Scientific Study: Towers Collapsed Due To Controlled Demolition

Massive scientific study confirms that twin towers was brought down by controlled demolition

A European scientific study has concluded that on September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. 

The study, conducted by four physicists and published in Europhysics Magazine, says that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” reports:

“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.

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?”

The report also concluded: “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 researchers also found “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.”

They noted that “15 years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”

Here are some of the observations the researchers offered:

  • Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67 percent of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
  • Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
  • Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods;
  • Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse. In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events – in particular, high winds and earthquakes.

The physicists also note the Towers were specifically designed to withstand the impact and destructive force of airliners crashes.

They write:” 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.”

The original investigations did note: “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.”

On March 2006, 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.”

“The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers,” the report says. “Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed. Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources. NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.”

  • Art0fWar

    The government will do whatever it takes to control the sheep.

  • Kathy Houseman

    Ok , did You jackasses take into consideration the Fact that Airplane fuel burnes hotter than a regular fire. There were Many witnesses to the Planes flying into the WWT’S . I guess You should put this in Your Hypothesis, My Family helped build those buildings. You are obviously desperate to get Your names out in the public. Now You have. And I will share this story. Hope You like retirement, because People from almost every state in the USA knew Someone who was lost that day in NYC, WASHINGTON AND A LONELY FIELD IN PENNSYLVANIA. I guess The next Terrorist attack in Europe or Any Of Your Home Countries or States. We will consider it an act of Natural Selection of Nature. May God have mercy on Your souls !!!

    • Max G FORCE

      No one buys your paid trolling anymore. Judging by your sentence structure, grammar and spelling, you appear to be North American. I’ve noticed over the years that a lot of the paid government trolling has been outsourced to places like India. I’m impressed that you were able to find such a small article to spread disinformation on. I would’ve thought that 9/11 disinformation dissemination would’ve been low priority for your bosses at this point.

    • IrishPotatoGun

      Did any of them get cancer from all the Aesbestos that was in the building that the EPA knew all about and was going to require Billions of dollars in renovation to get up to code? A whole bunch of clean up workers did because their government officials lied to them about not needing masks.

    • jerry hamilton

      Airplane fuel does indeed burn hotter than an ordinary fire.
      That is because it burns extremely fast.
      After a few minutes, all that would be left burning would be office furniture. The aviation fuel would have all gone up in flames.

      Indeed the footage of the plane hitting the tower shows it ploughing into the steel outer shell of the tower without slowing down, which even you know, is impossible.
      That people died was indeed a tragedy but they did not die because of the planes flying into the towers.

    • zzzak666

      Just shut up and get lost you moron, just another kosher shill making dumb claims such as your family building them and inferring that this somehow makes you an expert, so was it your entire family involved including grandparents and distant cousins or what, as to the LONELY FIELD IN PENNSYLVANIA where are the bodies, where’s the plane, there wasn’t one and we all know that even if you don’t so get lost.

    • Eddy

      Kathy, are you aware of the temperatures inside a jet engine ?????? If not, kindly google the subject and gain some knowledge on the matter. Internal jet engine parts are manufactured from ???????? Yes, metal, would you believe that ?? And that metal does not MELT, loose shape, or fall apart, nor does it burn as many folks seem to believe.
      So if the FACTS, state that jet A 1 fuel cannot melt steel, how then could the buildings steel supports be melted ????? IF, as you claim, your family helped build those buildings, then they would know they should have withstood the collision with the planes. After all the designers made that claim, and still do today.
      YEP, many people lost relatives that day, that’s why they are unable to accept, that their own Government is complicit in their murder, despite the FACT, many previous U.S. administrations have done exactly the same thing .
      This behavior will not stop, until folks like you wise up to the reality.
      B.T.W. I’m not the slightest interested in getting my name anywhere, you are projecting your own mind set here, onto others.

    • Russty

      (airplane) jet fuel is basically kerosene Kathy

  • HeyZeus Belden

    It took them 15 years to reach this obvious conclusion?

  • Michael

    CIA agent, Malcom Howard said that feds decided to pull building seven down. ‘pull’ is a demolition term to blow up the building to bring it down. said in 2014 ( #OperationNewCentury
    Larry A. #Silverstein b. May 30, 1931, born at Brooklyn made over $5 million for World Trade Tower Collapses while Deep State Investors made Billions in Wall Street trades in advance too ) when the CIA destroyed the buildings. John Kerry said yes! , true. Too. And then CIA agent, on a deathbed; he says he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center.

    audios have explosions and admitted Eye —witnesses on scene over heard talking about CarVans loaded with explosives on the ground floors . One notices that pulverization only happens upon demolition classic collapses as a building falls, directly down upon itself, which statistically for three buildings to fall directly downward was logically impossible. Malcom Howard wanted to make that point because he claims the C.I.A. was very surprised there was not an uproar, as we see on television, shows after shows of demolition experts showing off and these buildings fell classical ‘pull-down’ style and explosives can be seen preceeding two floors down from the main threshold – collapse, on each of the high Trade Towers. Building 7 was detonated, according to John Kerry by a conscious decision. Explain that stuff U.S. Congress ?

    • superlicious

      No need to go that far; there’s a video of Silverstein himself admitting to having given the order to “pull” the building down.