Were 911 towers blown up by bombs ?

[humble3d]

Were 911 towers blown up by bombs ?

MEDIA VIA THE LINK BELOW...

University probes if planes REALLY were responsible

IT IS one of the world's biggest conspiracy theories - that the west was involved in plotting, organising, and even carrying out the 9/11 terror atrocities to provide the grounds for the military strikes on the so-called Axis of Evil.

While many of the theories are bizarre, one longstanding view is the towers would not have collapsed in the way they did if they were hit by aircraft.

Some claim there must have been a "controlled detonation" at ground level for the Twin Towers to fall in on themselves as they did.

One key part of their argument is the collapse of a third smaller tower, called Building 7, at the World Trade Centre complex, several hours after the huge skyscrapers fell.

Until now, the theory has been just that and confined to the online forums of conspiracy theory websites.

But now, the University of Alaska is sponsoring a full investigation into claims that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition during the 9/11 attacks.

The official version of events is that fire spread to Building 7, from the main towers, devastating the structure, and causing it also to fall in on itself.

Footage of the tower consumed by fire emerged in 2011, and it was thought the conspiracy may have been killed off.

But Dr J Leroy Husley, chair of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ (UAF) Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, has partnered with architects and engineers linked to campaign group 9/11 Truth to evaluate the causes of its collapse.

A report on Activistpost.com said: "Although questions still remain about how the two planes that hit the Twin Towers could cause the total collapse of the high-rise buildings, many 9/11 researchers now focus on the mysterious collapse of Building 7.

"A number of 9/11 family members point to the collapse of WTC7 as a possible crack in the official story that could spark a new national conversation on the events of that day.

“WTC7 was not hit by a plane that day; however, it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official cause for the collapse was office fires.

“A growing number of family members, activists, architects and engineers question the official theory for collapse and are seeking a new investigation into WTC7."

Dr Hulsey and the WTC7 Evaluation project hope to answer some of the remaining questions.

The project is a two-year study that is being crowd-funded through Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Dr Hulsey has invited professionals from the fields of structural engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, building design and construction, physics, maths, and science, as well as everyday citizens, to get involved.

He said: "Over the next year, with a team of PhD students, I will be rebuilding World Trade Center building 7, using the same drawings that were used to build it originally we will reconstruct it digitally.

“NIST says the building fell down due to office fires. Our investigation will evaluate the probability that this was the cause of the collapse.”

The researchers have promised a “completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse”, and will post every step of their scientific process onWTC7Evaluation dot org.

The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr Hulsey and his students.

The professor and his team are soliciting financial support from the public from now until the completion of the study in April 2017.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for A&E 9/11 Truth, is in charge of working with the professor and raising money to fund the WTC7 Evaluation.

He said: “They are coming up with different scenarios of how hot the fires could have been in different parts of the building, and then for the next six months they will be running tests and scenarios.

“The last few months, early next year, will be all about putting the findings into a final report.”

The team want the final report published in peer-reviewed engineering journals.

Mr Walter added: “We hope to gain significant traction in the engineering community by providing an authoritative refutation of NIST’s report, by showing that there is no way that fires could have brought down building 7.”

He also wants the report "given to every member of Congress”.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/682256/Were-9-11-towers-blown-up-by-bombs-University-probes-if-planes-REALLY-were-responsible

GUNS & AUTOMOBILES DO NOT KILL PEOPLE...

PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE...

 

[jtmulc]

1 hour ago, humble3d said:

Were 911 towers blown up by bombs ?

 

NO.

[funkyy]

The towers suffered the impacts of two jet airplanes and also the fierce fire caused by the aviation fuel. The heat generated melted the already weakened steel causing the floors to collapse in a downward domino effect. The third building that collapsed did so due to the two gigantic towers collapsing around it and shaking the hell out of its foundations, an event that wasn't ever envisaged by the builders of aforementioned building. There was no conspiracy, it was an act of terror...end of.

P.S. We have more to fear from these two guys!!!!!!!!

[Jogs]

When I saw the buildings collapsed it seemed a bit strange. Though both the buildings were hit from one side the buildings fell straight. As the buildings were hit from one side, more  fuel should have accumulated on that side and fire was also more on that side. The smoke was also coming from one side in both the towers. Yet both the towers collapsed as if they we being demolished by experts. Even expert demolition are not that much accurate. Another thing to note is that both the towers collapsed very smoothly. As the fire was way on top (atleast in one of towers) the top should have first collapsed and then the lower part should have collapsed because of the dynamic force. Though the time gap shouldn't have been much but it should have been enough to be detected by our eyes. Yet this didn't happen. Though I never thought that the towers could have been blown by explosives, the collapse really seemed very strange.

Also, the terrorists   would have taken flights which were much late in that day so that the towers had more people inside them. Instead of that they took early morning flights which meant very low number of people in the buildings.  
 

