Experts Discuss Contolled Demolition
GeorgeWashington Tue, 09/19/2006 - 2:37pm
Numerous experts have stated that the collapse of the world trade centers was, or looked like, controlled demolition:
- An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)
- Two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- A U.S. professor of physics stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
- A U.S. professor of mechanical engineering argued that the trade centers were brought down with explosives
- Several U.S. structural engineers, such as this one (second interview), have concluded that the collapse of the Trade Centers on 9/11 cannot be explained by the plane crashes and fires in the buildings
- An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and "that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" on 9/11
- The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"
- A terrorism security expert used by many news organizations asked, after commenting on the "secondary explosions", "whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground" (keep in mind that a controlled demolition involves the use of explosives both at the base of the building and in higher sections of the building)
Many other experts have privately expressed skepticism of the official explanation for why the Trade Centers collapsed. Hopefully, they will also find the courage to come forward publicly.
- Login to post comments
Not for nothing, but anyone
Not for nothing, but anyone who still thinks that WTC1&2 "pancacked" or somehow sufferred "progressive collapse" is braindead. There is simply no other way to state it and, unfortunately, there is just no reaching them. I don't need to be a structural engineer or a demolitions expert to see from the still shots and the videos that these building didn't "collapse" but rather "exploded". A true pancake collapse would not turn nearly all of the concrete into dust and obliterate the massive steel columns. Period. I think that's partly why the Bush WH HAD TO change the EPA reports. If scientists and environmental health experts were to focus on the highly unlikIihood of a collapse turing concrete into dust from the start, the cover would have been blown immediately. I don't know how the logistics would have worked with the planting of the bombs -- being that there would have had to have been many many charges planted -- but it's clear to any objective person that the buildings exploded. The NIST/Skeptic/PM claim that the squibs are "pockets of air being shot out" is perhaps the lamest excuse for anyhting I have ever heard. Every media outlet was reporting second and third explosions that day. How is it possible for all of these people to be mistaken? Answer: it's not. The big lie has just permeated so deeply that they're all but forgotten.
With regard to WTC7, the OGCT defenders cling to the notion that "there were massive fires far greater than the truth movement is willing to admit." While that may be true, I don't care if God was hitting WTC7 for 7 hours with a monstrous flamethrower -- steel buildings don't collapse from fire. Period. And even if the building was consumed by a raging inferno, the odds of it coming down in a manner that perfectly mimmicks controlled demolition is too small to calculate. Bringing a building straight-down like that is a feat for even the most skilled controlled demolitions company. If you expect me to believe that scatterred fires and -- I'm being very generous here -- a chunk missing from the south face was enough to bring a massive 47 story structure straight down while creating a characteristic "kink", you might as well tell me George W. Bush is the smartest President to ever inhabit the White House. It's simply impossible and untrue.
I understand that people have a hard time coming to grips with the possibility (read:reality) that our government could be so cruel and ihhuman. I dealt with that for a while myself and I still have trouble believing it. However, when everything points in one direction, I would have to be mentally ill not to call a spade a spade.
Coupling all of this with the proven fact that there were military war games going on that morning that would have served to confuse ATC to the point where they had no idea what was going on, it is simply impossibly to believe the official story.
Just to touch on the Pentagon strike and Shanksville, where are the planes? Why did the NTSB not -- like it does with every single other plane crash in history -- reconstruct the aircrafts? They dredged the ocean floor for Flight 800 yet they can't reconstruct a plane that crashed in an open field? Give me a break. And you expect me to believe that a 767 vaporized on impact yet a piece of landing gear was able to remain intact and penetrate three rings of the recently reinforced Pentagon? You might as well tell me the sky is purple and expect me to buy it.
I think it's interesting to note the trajectory of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon. If you trace it straight through, that "plane" was headed straight towards Rumsfelds office. Was that another drill? Any missile attack from a foreign country would have come from the Atlantic on that same flight line.
Anyone who still buys the OGCT is intellectually dishonest and should be brought out back and shot.
Latest 'official version of events' defenders' battle cry:
Square-Cube Law
Lately, I've been hearing a lot of defenders of the 'official version of events' cite the square-cube law as their latest evidence that 9/11 truthers are deluded fools.
For those not familiar with the term, the 'square-cube' law is a mathematical principle that basically states that if you double the dimensions of an object, you square its surface area, but cube its mass. Among other things, this principle explains why mammals don't get any smaller than shrews, and why we don't see insects the size of cars.
The defenders claim is, in a nutshell, that the WTC towers exhibited the behavior seen on 9/11 by virtue of their great size. Objections that no steel framed structure has ever collapsed from fire, and that the collapses occured in a symmetrical, catastrophic fashion at nearly free-fall speed, are thus able to be dismissed. In fact, a corollary of this argument is that the WTC towers could not have possibly collapsed in any other way than straight down, since the top of the building would have to have been moved hundreds of feet to the side, and 'no force in nature is strong enough to accomplish that' (actual quote).
Now, anyone capable of rational though can see that this argument is fallacious, but I've been having difficulty finding the necessary math to prove it. Doing scale-model experiments that take into consideration the different properties of the materials at the scales of the WTC towers is extremely difficult, and failing to take the square-cube law into consideration only reinforces the defenders' assertion that 9/11 truthers are deluded fools that are incapable of mastering the science necessary to understand the WTC collapse.
