Over the past couple weeks there has been a couple instances of "9/11 Truth" members basically heckling during the taping of live TV shows and at political fund raising events. The first,was on the 19th during the live Bill Maher show,"Real Time",and the second,was on the 23rd while Bill Clinton was giving a speech at a Minnesota fund raising dinner for his wife's campaign.
One point of the "9/11 Truth" movements government conspiracy hypothesis ,is that World Trade Center Buildings 1,2 and 7 were all brought down via controlled demolition. The main reason for this is that they contest that if you look at a video of a controlled demolition in comparison to the collapses on 9/11,that you will see they look exactly alike. This is no straw man argument since this p.o.v is espoused in all their videos and literature,and if you look at any video on YouTube of a building being demolished the comments are filled with "truthers" making remarks on how it looks just like 9/11.
In this article,I will examine the claim that the events of 9/11 resemble those of a controlled demolition by direct comparison to documented building demolitions,and find that the claim is false and contrary to the visual and audio evidence.
1. Buildings being demolished are gutted.
The very first visual,as well as technical, discrepancy between 9/11 and C.D is that buildings to be demolished are essentially gutted.
Before any building is demolished a great deal of demolition inside the building takes place to expose all supporting structures,and it's obviously needed for the placement of charges. This takes quite a long time and a great deal of time would indeed need to go into gaining access to all the needed points of structural support. No reports of even minor prolonged construction or demolition in the months or weeks following up to 9/11 have been reported. Any visual evidence prior to 9/11 of such activity would be compelling,but it just wasn't present.
2. Charges are linked together.
This point almost goes along with point 1,and that is that all the charges needed to demolish the buildings on 9/11 require massive amounts of wiring. Since,along with the thousands and thousands of charges need to do a C.D of buildings so large,you also need a vast amount of wiring to set them off,one would expect to have seen evidence of such work being done prior to 9/11,and none has surfaced.
I recently viewed a "9/11 Truth"
video in which they discuss the amount of work needed to do in pre-demolition,charge setting and wiring only to conclude that:
"Demolition pre weakening usually takes place well in advance of the final blast. But at the WTC,critical prep work might have had to occur in a very compressed time frame in the panicked after math of the plane strikes."
This is a clear non sequitur,as they conclude a process that usually takes weeks or months could have been compressed in a period of a couple hours.
3.Where is the sound?This point is one of the biggest oversights by people trying to make a direct comparison of C.D and 9/11. If you look at any video of a C.D you will notice that,even at a great distance,the blasts from the charges are very loud and noticeable,and on top of that there is a large amount of blast that can be heard,as well as seen,even in demolitions in which the exterior walls are left intact. This is in stark contrast compared to what we hear in all the videos of the collapses on 9/11. There are a few videos taken at ground level of the foot of the WTC buildings and you don't hear a single explosion,let alone the hundreds or thousands of them needed to take down buildings of such size. You also see no explosions, even though the exterior of the the WTC buildings were basically all windows.
The best thing the "Truth" movement can come up with to try to explain this is that firemen inside the building reported a "secondary explosion" after the planes hit. This is a fatally weak point,as a couple of explosions are embarrassingly insignificant to do a C.D of the WTC buildings. Also,there is no way to know if what they heard were even explosions,or if they were,what the cause of them were.The "Truth" movement makes a fallacious grand conclusion that what the firemen heard were explosions for C.D charges.
4.Charges are set off in delays.
When you hear the blast patterns of a C.D you will notice that all the charges are not set off all at once,but they are delayed and staggered to create the desired control. Aside from the already pointed out fact that you don't hear or see any explosions in the pre-collapse videos, you especially don't hear or see delayed blasts over a a short period of time.
5.The collapses do not visually resemble a C.D.
Aside from any technical points,proponents of the C.D hypothesis think that just watching the buildings collapse is a revelation to the truth. I find this to be the biggest non-sequitur as direct comparison contradicts the claim that they look the same.
In the case of WTC 1 & 2,there are two stark differences between what it looked like when they fell and what it looks like in a C.D:
- Buildings in a C.D fall from the bottom up,not the top down.
- As the WTC buildings fell there was a cloud of debris gaining in size and streaming outward to the sides.
WTC 1&2
Here is an example of what a controlled demolition really looks like:
Nice and clean all the way down.
Now,let's look at what a couple of different angles of the WTC buildings collapsing look like:
Notice how it buckles at the top and then falls from the top down creating a huge debris cloud which increases in size and ejects material in all directions.This is consistent with what you would see if the building was pancaking all the way down,not a controlled demolition.
This angle perfectly demonstrates that the collapse was a top down collapse which is not what you see in a controlled demolition.
This is another angle showing that it is a top down collapse,not visually consistent with a controlled demolition.
WTC 7
The one of the 3 buildings that is by far claimed most often as proof of a C.D ,is WTC 7. Other than the visuals of the collapse,the "truthers" state that since no airplane hit the the building,and that there was only minor fires,that there is no plausible reason for the building to collapse. Before looking at the visual evidence,it's important to refute the other statements about WTC 7.
- While it's true that no planes hit the building,this totally ignores the fact that most of the buildings south face (the side opposite of what you see in the "9/11 Truth" videos and literature) was destroyed and the building was gashed out in the middle,from debris of the first collapses.This is important when looking at the collapse of the building.They try to create a false dichotomy by suggesting "either a plane hit it,or there was no major damage to the building",which is totally false.
- The claim that there was only a couple minor fires is completely false.In the "9/11 Truth" movements videos and literature they quote mine one or two quotes out of context to try to draw this conclusion in contradiction to the true state of the building.This is just 100% dishonest and deceitful.
Here is what the collapse of WTC7 looked like:
Notice how the building twists and buckles in the middle,consistant with the damage on the opposite face of the building,and falls down.Also notice how there is no evidence of explosions,no flashes and no burst out of the windows.
While the damage did create a C.D demolition type illusion,when you compare this collapse with the collapse of other buildings of similar shape and size you will notice it is very different on one major point;they are demolished from one side and move toward the other.
Here are some example of what smaller box shaped building implosions look like:
Notice how this is not buckled in the middle,but starts implosion on the right and then moves toward the left.Also note how you can see the explosions,especially by the busts created by them which you don't see in the case of WTC7.
Again,the right is blown first and then moves toward the left.
Right to left,not down the middle.
CONCLUSION
It would appear,that the claim of resemblance to a C.D is,indeed,unfounded when making simple direct comparisons,and the correlation is only asserted and not demonstrated.The collapse of all the WTC buildings are in direct contradiction to what we do indeed see in C.D in all points.
