Damaged by fire? A controlled demolition? A new, radical theory - but one of the few supported by visual evidence - suggests a third option: the Twin Towers came crushing down by modern technology... like little we have seen before: the Twin Towers were shattered into dust.

Several questions remain about 9/11. Irrelevant of who was truly behind the 9/11 attacks, there was one anomaly: why did the Twin Towers collapse? The official 9/11 investigation was unable to answer it; the orthodox line is that the fuel of the planes created a veritable inferno that melted steel, destroying not one, but two towers. For "conspiracy theorists", that is implausible. They note that the destruction of the Twin Towers was near "free fall" speed, meaning that each underlining floor hardly if any at all caused resistance when the floor above collapsed. That is indeed incredible and inconsistent with what even logic tells us about building collapses.
For a floor not to resist the floor above falling on it, the rigidity of the lower floor has to be removed, as occurs in controlled demolitions. It is the only mechanism through which one can arrive at collapses at near free fall speed. And that is what the conspiracy theorists proclaim: that a controlled demolition occurred.

This theory has one major drawback: it would mean that both buildings, plus WTC 7, which also mysteriously collapsed though not being hit by any plane whatsoever, were equipped with hundreds if not thousands of explosive packages, each either linked or remotely controlled. Their installation would have been noted by some people in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11. It would also have been a mammoth task. No such evidence exists - or is at least available at present - and it is the Achilles heel of the entire theory. With no evidence available, it would actually invalidate the theory, however logical and sound it may appear.

Even for those who follow the official line, that the towers collapsed was in itself a miracle - a negative miracle. Even Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently stated that though he expected the twin towers to collapse (why is not clear as all logic dictates they would remain standing as they were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing plane), but "not in the way they did". He added: "It occurred to us all that they might ultimately collapse over... the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages. It looked like at some point the top of the building would come off, and then maybe the middle of the building and then maybe there'd be a shell left... the way number 7 came down 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon - over a period of time - but the idea that it would implode, the implosion that took place, I actually didn't realize that until much later."
It was soon pointed out that Guiliani was wrong about his scenario about the collapse of WTC 7. Building 7 collapsed in just 6.5 seconds, as can be seen on several videos. Like WTC 1 and 2, WTC 7 imploded at near free fall speed and fell in its own footprint, barely even blocking the adjacent roads.
As mentioned, unlike WTC 1 and 2, Building 7 did not suffer from a plane crashing into its structure and it had furthermore been structurally reinforced to compensate for numerous floors to be taken out without compromising the integrity of the building, because several emergency command bunkers were located in the building. There was no enormous amount of jet fuel potentially weakening the structure and though tower was on fire, all the available evidence makes it clear that this fire was not out of control and definitely incapable of bringing this building down as quick and as fast as it happened.

So both theories have difficulty to explain the facts and conspiracy theorists have a point: no steel framed building had collapsed from fire damage in history until September 11, 2001, when three fell within the space of seven hours. It makes one wonder.

A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists themselves; why? - is provided by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, the former having a PhD in Materials Engineering Science. Rather than relying on her scholarship, the two researchers have provided visual image of a part of the Twin Towers that clearly disintegrates - rather than fall - before the eyes of the camera. Over a sequence of seconds, you see the structure disintegrate - turn into dust - before your eyes.

Furthermore, they begin their analysis by arguing that the "pancake effect" of the Twin Towers collapsing, whether from fire or a controlled demolition, would have resulted in remains of the tower being at least 1/8 of the original height. But instead, only a pile, 2% of its original height, remained. Indeed, the Twin Towers pulverised - turned into dust. How is that possible? And what to make of the huge amounts of paper that littered the street, which somehow seem to have withstood the raging inferno, even though the steel frames surrounding the offices completely melted?
Furthermore, photographic evidence also shows how a fire engine parked near the Twin Towers has a front that is largely a heap of twisted metal - very much like the twisted metal of the Twin Towers themselves. But nothing fell upon this fire truck and its rear part is almost miraculously intact. Elsewhere, a car is overturned and shows minimal signs of the same problem. But how did a car all of a sudden overturn, and apparently suffer damage to its steel structure, though not to its wheels?