So...has anyone else run into this sort of argument? If so, how did you respond? Have you been able to find any hard math that is able to refute this claim, and if so, could you please share with the class?
TIA
and this 'square cube law'
and this 'square cube law' is also being used to explain wtc7?
it was not the first time a building as high as 7 was burning.
if this 'square cube law' really applies, then, architects and structural engineers all over the world musst be aware of it. No? Are they? This would have to be considered in safety measures for big buildings , all over the world. Is this the case ?
Oh,ok, thats not the math you asked for.
How about: Does the 'square cube law' also explain the ISI-hijacker money connections?
Well
apart from the empiric evidence that one tower burned for 3 hours in 1975 without any damage to its superstructure whatsoever, which should actually suffice to put a lid on the OCT in a purely rational discourse, I'd argue that the fact that volume is a ^3 term and surface a ^2 term is nothing new.
These mathematical fundamentals were of course considered in the construction. And it was a solid construction, as already evidenced by outlasting a fire of 3h without any structural damage. It was far from constantly being on the verge of collapse like an overweight brachiosaurus. The analogy to biological lifeforms is flawed, anyway: The limiting factor for muscular strength is the muscle's cross section (perpendicular to its contracting axis), a ^2 term just like surface, while volume and with it weight are ^3. Therefore, the bigger the lifeform, the worse its strength/weight ratio. Now while the same principle applies for steel columns, muscles didn't advance much in the last century - structural steel did, however. I heard (I think it was in 9/11 Mysteries Part 3) that advances in structural steel made the WTC possible in the first place.
In summary, I have to concede that the analogy is not as flawed as I first stated. Maybe it's better to focus on the 1975 fire - this is an extremely strong point.
Anyway, if you want to give dem monkeys something to chew on, tell them that the potential energy contained in a building is necessarily smaller than its strain energy - or else it would instantly collapse. Then ask them how this smaller potential energy was sufficient to provide the greater strain energy for the building to be thoroughly obliterated. Emphasize that the aforementioned strain energy only includes structural elements, not the 100acres worth of concrete floors. Also emphasize that there are safety factors of at least 2 (I think even around 4 in our case here) for that strain energy, meaning there was only half as much PE as there was SE, in the best possible case (for them!)
But don't expect them to respond in a meaningful manner.
The articles linked to text
The articles linked to text was a stretch in some cases. For example, the demolition expert, although noting that it 'looked' like a demolition, believed that planes caused the 'cascading' and effective pancake collapse. That article is total rubbish and it is disheartening to read it--Can't we find better, clearer thinking and statements???
criminal government
We don't need to experts to know that the World Trade Center was brought down with explosives......nor an airplane crashed in the pentagon nor flight 93 crash existed .
Neither such airplanes "crashed' in the twin towers.
Ihave studied several clips when flight 175 "crashes" in the south tower
and I got to the conclusion that there's no such plane crashing in the building!
No Plane Theory
Please don't tout the No Plane Theory...there is no way that is factual and damages the movement's credibility
live coverage
my friend ...do you have a tape or dvd when the media was showing
"live" the crash of flight 175??
then you have the evidence in your hands!!
play it in slow motion and you will find the anomalies.
whoever owns a dvd has the best evidence that there were
no such airplanes in those "attacks"
I will call it murders
Dishonest Citing of Matthys Levy
Matthys Levy regards the controlled-demolition fantasists as crackpots. He disavows the use of his out-of-context remarks as support for a theory that he rejects totally. The dishonesty of the conspiracy liars is once again on display.
Perhaps one of the True Believers here will point out a few errors in the Implosion World paper (just joking--of course no one will, as there aren't any). In five years of deranged shrieking, the liars have produced much bogus science, many distorted quotes and a blizzard of outright falsehoods, but not a shred of evidence for their insane beliefs. The jihadists who brought down the Towers were real, as are their ideological brethren who continue to work for the destruction of this country, abetted by ignorant, agenda-driven fools who are impervious to reason and logic.
Discussing the Square-cube
Discussing the Square-cube law in a forum that features psychos pretending that no planes hit the Twin Towers is comparable to teaching algebra to chimpanzees. Wikipedia contains much nonsense, but it does provide a useful introduction to an important concept in engineering and biology.
A couple of brief observations:
The Square-cube law explains why King Kong would be weak.
The Square-cube law--pay attention, now--explains why no skyscrapers are constructed with wood (hint: think carefully about this--perhaps a light will be switched on).
More Dishonesty
Another example of conspiracist dishonesty: Mike Taylor completely rejects the discredited theory that explosives brought down the WTC, as does EVERYONE who works in the controlled-demolition business. He is cited as supporting your nonsense, but nothing could be further from the truth (or as you guys employ the term, "twoof").
Please show the errors in the Implosion World paper.
Wow, a "twoll" who bothered to register
pomeroo,
Show us where Mike Taylor rejects controlled demolition. Are you saying Deseret News lied or misquoted him?
Mike Taylor Rejects the Loons
Contact the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, ask for Laura, and find out what they think of the tinfoil-hat brigade. Yes, I am saying that anyone who thinks a recognized name in the controlled-demolition industry takes this fabricated crap seriously is a liar.
The Implosion World paper and seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty laboratories expose the conspiracy fantasists' rubbish for what it is.