Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently I read an article that claimed that WTC in reality was blown up rather than fell due to fire. In discord with various conspiracy theories the source claims that this fact is not a secret.

The source asserts that there were in fact the terrorist acts with the planes, but also that the both towers had demolishing mechanisms embedded at the time of construction. Once the planes hit, the fire started and the most of occupiers left the buildings, the authorities together with the owner decided to blow up the buildings so to prevent greater risk.

It is further alleged that this decision and the real cause of the fall were properly reflected in the investigation documents and that anybody who wants to know the real cause and has access to restricted (but unclassified) documentation can see it.

So is there any ground behind this version?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Russell, E1Suave, Steven Drennon Oct 20 '12 at 13:49

Questions on History Stack Exchange are expected to relate to history within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

4  
Should this go on skeptics? –  Russell Oct 20 '12 at 11:25
3  
Not only does it belong there, but as a matter of fact, it is there. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1368/… –  T.E.D. Oct 20 '12 at 14:28
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

No, there are none at all. A google search failed to turn up any good credible results. In the book. Physics for Future Presidents, the author writes that, "one ton of jet fuel or gasoline, when burned in the air, releases the energy of 15 tones of TNT...For the two planes, the total was 1800 tones TNT equivalent." The author also writes, When the airplane smashed into the World Trade Cneter tower, it destroyed a significant number of columns along the perimiter that supported the upper part of the building. The next bit was a bit long, so paraphrasing, The intact steel columns now had to support a building made for many steel columns. This ended up with the columns buckling like paper straws and story by story, the building collapsing. We can see evidence for the buckling of columns in the tilting of the building after the attack. (I refrained from placing an image because it could rouse bad memories for some people.)

Secondly, someone would have to be an idiot to place explosives underneath their own building with people in it. It serves no good end, after all, why would you decide to blow up your building. Plus, though I'm no lawyer, I'm fairly sure that it is illegal.

In summary, the theory is has no real evidence, and no real credibility.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.