Controlled demolition started as a somewhat controversial theory within the 9/11 truth movement. But in the last two years it has become increasingly accepted and validated by solid research. At the same time, the controlled demolition hypothesis continues to be used by the mainstream media to frame the movement as wild and sensational. There is a danger that 9/11 skepticism is becoming equated with the simplistic and sensational argument, “They blew up the Towers with explosives!!!”
Controlled demolition is a very interesting subject with a lot of research and compelling photographic documentation to back it up. Nevertheless, we must remember that it’s just one piece of a huge, cumulative argument for official complicity which convincingly counters every major part of the official story. At TruthMove, we feel that some in the movement have focused too myopically on controlled demolition, at the expense of other evidence, historical precedence, and context.
The case for controlled demolition is bolstered by the mysterious collapse of WTC 7. The collapse of Building 7 was captured in several videos and even aired on mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks. However, after the official story went into overdrive and the media started to get its story straight, these videos were rarely, if ever, shown in the mainstream media again. Outside of New York City, most of the public has no idea that Building 7 ever existed.
Evidence
Professor David Ray Griffin, lays out over 10 major points in support of controlled demolition. Some of his most compelling points are included below.
No large steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. The official explanation given by the government teams is that fire destroyed both towers and building 7. The damage from the aircraft and debris are admitted to have played an insignifcant role.
The collapse of all three buildings occured in a symmetrical, straight down fashion, into their own footprint. While dust and debris may have been ejected outwards, the structures essentially fell in on themselves, leaving surrounding buildings essentially undamaged.
The buildings collapsed at almost free-fall speed. This means that each building must have experienced some spontaneous global structural failure so that there was no resistance or delay in the collapse. The official “pancake theory” for the towers is untenable because as upper floors supposedly collapsed onto those below, there would have been structural resistance. Instead the collapses began almost instantly and showed no signs of resistance.
According to the 9/11 Commission, “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (p. 541). In fact, the core of the towers was actually a support system of 47 massive steel columns. The commission just ignored these because their existence conflicted with the official story of spontaneous global collapse.
All three buildings were completely destroyed. The resulting piles of rubble were only a few stories high and there were no large, structural pieces left. If you consider the structual engineering strength and redundancy put into the buildings, it is ridiculous to attribute this result to a “structural failure” or simple “collapse.”
Nearly all the concrete and non-metallic substances in the towers were pulverized into a fine powder. The gravitational energy of a simple “collapse” would not have been sufficient to cause this pulverization.
Molten Steel was also observed by multiple witnesses at ground zero, even weeks after 9/11. The energy needed to melt steel would only been possible through the use of explosives or other foreign, high-energy devices. Jet fuel and the collapse of the buildings could not have created enough heat or energy to leave molten steel.
Firefighters, initial news reports and other witnesses prominently reported secondary explosions within the towers.
WTC 7 housed the New York offices of the CIA, Secret Service, SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and Rudy Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management bunker.
The New York Times on WTC 7: “no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire… Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat….A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”