European Scientific Journal: 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition

Was 9/11 a controlled demolition as conspiracy theorists argue, or is the official narrative closer to the truth? A new report by the European Scientific Journal claims that the conspiracy theorists have it right:

An academic report was published by Europhysics News just in time for the anniversary of 9/11 is questioning the official explanation for the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. The conclusion may make even the most rational person rethink their outlook.

“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST [U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology] reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”

Typically fires don’t generate enough heat in one area long enough to cause failure in the structure of the building. Also, most high rises have fire suppression systems that help to prevent a fire from getting too far out of hand. Furthermore, structural members are protected by fireproofing materials. This further complicates the claims made by the official narrative.

“Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse,” the report points out.

“Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.”

The report goes on to confirm the scientists’ doubts regarding the official explanation by referencing the head structural engineer of the buildings. John Skilling, was interviewed by the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who was concerned about a possible airplane attack, performed an analysis that proved the towers would withstand the impact of Boeing 707:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed…The building structure would still be there…However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

It was also written that “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.”

Source: Awareness Act


One Response

  1. Dennis Wall

Leave a Reply