[straycat19]

10 minutes ago, Jogs said:

When I saw the buildings collapsed it seemed a bit strange. Though both the buildings were hit from one side the buildings fell straight. As the buildings were hit from one side, more  fuel should have accumulated on that side and fire was also more on that side. The smoke was also coming from one side in both the towers. Yet both the towers collapsed as if they we being demolished by experts. Even expert demolition are not that much accurate. Another thing to note is that both the towers collapsed very smoothly. As the fire was way on top (atleast in one of towers) the top should have first collapsed and then the lower part should have collapsed because of the dynamic force. Though the time gap shouldn't have been much but it should have been enough to be detected by our eyes. Yet this didn't happen. Though I never thought that the towers could have been blown by explosives, the collapse really seemed very strange.

Also, the terrorists   would have taken flights which were much late in that day so that the towers had more people inside them. Instead of that they took early morning flights which meant very low number of people in the buildings.  
 

 

The fuel from the planes spread through the building and the smoke exited with the way the winds were blowing at the time.  The fuel ignited everything on the floors that it covered, not just at the entry locations.  The metal was never intended to withstand the heat, not only from the fuel but the parts of the plane that actually burned because of the high heat.  Once the metal structure started to give way then it was a pancake effect.  Their attacks were started at 8 a.m., a time when most people in the towers had to be at work.  The death toll was not the upper thought in their mind, it was taking down the towers, something they tried and failed to do in 1993, when statements were made that the towers would never come down.  Unfortunately most people rely on videos on youtube and erroneous articles in various publications that have no basis in fact or science.  But then people believe what they want regardless of the facts and science.

[sternog]

@ straycat19, now tell me where did the remains of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon building go, and how it was possible to even hit it? Why US Airforce didn`t send any fighter jet to shoot the attacking plane down above the protected area until it was too late? More information in this video:

 

[LeetPirate]

9 minutes ago, sternog said:

@ straycat19, now tell me where did the remains of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon building go, and how it was possible to even hit it? Why US Airforce didn`t send any fighter jet to shoot the attacking plane down above the protected area until it was too late?

I wondered about this too, because it's well known that the pentagon is a no fly air space, any attempts to fly over there are met with warnings and anti aircraft weapons. I do not think Google is allowed to take satellite imagery of it either. I stopped thinking about it after a while because in the end Bush Jr got to anal rape the American treasury to fight a useless war in Iraq to get revenge for his father where they found zero weapons of mass destruction and we all lived happily ever after.

[funkyy]

1 hour ago, LeetPirate said:

I wondered about this too, because it's well known that the pentagon is a no fly air space, any attempts to fly over there are met with warnings and anti aircraft weapons. I do not think Google is allowed to take satellite imagery of it either. I stopped thinking about it after a while because in the end Bush Jr got to anal rape the American treasury to fight a useless war in Iraq to get revenge for his father where they found zero weapons of mass destruction and we all lived happily ever after.

Then answer me this one simple question:- Sadaam Hussein had until the last moment to allow the UN weapons investigators into Iraq to check if he had weapons of mass destruction and thus avoid an invasion. He only had to say "O.k. UN investigators come and check and a big nyah nyah to the US who will now have to rollback their invasion forces ", but he didn't. Why not? If he was playing bluff with the US then he must be the stupidest poker player in the world. Don't forget, he had previously allowed the UN investigators into Iraq, so why the hell didn't he just allow them in this time and he/ we could have avoided the war?

[Jogs]

2 hours ago, straycat19 said:

 

The fuel from the planes spread through the building and the smoke exited with the way the winds were blowing at the time.  The fuel ignited everything on the floors that it covered, not just at the entry locations.  The metal was never intended to withstand the heat, not only from the fuel but the parts of the plane that actually burned because of the high heat.  Once the metal structure started to give way then it was a pancake effect.  Their attacks were started at 8 a.m., a time when most people in the towers had to be at work.  The death toll was not the upper thought in their mind, it was taking down the towers, something they tried and failed to do in 1993, when statements were made that the towers would never come down.  Unfortunately most people rely on videos on youtube and erroneous articles in various publications that have no basis in fact or science.  But then people believe what they want regardless of the facts and science.

I have never seen any video nor have read any article regarding what caused the demolition, whatever I said is what I have observed. Also, any body telling anything is just on assumptions, so any body can be right and anybody can be wrong. 
 

[SnakeMasteR]

The only thing that matters is evidence, like caught feds, dynamite or whatever else. Not some weird crowd-funded study project aiming at simulation.

If there ever was any evidence, it's already gone.

Its like encrypting a hard drive twice trying to get the same unique decryption key at the end.

Let's say it wasn't fire that brought WTC7 down, how does it automagically prove it was dynamite instead?

People should just let it go already.

[humble3d]

Reader query:

Has anyone checked the flash point temperature of jet a fuel ?

[jtmulc]

10 hours ago, Jogs said:

Also, any body telling anything is just on assumptions, so any body can be right and anybody can be wrong. 
 

 

NO. That's why we have highly trained scientists and engineers to study and investigate these things when they happen and report their findings instead of random guys on youtube with chicken wire, a brick, and a propane torch.

[Holmes]

No the simple no controversy answer is no the planes caused the explosion wow the author needs to get a hobbie this shit is stupid.