The best coverage I've seen yet was a nova program, reaired last night I
believe. The referenced article is completely off base. The "explosions"
they refer to are structural failures along the outer wall of the tower.
During the time leading up to failure, the weight of the upper portion of
the building (above the point of collision) was redistributed since the
outer wall was destroyed. The weight was then supported by the remaining
columns of the outer wall and the center column. A succession of relatively
minor structural failures, due to the heat of the fire, lead up to the final
critical failure. The outside walls snapped when they failed, which is the
source of the dust.
The article questions the variation in color of the two "explosions". I
wonder why they wonder. The dust from the lower "explosion" is below the
fire, and is cement and dust from a structural failre. The second
"explosion" is mixed with the black smoke of the fire, which has been
burning for something like an hour now, charring everything in the area.
There is some argument about why the top section disintegrated before the
bottom that I find hard to follow, but suffice it to say, the top section
was not toally destroyed, and that it no longer had the structural integrity
it had for 30 years due to being bathed in fire for over an hour. Their
conclusions here seem false.
They also suggest that the planes were directed into the buildings at
specific floors. I would like to dismiss this as just extremely unlikely
(I'm trying to be nice here). "Homing beacons in the towers"???? I imagine
the hijackers used something on the plane to track the beacons? What kind
of beacon tracking device would they have that would show them what floor to
hit? It would have to be some type of heads-up-display in order to get the
height right. I see no easy way for them to accomplish this without
bringing some type of equipment onboard with them. I'm sure that equipment
would spark no suspicions at the security check. I think they were just
happy to hit the buildings at all. If they could direct the planes better,
and really wanted to ensure that the buildings would come down, why didn't
they hit the buildings lower? And one plane hit the building at an angle.
A head-on collision would do much more damage.
Suppose that those "explosions" were really set there. I ask how they were
placed there? Barring the theory of hitting specific floors, a team would
have to find the right floor, climb up there with their explosives (past
people rushing down the stairs) and set the explosives in the middle of at
least one floor that was engulfed in flames, and successfully detonate them,
all within an hour and a half. Miraculous to say the least.
All this barring all of the experts that have investigated the disaster who
have concluded otherwise. It's always a good conspiracy theory when the
only ones who know the truth are some obscure group that publish the "truth"
in order to set the world straight.
I am far from an expert, but I do believe that I am an objective person, and
I'm sure I may be missing some aspects of the collapse, but I don't think
I'm missing enough to allow for this article to be correct.