Blueprint of a Demolition
Below is an op-ed piece written by Ian in March of 2007. Since the mystery of World Trade Center 7 has finally poked through into the mainstream (international) media, it's useful to re-address this issue.
March 26, 2007
How a planned and controlled demolition was labeled as a structural failure due to fire damage.
Since I first saw the collapse of the World Trade center 6 years ago as a college freshman enrolled in an architecture program, I stared at the television with disbelief of the total collapse of 3 enormous steel structures. To date I have hinted at the possibility of the purposeful controlled demolition of these structures. I have seen many documentaries on the subject and the one I have provided below is the most succinct in proving a point.
About a year ago I had come to the realization that in fact the towers had been destroyed by means other than 2 commercial aircraft. I must also reference that I am architect. Through schooling it was standard practice for the university to provide all architecture students with an understanding on how the loading and stress tolerances of steel and reinforced concrete structures function.
Below are two features I encourage you to watch. It details all of the pertinent information that leads only to one conclusion; the WTC destruction was a planned and controlled demolition.The first film is 36 minutes long and the second is 1 hour and 36 minutes long, so get a drink and a cookie and set aside the time.
FYI: when Kerosene is referenced, Kerosene is jet-fuel.
Now that you have watched that there is some additional information that I would like to point out.One of the most suspicious and inexplicable occurrences of that day is the collapse of WTC 7, the smaller office tower to the north of the WTC complex built in 1986. The "official" report says that office fires and debris from the twin towers caused the collapse. By the time the building had fallen nearly 6 hours after the twin towers, cameras had been filming WTC 7. In no footage is their evidence of a raging fire. Also, when buildings collapse do to structural failure they are subject to the Law of Entropy which holds "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." In simple terms a building such as WTC 7 cannot fall symmetrically into itself, and into a nice pile. Rather it will have to tip away from the center of gravity and the path of most resistance spreading the mass exponentially farther outward. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This must also apply to the collapse of the twin towers, yet the Law of Entropy seems to be missing. The only explanation for a 10 second, speed of gravity collapse into the path of most resistance is the destruction of the resistance (floors of office space) farther down the towers to facilitate the rapid symmetrical collapse that we have all witnessed.Another fallacy in "official"reports state that it was solely because of the proximity to the towers that brought down WTC 7, a building constructed in 1986. There are many other buildings just as close to the twin towers as WTC 7, Deutche Bank, while just as near the twin towers still stands. The post office across the street from the WTC was built before 1950 and it withstood the collapse. The American Express Tower(1980s) and the adjoining Winter Garden, though badly damaged, withstood the collapse. Office fires, and falling debris can cause a symmetrical implosion of a steel structure with a lattice-like reinforced steel core? No. Office fire's and Kerosene fuel can cause a symmetrical implosion of of two 110 storey office towers? No.Below are images detailing how debris and fire could not have caused WTC 7 to collapse. WTC 3, 4, and 5 were office buildings closer to the twin towers and smaller than WTC 7. WTC 3, 4, and 5 endured the full brunt of the Twin Towers collapse, yet they did not sustain any total structural collapse.
Below a map of the WTC complex:
Below WTC 4:
Below WTC 5:
Below WTC Plaza after Twin Towers collapse:
Above, The WTC plaza in the early afternoon, you can see WTC 7 still stands looming in the background. Yet hours later is implodes exactly like the twin towers. You can see that WTC 5 still stands (center) despite its extensive damage.
42% of America believes that there was a government cover up to some degree.
I might also add, Congress spent more money to try to impeach Bill Clinton than they did on the September 11th Commission.
If you have rejected all of this evidence, and consider those who promote it unpatriotic, then you are guilty of the most unpatriotic act: putting too much confidence in the central government. After all, our founding fathers said that it is our responsibility to have a healthy distrust for government.
March 26, 2007
How a planned and controlled demolition was labeled as a structural failure due to fire damage.
Since I first saw the collapse of the World Trade center 6 years ago as a college freshman enrolled in an architecture program, I stared at the television with disbelief of the total collapse of 3 enormous steel structures. To date I have hinted at the possibility of the purposeful controlled demolition of these structures. I have seen many documentaries on the subject and the one I have provided below is the most succinct in proving a point.
About a year ago I had come to the realization that in fact the towers had been destroyed by means other than 2 commercial aircraft. I must also reference that I am architect. Through schooling it was standard practice for the university to provide all architecture students with an understanding on how the loading and stress tolerances of steel and reinforced concrete structures function.
Below are two features I encourage you to watch. It details all of the pertinent information that leads only to one conclusion; the WTC destruction was a planned and controlled demolition.The first film is 36 minutes long and the second is 1 hour and 36 minutes long, so get a drink and a cookie and set aside the time.
FYI: when Kerosene is referenced, Kerosene is jet-fuel.
Now that you have watched that there is some additional information that I would like to point out.One of the most suspicious and inexplicable occurrences of that day is the collapse of WTC 7, the smaller office tower to the north of the WTC complex built in 1986. The "official" report says that office fires and debris from the twin towers caused the collapse. By the time the building had fallen nearly 6 hours after the twin towers, cameras had been filming WTC 7. In no footage is their evidence of a raging fire. Also, when buildings collapse do to structural failure they are subject to the Law of Entropy which holds "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." In simple terms a building such as WTC 7 cannot fall symmetrically into itself, and into a nice pile. Rather it will have to tip away from the center of gravity and the path of most resistance spreading the mass exponentially farther outward. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This must also apply to the collapse of the twin towers, yet the Law of Entropy seems to be missing. The only explanation for a 10 second, speed of gravity collapse into the path of most resistance is the destruction of the resistance (floors of office space) farther down the towers to facilitate the rapid symmetrical collapse that we have all witnessed.Another fallacy in "official"reports state that it was solely because of the proximity to the towers that brought down WTC 7, a building constructed in 1986. There are many other buildings just as close to the twin towers as WTC 7, Deutche Bank, while just as near the twin towers still stands. The post office across the street from the WTC was built before 1950 and it withstood the collapse. The American Express Tower(1980s) and the adjoining Winter Garden, though badly damaged, withstood the collapse. Office fires, and falling debris can cause a symmetrical implosion of a steel structure with a lattice-like reinforced steel core? No. Office fire's and Kerosene fuel can cause a symmetrical implosion of of two 110 storey office towers? No.Below are images detailing how debris and fire could not have caused WTC 7 to collapse. WTC 3, 4, and 5 were office buildings closer to the twin towers and smaller than WTC 7. WTC 3, 4, and 5 endured the full brunt of the Twin Towers collapse, yet they did not sustain any total structural collapse.
Below a map of the WTC complex:
Below WTC 4:
Below WTC 5:
Below WTC Plaza after Twin Towers collapse:
Above, The WTC plaza in the early afternoon, you can see WTC 7 still stands looming in the background. Yet hours later is implodes exactly like the twin towers. You can see that WTC 5 still stands (center) despite its extensive damage.
42% of America believes that there was a government cover up to some degree.
I might also add, Congress spent more money to try to impeach Bill Clinton than they did on the September 11th Commission.
If you have rejected all of this evidence, and consider those who promote it unpatriotic, then you are guilty of the most unpatriotic act: putting too much confidence in the central government. After all, our founding fathers said that it is our responsibility to have a healthy distrust for government.