The 9/11 conspiracy

By Phil / On Jul.05.2017 / In / Width 0 Comments

Having joined Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) not long ago, I decided to write this blog post on the attack on the World Trade Center twin towers in New York, and the conspiracy theory that surrounds it. What has this got to do with house plans? not much! only this important event involved an apparent building failure, and if architects and engineers do not give their opinion regarding such matters, how can the wider public be expected to form theirs?

The official narrative tells us that 19 hijackers from Arabia flew two Jumbo jets into the twin towers, which were weakened by the subsequent fires, and this led to their collapse. We have all seen on T.V.  the planes hit the buildings, so this would appear to be a logical conclusion. However, as most people are aware, this explanation has come under some suspicion by so-called 'conspiracy theorists' which include many architects, engineers, pilots, fire-fighters, scientists and explosive experts.

This blog post is intended for those who are currently unaware of the controversy, or of the basic facts which led so many people to conclude the collapse was due rather to controlled demolition. So why do so many people dispute the official story? Some of the often cited observations inconsistent with the official narrative are listed below:

There were two plane impacts but three buildings collapsed, seldom reported after 9/11, a third building, commonly referred to as WTC building 7, collapsed several hours after the twin towers, although was not hit by an airliner.

Ejection of debris laterally from the building, multi tone iron girders hurled hundreds of meters away from the footprint of the building, light weight debris hurled upwards and outwards, a seeming impossibility for a gravity only collapse.

Steel frame buildings had never collapsed before, due to office fires alone. Office fires cannot develop sufficient heat to melt steel, and structural steel members are protected by fire proofing.

Building 7 collapsed symmetrically down, however office fires are organic processes that cannot generate collapse conditions in all structural members simultaneously.

Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration. This implies that there was no resistance whatsoever offered by the floors below. However, had collapsing structure impacted upon the intact floors as expected, the impacts would have offered resistance and slowed down the collapse or stopped it altogether. In all three buildings, the collapsing structure fell through the intact floors below, apparently meeting little or no resistance. In the context of a gravity only collapse this defies Newton's Third Law of Motion, 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

In a gravity collapse we would expect to see large chunks of concrete in the debris pile, when in fact most of the concrete was pulverised and deposited as fine dust over lower Manhattan.

Some witnesses reported the sound of rapid fire sequential explosions, that would be expected in a controlled demolition, but not a gravity only collapse.

Experts have noted that high speed jets of debris, observed below the collapsing structure, appear to be ‘squibs’, a feature of controlled demotion, in which demolition charges create localised blow-outs in advance of the demolition wave.

Apparent foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. It is often cited that the media, including the BBC, reported the collapse of WTC building 7 before it actually happened. Many researchers have asked the question, how could the collapse of building 7 be predicted with such certainty, when the total collapse of a steel framed building due to office fires, had never occurred before in the history of high rise buildings?

Pools of molten steel were reported in the debris pile, days after the event. How can this be when neither jet fuel nor office fires are capable of producing the heat necessary to melt steel?

There has been a huge amount documented on 9/11 over the years, and due to the efforts of many independent researchers, considerable evidence has come to light in support of the controlled demolition theory and casting doubt on many aspects of the official narrative. If you are interested to learn more, above right is a video from Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth:

For more information on Architects and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth, please visit their website.