Was the Destruction of the Top of the South Tower a Bottom-Up Demolition?

Prefatory note: this essay presents a theory, and I am not saying this is what happened. The scientific method is to raise theories, and then test them with the evidence to see if they are correct or incorrect.

I will leave it to the scientists, engineers and demolition experts to say whether this hypothesis is correct or incorrect. In fact, I am emailing this essay to some of the hundreds of highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of 9/11. If the theory does not stand up in their minds, I will retract it.

Defenders of the official story about 9/11 have argued that controlled demolitions are always bottom-up, whereas the Twin Towers collapsed in a top-down fashion.

Initially, controlled demolitions are sometimes top-down. So the argument is not very persuasive.

Moreover, the destruction of the South Tower was, arguably, a conventional bottom-up demolition . . . with a twist.

Initially, the top 30 stories tip over as a unit:

While this may be considered demolition from the "top" of the building, if -- instead -- we imagine that the top is comprised of a 30-story high building, the demolition would actually proceed from the bottom of that building.

In other words, if a controlled demolition expert wanted to hide the fact that the destruction of the South Tower was a controlled demolition, he could have demolished the upper 30 stories first.

Watch the video comparison starting at 15 seconds and continuing to 1:25 into the following video and you'll see what I mean:

also consider CAST BLASTING

another technique using explosives is found in the mining industry, called cast blasting.

Its very rapid, very violent, and can move whole sides of mountains to remove overburden from the coal seams, or whatever else they are mining for.

the downward blasting that occurred in the TT is visually reminiscent of those techniques.

Do you have a video

of "cast blasting"?

cast blasting

cast blasting

watch the last one with your head tilted sideways

That is exactly the point I

That is exactly the point I was going to make. Just change the angle of viewing and you will see how closely the blast waves look familiar.

There's also another point - much of the explosives used in this process is a form of liquid TNT


I'm not sure how this could be incorporated into a theory,

but I've never been fully satisfied with the solely the thermate-super-thermate explanations. I do agree that they probably were used, however I doubt that they have the explosive properties that we witnessed on 9/11.

Cast blasting techniques, along with traditional CD, fits the basic observations.

A combination of several techniques makes sense

You have a good point. The concrete could have been pulverized and floors demolished with cast blasting, and Thermate to cut the core columns. The cast blasting could also account for the amount of force required to jettison the outer steel framing up to 500 ft. horizontal.

The use of several techniques makes sense, and more importantly, includes the evidence from Prof Jones with the molten iron spheres being created with heat, rotation, vector, and force into the dust.

thank you for your reply. I

thank you for your reply.

I had forgotten how far outwards the heavy steel core and outer ring beams were cast away during the explosions/collapse.

In almost all the controlled demolitions I've witnessed through video, the amount of debris cast far from the buildings is relatively low. It's really the only way these buildings get permitted (and insured) to be brought down with explosives legitimately.

But if you wanted a GUARANTEED collapse, you'd be a little more lax and probably over-kill the building, afterall, you want them down, want them down dramatically for the psychological effect too. Cast blasting would be over-kill but would get the job done to meet the above requirements.

As the TT would be the largest buildings attempted clandestinely to be brought down with CD, (and sometimes failures do occur, and in this instance you wouldn't want a failure) if this was your one shot at it, you'd go all the way.

One Big Chunk

IF the "pancake collapse" did, in fact, occur---then those top 30 floors would have continued falling sideways and landed on the ground in one big chunk. Instead, all of those 30 floors were disintegrated mid-air; blown to smithereens by explosives.

Studying the video of the collapse, one can see the top chunk of 30 floors shrinking in size, eventually disappearing, as the entire tower falls straight down.