Skip to main content

WASHINGTON – For 15 years, there’s been a small band of investigators who have questioned the idea that the Twin Towers in New York City collapsed because of the intense heat and fires raging following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.
 

But they have largely been dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists.

Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “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,” the four physicists conclude.

The study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries, and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Conscious of the controversial nature of the report Europhysics included an editor’s note with the study in the September 2016 issue: “This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on 9/11. It found both the Twin Towers, as well as the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane, all collapsed as a result of fires and intense heat. But even the NIST found that the three buildings were “the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

 

“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11,” the researchers write. “Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001?”

Might be something to it...............


Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Controlled demolitions involve a good bit of engineering planning and preparation work. Folks in all those offices must have been been pretty oblivious to all the iron workers cutting beams weakening the structure and powder monkeys setting charges. Using mob affiliated union labor in New York would mean that the nefarious deed started several years earlier than 11 Sept., 2001.

jtdavis posted:

Now who are you talking to? No one has ever proven you right because you have never been right.

More sure of it than believing a crew of construction workers could keep that a secret.  As I was watching on the TV, it looked an awful lot like an airplane hit it.

But what took the building down..?? was it on fire for from
the ground up.? And if it was, what fed those flames.?

 

the·o·ry

noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
  1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    "Darwin's theory of evolution"
    synonyms:hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
    "I reckon that confirms my theory"
    principles, ideas, concepts;
    philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
    "modern economic theory"
    • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
      "a theory of education"
    • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
      "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
But what took the building down..?? was it on fire for from
the ground up.? And if it was, what fed those flames.?-------Jack Flash
 
United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport, in Los Angeles, California. On September 11, 2001, the Boeing 767-200 operating the route was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all 65 people aboard and an unconfirmed number in the building's impact zone.
 
American Airlines Flight 11 was a domestic passenger flight that was hijacked by five al-Qaeda members on September 11, 2001, as part of the September 11 attacks. One, Mohamed Atta, deliberately crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all 92 people aboard and an unknown number in the building's impact zone. The aircraft involved, a Boeing 767-223ER, registration N334AA,[1] was flying American Airlines' daily scheduled morning transcontinental service from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport, in Los Angeles, California.
 
Fuel capacity of 767-200=16,700 US gal 

Fuel capacity of 767-223ER =24,140 US gal 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

I might also note that none of the other buildings that didn't fall down from fire were also struck by a big-ass aluminum birds with thousands of gallons of JP-1 or were standing next to large structures weighing millions of tons that collapsed because they were struck by big-ass aluminum birds filled with thousands of gallons of JP-1.

Last edited by Stanky

This theory also, usually, implicates the owner of the complex, who desired to demolish it.   Which, resulted in nearly 15 years of lost lease revenue, insurance payments that rarely pay for full restoration, and a struggle to fill all the new space.  Obviously, whoever added that as an inducement to the theory, knows almost butkiss about business. Sounds like a leftie academic, to me.

riverzurinsky posted:

If the owner was falling behind in rent payments, why wouldn't that person just try to sell the buildings/land? Don't they have a new world trade center or are building one now?

Its built.  But, there are problems filling the tallest building as business have concerns about a return engagement by Islamists.  I haven't heard about the owner having problems with the old facilities.

riverzurinsky posted:

If the owner was falling behind in rent payments, why wouldn't that person just try to sell the buildings/land? Don't they have a new world trade center or are building one now?

The owner of the World Trade Center was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and they leased the buildings to Larry Silverstein on July 24, 2001. Getting those massive buildings ready for a controlled demolition in less than two months in New York City with the politicians and labor of the area would have been the greatest miracle since the creation of the universe.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×