Second Reply to Criticism of WTC Demolition Page

On August 27, 2002, I received a message from, it seems, a former member of the U.S. Army who did not like what I had to say on my World Trade Center Demolition page. Here is my reply to him written the same day:

Mr L.,

>I have never read a more mindless exercise in
>stupidity in my life as your WTC Demolition fantasy.

When someone such as yourself cannot refute a view he dislikes his usual tactic is to attempt to insult the author. Your message consists mainly of insults and illustrates this fact quite well.

>The complete lack of any understanding that you enjoy in the civil
>engineering and architecture fields is plainly evident to the most obtuse
>ditch digger on the planet. Your website's contention that a two hundred ton
>aircraft with a payload of approximately sixty thousand gallons of high grade
>diesel fuel could impact the World Trade Center towers at three hundred plus
>miles per hour and not cause catastrophic damage capable of causing structural
>failure is preposterous.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which is very similar to a Boeing 767. And they did, standing for 47 minutes and 1 hour and 44 minutes after the impacts. Your assertion that such impacts would cause the towers to collapse as they did is based on no evidence. Your are merely repeating the official story, because you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

In fact all of the so-called experts who claim to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers along the lines of the official story are merely guessing, due mainly to the destruction of the evidence. For some examples of these so-called experts' ignorance of what they are talking about, as well as a lack of consensus in their "explanations", see

>The very impact
>of the aircraft would have sufficiently disturbed the explosive devices to
>such an extent that they would never have detonated in the flawless manner
>you claim occurred.

This statement is completely without basis. And certainly would not apply to any explosive devices placed at the base of the supporting steel columns, far from the damage on the upper floors.

>If there had been any use of explosives, such use would have
>been audible, visible and easily discernible on the dozens of audio, video
>and seismographic devices in the New York area that recorded the event live.

The towers collapsed in about ten seconds, so it would have been rather difficult to observers, already in a state of shock, to distinguish the sound of initial explosions from the sound of the collapsing building which occurred immediately after.

Evidence of explosions is in fact captured on video, but this video has not been broadcast by the mainstream media, which has been complicit in a shameful cover-up. If you wish to view this video evidence then you can obtain it via the website at (assuming, of course, that you wish to be informed, which I doubt).

And, yes, the explosions *were* captured on seismographic devices. See The seismic evidence has, until recently, been misinterpreted. What they recorded was not (as they thought) the collapse of the towers but rather the massive explosions at the base of the supporting columns which brought the towers down.

If you are aware of other seismographic devices which recorded this event then please let me know — the more evidence the better.

>One need only look at the construction of the towers to explain
>why they collapsed so efficiently and in a contained manner. Each floor of
>the structure was composed of a concrete slab of one square acre, four
>inches thick that was suspended inside a perforated rectangular can of
>steel upon trusses. ...

This story might seem plausible to some gullible people, who, like yourself, can't think for themselves (probably the majority of Americans), but do you believe that the designers of the Twin Towers did not design it to withstand damage to the trusses? As you tell it, the designers must have been idiots.

>The sheer momentum of all of the falling steel would have cut
>the bolts as a high energy laser goes through butter.

You accuse me of fantasy, but here you are clearly engaging in fantasy yourself.

I quote from

"The fact that the towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds (essentially free-fall) is massive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they did not encounter any resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that held the building up in the first place. From this one can conclude that the lower 'undamaged' parts were actually very damaged (probably by a multitude of small explosive charges as in a controlled demolition)."

In order to cure yourself of your fantasies about the collapse of the WTC I suggest you read that web page along with these:

The former web page shows that the whole "truss" theory, to which you adhere, is fictitious: "The 'truss theory' is a lie that has been spun to convince a gullible public, that what appeared to be the controlled demolitions of three of the World Trade Center buildings, were actually natural consequents of the aircraft strikes and not controlled demolitions at all."

I believe you will find them quite educational, and perhaps you will be cured of your propensity to insult those with whom you disagree.

It is observed facts and reasoning from them, rather than metaphors that will ultimately show what happened. Unfortunately the evidence was removed as fast as possible (one has to wonder why), so facts are in short supply. But we can still reason from the evidence available.

>Your own disjointed arguments neatly disprove each other when
>analyzed with the bare minimum of objective thought.

This is amusing, since you have totally ignored most of the argumentation on my web page, which points out the many holes in the official story, such as the absence of any evidence that a Boeing jet hit the Pentagon. You also ignore the evidence that Bush, Ashcroft and Co. are traitors well on the way to achieving their aim of transforming the U.S. into a 21st Century version of Nazi Germany. You call yourself an American?

>You are what we used to refer too in the infantry as a rock with lips.

I'm afraid you give the infantry a bad name, if we are to judge by the quality of your thinking, or rather, lack of it, since you are obviously capable only of parroting the official story.

I'd have more respect for your intelligence if you could provide plausible answers to the questions that I raise in the final section of my article at, which, of course, you ignore. Until then all you have are metaphors and insults, and I'm not impressed by either. You may have a problem accepting that high officials of the United States government and military were willing participants in a plot involving the deaths of thousands of Americans but that's your problem, not mine. I am concerned to get at the truth of what happened, since only then can even worse things be prevented.

In a civilized society the role of the military is to protect the nation from attack by external military forces, not to prop up domestic dictators and to embark on wars of conquest against other nations, as the U.S. military is currently doing and is about to do (otherwise they wouldn't have much to do, would they?). The Nazis tried this in the 1930s, were ignominiously defeated, and are now regarded with universal contempt. The same thing will happen to the U.S. if Bush and Cheney are allowed to proceed with their war plans, though I don't expect you to understand that this is so.

Peter Meyer

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page