The theory that the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers were the result of planned demolitions and not plane crashes have long circulated the media, often proposed as “conspiracy.” However, a new study published in europhysicsnews by an international, accredited group of engineers, a physicist and an architect is breathing life back into the theory.
In the research, these professionals concluded that the NIST (United States National Institute of Standards and Technology) hypothesis, which proposed the buildings collapsed as the result of fires and structural failure, is nearly entire implausible.
The study explains: “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.”
It further highlights the fact that the towers were actually designed to specifically weather the impact of a large aircraft. The head structural engineer on the towers, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: “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,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
Skiling further proposed that the only way the towers could be brought down is by demolition: “However,” he added, “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.”
Their argument is not founded on conjecture alone. The team closely scrutinized information released by various agencies who were responsible for analyzing the cause of the collapse of the building in the wake of 9/11 and found not only discrepancies but also a lack of conclusive data to support the narrative that fires and structural damage alone were solely responsible for the collapse of these towers on that tragic day.
FEMA, who also did a study to determine the cause of the tower collapses said, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
And the NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
2,996 people died on September 11 and we still do not conclusively know what was responsible for their deaths? Whether or not fire or demolition was responsible for the collapse of these buildings, we should most certainly be open to that conversation. There can only be justice when we conclusively know the truth.
Read the full study here, starting on page 23.