This quick collection of evidence is totally at odds with the usual theories, whether they are a collision of an airplane, or a controlled demolition. Something far more exotic - modern - seems to have pulled down the Twin Towers.

Wood and Reynolds point out further problems. "It was widely reported that a substantial amount of WTC steel was sold as scrap, put on barges, and shipped to China to be melted down. But photographs in the aftermath of the collapse reveal how little steel was on the ground shortly after destruction of the WTC towers. There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored. This steel may or may not have been subsequently shipped to China. But it could not be a large amount of steel." That something "strange" had occurred - much stranger than a controlled demolition - may be the reason why the salvage operation and transport of Ground Zero was deemed to be a security operation, the removal of debris being the subject of stringent security measures. It may also explain why these remains were not subjected to a forensic investigation - an observation made by the conspiracy theorists too.

How the Twin Towers came down, is not central to the story of 9/11. Some government authority may have felt that the Twin Towers were going to collapse (though it would go against the logic) and with their immense height, they indeed posed a serious danger to the surrounding area if they were to fall in some uncontrolled manner. Did someone decide to "pull them"? If so, there was no time to place specific charges and carry out a controlled demolition. Hence, "something else" would have to be used - something faster.

Of the three potential solutions, a "modern technological collapse", is the most likely - at the moment. Though at first there is nothing wrong with pulling the building, what is immensely wrong, is the fact that there were still hundreds - if not more than a thousand - people alive in the Twin Towers, including several fire fighters. A decision to pull the building should hence have been taken later, as there was obviously no imminent danger of a collapse - if only because the fire seemed to be largely under control.

The presence of an advanced energy weapon in the streets of New York and its quick deployment may indicate that the decision to use this tool to bring down the Twin Towers was part of a plan that existed before the first plane crashed into the Towers. The alternative would be that such tools are easily and quickly deployable, making reality as we know it a totally different ball-game from what we think it is.

Is there such technology? The simple answer is yes. "Beam weapons", "e-bombs", etc. have been undergoing twenty years of research. In 2006, it was reported that they were soon going to be deployed. Their deployment would be in various shapes and forms, including satellites. But small beam weapons are known to have existed for a much longer period, and were operational before 2001.
Furthermore, directed energy weapons can account for the type of damage. They are also (or at least most of them are) invisible to the eye - their usage in New York would not have been "seen" - only the result and the pulverisation that accompanied them. And that is indeed what the images show. They would also account for all the anomalies, including the paper that littered the street, but was not burnt.

Most importantly, they might explain what Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, told grieving relatives in November 2001: he stated that many bodies had been "vaporised". Hirsch reportedly declined to be interviewed afterwards to expand on that statement. However, Dr. Michael Baden, the state's chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, had stated in September 2001 that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires had not reached the 3,200 degree (F), 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body.
Equally, when television evangelist Dr. Robert Schuller visited the ruins, he said that there "was not a single block of concrete in that rubble", suggesting that the nearly 425,000 cubic yards of concrete had disintegrated into dust. How? Though fire may possibly bend steel, fire does not incinerate concrete in the 10 seconds it took to fall.

Shortly after 9/11, a former East German physicist who studied Soviet infrared technology and plasmoids during the 1960s and 70s, and who was directly involved in a demonstration of a Soviet laser beam weapon in 1991 for the US Air Force in Weimar (Germany), told the French press agency AFP that there was evidence that a directed-energy weapon using "deep infrared" radiation was used. He added that the Soviet infrared beam weapon was already used during a Soviet dispute with China in 1969 to destroy "a wall" at the Ussuri River, which separated Manchuria from Russia's Far East.

It shows that, as unlikely as it may appear to be, that "modern technology" is the missing ingredient in the Twin Towers enigmatic collapse.