The World Trade Center did not collapse because of the strong fire, but was blown up in a controlled manner, claim four scientists shortly before the 15th anniversary of the attacks. The amazing thing: The daring thesis was published in a renowned physics journal.
There is hardly any other event that has so many conspiracy theories as the terrorist attacks of September 11th. There is a whole movement in the US that has questioned the official version of what happened, the self-proclaimed “Truther”. Four of these skeptics have now written a very critical article on the events in New York, which was published on August 28 to mark the upcoming anniversary. In it, the four authors say that “the evidence overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that all three buildings were demolished with a controlled demolition”.
The trade journal is of course aware of the explosiveness of the allegations and the controversies associated with them. After all, the paper is not just any conspiracy flyer, it is published by the European Physical Society (EPS) – this is the umbrella organization of European physics societies, to which the German Physical Society also belongs. The editors of the paper require the article to be given a short, classifying note. The text is “a little different” from the usual “exclusively scientific articles” because it contains “some speculation”. “Still, given the timing and importance of the subject, we consider this paper to be sufficiently scientific and interesting enough to warrant publication for our readers.”
“Fires never collapsed a skyscraper”
Under the title “15 years later: About the physics of high-rise collapses”, the four authors – none of whom are unknown in the “Truther” scene – sharply attack the official version. The 2008 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cites the strong fires in the three buildings as the main cause of the collapse, and the vibration of the aircraft impacts also played a role in the twin towers. This is the main point of attack of the article, because: “Neither before nor after 9/11 did fires lead to a total collapse of a steel girder skyscraper,” the article says.
Many such buildings would have burned long and hard without collapsing afterwards. As an example, they cite World Trade Center 5, which burned for eight hours that day without collapsing. Apart from an earthquake in Mexico in 1985, a building like this has never collapsed by anything other than a controlled demolition – mostly with very hot burning nanothermite and dynamite. The authors also suspect that such an action, “controlled demolition”, was behind September 11th.
The scientists give reasons why steel beam buildings would not collapse in fire. The temperatures of normal fires would not be sufficient for this, and the columns were also specially protected from it. In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the speeds of the collapse – partly free fall – speak against a fire-induced collapse. The authors also cite pictures of the collapse, which in their opinion show the effects of explosions and the use of nanothermites, as well as testimony from first aiders and local people who reported numerous explosions.
Old speculations, for the first time in a renowned specialist journal
None of these speculations are new. The only new thing is that a well-known specialist magazine gives them a stage. Lead author Steven Jones, a retired physics professor, was given early retirement from his university on Sept. 11 in 2006 for his controversial theses. Alongside him, retired Canadian engineering science professor Robert Korol co-wrote the article, as did engineers Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter. The latter holds a leading position in the organization “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. According to their own statements, this represents 2500 architects and engineers who question the official version for September 11th.
The thesis of the controlled demolition is supported by conspiracy theorists usually in connection with the “false flag” theory. According to this, US secret services would have to answer for the death of around 3,000 citizens themselves in order to justify the subsequent wars in the Middle East. The authors of the technical article do not express these daring claims directly. At first they only question the official version and demand “new, independent investigations that also consider the possibility of a controlled demolition”. In doing so, however, they indirectly imply that conspiracy theory.
Editor’s note: This article first appeared in September 2016.
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
