high explosives… but he refused. So did NIST.

              “nanothermite” isn’t the answer Kenra.

              perhaps you should really take the time to read my work. I know you’re busy with the book an all but it might interesting to you.

              • Hey Scott, you are writing that book for her ! She should give you credit and honorable mention in her ‘book’ !

              • My claim is that I grew up among scientists, not that I am one myself. Now then, I think the evidence that the nanothermite found in the WTC dust was an explosive material is conclusive. In the 2009 paper by Harrit, who was a distinguished professor of chemistry, it is written, “… we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

                • he says it right there… that it is a “highly pyrotechnic OR explosive material”. It’s not a high explosive and they know it wasn’t. In that paper they also wrote that they wanted someone to do a test on the dust for traces of high explosives. When I directly asked Jones and Roberts to do just that… they both refused.

                  • Harrit also says that the red portion of the chips contained an organic material, whose purpose he thought was to produce gas pressure and make it more explosive. Thus, when he says “pyrotechnic or explosive” I think jhe was ust explaining what he meant by “pyrotechnic.” Anyhow, I think Your argument seems to be that the nanothermite wasn’t sufficiently explosove to do much damage. Okay, even if that’s true, what difference does it make whether the nanothermite was used alone or in conjunction with other explosives? The important thing is that it was used, and large large amounts of amounts of it were involved. There is extremely strong evidence for this. There are the hot fires that burned for weeks in the rubble, along with the existence of molten metal. There are the numerous tiny iron balls in the WTC dust. And there are particles of nanothermite itself in the dust. The evidence is very strong that nanothermite was used. And much can be deduced from this. Finally, the significance of the tiny iron balls is that tiny liquid particles of iron were given a spherical shape by surface tension, which is an electric force common to all liquids. What follows is just that molten iron somehow got thrown into the air in tiny droplets. This is characteristic of a thermite fire. It does not imply high explosives. I really don’t understand your quarrel with Jones.

                    • ” I think Your argument seems to be that the nanothermite wasn’t sufficiently explosove to do much damage. Okay, even if that’s true, what difference does it make…”

                      oh I don’t know… maybe because folks have been running around chasing a red herring like you are doing now. That’s what difference it makes. It’s junk science. High explosives were used to demo the core and floor systems and more of it was used that day during that demolition than ever before in any other controlled demolition and Jones and Harrit got well meaning people running around talking about magic powder and “nanothermite paint”

                      do you get it yet?

                      “Okay, even if that’s true, what difference does it make whether the nanothermite was used alone or in conjunction with other explosives? “

                      the evidence of high explosive residue is EVIDENCE of a CRIME and could only have been present in that dust in the amounts it must have been were it to have been an explosive controlled demolition… and “nanothermite” is ridiculous.

                      “Finally, the significance of the tiny iron balls is that tiny liquid particles of iron were given a spherical shape by surface tension, which is an electric force common to all liquids. What follows is just that molten iron somehow got thrown into the air in tiny droplets. This is characteristic of a thermite fire. It does not imply high explosives.”

                      Really? Then you seem to disagree with the experts at the RJ Lee Group and pretty much every expert on the subject I have spoken with.

                      You know what? I don’t know who you are or what you do but that is about the dumbest thing I have heard someone say on this website short of “ray beams from space brought the towers down”

                      don’t bother reading my work or that report I mentioned from the RJ Lee Group. You seem to be set on your own set of facts as it is. good luck with your book. I’m sure if this is any indication, it will be well researched and thought out.

  9. Hey Scott,

    off topic but thought you’d be interested in this Peter Dale Scott book, “American War Machine”. I’m only one paragraph in and I’m already gripped by his prose. He talks about deep politics/deep state so I thought it was up your alley.

    Good quality PDF too.


    David / heavywatergate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: