Much has been said of 9/11 and believers of the official storyline are harder and harder to find, but what brought those buildings down? The photo below certainly looks very atypical for a gravitational collapse, but of course laws of nature may be different in the US of A:
Some 911 Truthers claim to have proven that the explosive was nanothermite. I am not so sure of it after reading some comments. While nanothermite apparently can explode, it is not a high explosive and the amount of it needed for bringing down the twin towers is a bit too high. I will here consider the alternative that all three WTC buildings were pre-wired for controlled demolition before 9/11 with some quite conventional high explosives.
There is no doubt in my mind that the fall of WTC7 was a classical controlled demolition. Not only does it look like a controlled demolition, but Larry Silverstein says in a video “and they decided to pull it”, a fireman counts “one, two, three” and witnesses say they heard “pum-pum-pum”. There could have been an acceptable reason for firemen to pull this building, assuming that it had lost structural stability, but according to the official story the building was not pulled: it presumably collapsed due to fires, which weakened the steel frame. Firemen were not seen installing explosives to WTC7 in 9/11 and controlled demolition is denied. Why would they have done it secretly if they pulled the building for public safety? Therefore we may assume that as it anyway was a controlled demolition, the explosives must have been installed before 9/11.
WTC7 was a site of the DoD, the CIA and the U.S. Secret Service. I find it highly improbable that any unauthorized people could have installed explosives to this building prior 9/11. We must assume that the building was wired for some acceptable reason. It could be because of the sensitive material it contained, but a more likely reason in my opinion is that it was wired for demolition by some antiterrorist unit in order to prevent terrorists doing what they tried to do in 1993. In that year there was a terrorist attack in WTC which aimed to topple the building down. A falling high rise could do very much damage and in such a situation it would make sense to blow it up instead of letting it to fall on other buildings.
Assuming this was the logic, WTC1 and 2 may have been set up for demolition and WTC7 was included in this group because of its federal tenants. Installing the explosives and cut charges could have been done any time between 1993 and 2001. Explosives would most probably not have been in complete readiness for firing as that would be too risky, but a few men could have completed the work in a short time before 9/11. Working in a building which has explosives seems very risky, but one should notice firstly that explosives do not go off by themselves, that they were not supposed to be wired but only installed, and that even if some charges do go off, it does not result to a chain where one explosion starts another. This is so because demolition charges are not put so close to each other to do it. In controlled demolition it is necessary to be able to set the exact time for each individual charge to fire. One explosion must not start a chain reaction.
One risk there however is: a sufficiently large fire in the building would cause some charges to explode. That would not start a collapse of the building, but it would give a perfect time for starting the controlled demolition. We have to assume that in the day of 9/11 the explosives were wired (preferable by wireless) and the timing of explosions was controlled.
If this scenario is correct, then we see why a plane was needed. Presumably the stated goal of equipping the buildings with explosives was to prevent a terrorist bomb in the basement from toppling the buildings. Thus, a fire in the basement would not set off any explosives, but a fire higher up would do blow up some. It was not necessary for a plane to cut any steel pillars or to penetrate the building. It was enough to get a sufficient amount of kerosene to some higher floor to start a reasonable size fire. If the fire burned long enough, some charge would go off, and that is when the controlled demolition would start.
The planes were a problem. I already started thinking that maybe there were no planes hitting WTC1 and 2. The problem was that aluminium planes cannot penetrate the steel pillars of the walls. Sure, the motors and other hard things in the plane could do damage, but the majority of the plane should stay outside the building. And there is a video where the plane cuts the building like knife cuts butter. But does it actually show that that the steel pillars of the building cut the plane like knife cuts butter? Would both look similar? But why use a plane if it does not penetrate the building? The reason may be starting or at least having a rationale for a sizable fire inside the building.
This scenario has certain advantages over other scenarios. It is much easier to explain to the official investigation team that it is not relevant to study why WTC7 (or the twin towers) collapsed after the initial stage because it was a result of pre-installed explosives, which had nothing to do with the terrorist attack and revealing them would only be embarrassing, and they were a secret and part of antiterrorist actions taken in good but misguided faith. It would also be perfectly natural to deny the existence of explosives, as the great public would not understand the reasons why they were put there. Besides, similar methods may be still used elsewhere and it would still be a secret.
Working in buildings equipped with explosives seems crazily risky, but is it so impossible to believe? There is a story of a bridge of Podporozessa in Karelia in the book Miesten kertomaa, 1967, p. 318-319. The bridge was built during the First World War under American leadership. When pioneers went to explode that bridge in order to hinder the Soviet attack, they noticed that the bridge already had explosives and the wires were cut to a correct length. (That means, the wires were prepared but the pioneers still had to insert them to explosives). The text does not say when the explosives were set to the bridge and who had done it. It only says that some earlier pioneer had done it. Could they have been there from the construction time (it was the First World War) installed by Americans on a request of the Russian military? I first remembered this was so in the book, as I read it a very long time ago. Now I checked it and probably this is not the case. I think Finns put the explosives there some time before the team who told the story came there. Nevertheless, the bridge must have been still used when there already were explosives in it and it was not considered too risky, but that was wartime and war is risky, so this example is not so relevant. I did hear once from a military officer that there are preinstalled explosives in some bridges, but maybe it was not true. They like to fool civilians, they call it useful disinformation. Let’s say that there are some preparations made to prevent a land attack. And people have lived for decades in houses where there was a bomb in the attic. I never heard that such a bomb blew up, so the risk was not that big. But had there been fire in the house?
The problem with 9/11 is that WTC7 looks like it was a controlled demolition and that the explosives were not installed in 9/11, 2001. Thus, they had to be there earlier, and people worked in those building when there were explosives. Some of them must have been aware of the explosives as they were from the top intelligence community. And yet they worked there. If they considered it safe enough, the explosives may have been there very long, since what is the difference in working in a wired building for a week or for twenty years. It is either safe or not. There are people working whole their life in ammunition factories. Those factories sometimes blow up, but very seldom. Thus, the risk is tolerable if there is a real gain. The gain would be that the building does not fall on other buildings in case there is a terrorist attack. The risk of an attack was always there after 1993. It was probably not possible to eliminate the risk completely.
It may not be likely that anybody would have accepted installing explosives as a safety measure, but if not, then there is left only secret installation of explosives by a large conspiracy of many tenants of WTC7. That also does not sound probable.
Whoever put the explosives there, some things are clear. The “dancing Palestinians” were Israelis with Mossad connections and they came to video the attack before it started. Lucky Larry did take a high insurance before the attack and he did earn much. BBC probably did announce the fall of WTC7 20 min before it happened. There were no WMDs in Iraq. WTC1 and 2 collapsed by gravitation pouring material up like fountains or vulcanos. And so on and so on. It is all so highly improbable that a rational person concludes that there was no 9/11. It must be a fairy tale, but it did happen. Therefore somebody put explosives to the WTC buildings before 9/11 and with a full agreement of WTC7 tenants. That is how it looks like to me.