Why the 9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory is just rubbish.

History 

Questions related to the technical details of the collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center have been debated for years, including rebuttals and ridicule.^[14] Controlled demolitionconspiracy theories were first suggested in October 2001.^[1] Eric Hufschmid's book, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, in which the controlled demolition theory is explicitly advocated, was published in September 2002.^[1] David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones are the two most prominent advocates of the theory.^[1] Griffin's book^[15] The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004,^[16] has become a reference work for the 9/11 Truth movement.^[17] In the same year, Griffin published the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, in which he argues that flaws in the commission's report amounts to a cover-up by government officials and says that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.^[18] Griffin theorized in a June 2010 article that those in the alleged false flag operation wanted the buildings to fall straight down. If they had toppled over, they would have destroyed dozens of other buildings and killed tens of thousands of people.^[19]

Steven E. Jones has been a leading academic voice of the proponents of demolition theories.^[20] In 2006, he published the paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?".^[6]Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.^[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".^[3][22]

David Ray Griffin has questioned the "pancake collapse" theory suggested in the Building Performance Study produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).^[23] NIST's report on the collapse of the WTC towers rejected the theory in favor of the column failure theory.^[24] In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"^[25] and posted a FAQ about related issues on its website in August 2006.^[24] The major elements of the theory have been rebutted by mainstream engineering scholarship,^[26] where its proponents are considered "outsiders".^[2] The magazine Popular Mechanics challenged the theories in the special report "Debunking the 9/11 Myths".^[27]

Articles, letters and comments by controlled demolition advocates have been published in scientific and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter titled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," was published by Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.^[28] A few months later, in July 2008, an article titled "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," was published by Ryan, Gourley and Jones in the Environmentalist.^[29] Later that same year, in October 2008, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a comment^[30] by chemical engineer and attorney James R. Gourley, in which he describes what he considered fundamental errors in a 2007 paper on the mechanics of progressive collapse by Bažant and Verdure.^[31] In the same issue, Bažant and Le rebutted Gourley's arguments, finding his criticisms scientifically incorrect.^[32] They suggested future critics should "become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics" or risk "misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information."^[33]

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, appear to be present in samples of the dust.^[12][34]

Internet websites and videos have contributed to the growth of the movement of individuals supporting the theory that planted explosives destroyed the World Trade Center. The website ofArchitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth cites the membership of over 1,500 architects and engineers.^[35] The controlled demolition theory often includes allegations that U.S. government insiders planned and / or participated in the destruction of the WTC in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.^[36] The theory features prominently in popular entertainment type movies, such asLoose Change,^[37] as well as more documentary type films, such as 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, by San Francisco-area architect Richard Gage, which are based mainly on presentations of scientific and engineering evidence for the controlled demolition theory.^[38]

While mainstream press has a significant history of derogatory labels, descriptions and interpretations of demolition theory advocates (i.e., in 2006, the magazine New York reported that a "new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day."^[39]), the theory has been supported by a number of popular actors, musicians and politicians, including Charlie Sheen,^[40][41] Willie Nelson,^[42] former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura,^[43] talkshow host Rosie O'Donnell,^[44] and actors Ed Asner and Daniel Sunjata.

Propositions and hypotheses 

Main towers 

On September 11, the North Tower (1 WTC) was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 and the South Tower (2 WTC) was hit by United Airlines Flight 175, both Boeing 767 aircraft. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after the impact, and the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after.^[45] An investigation by NIST concluded that the collapse was caused by a combination of damage to support columns and fire insulation from the aircraft impacts and the weakening of columns and floors by jet fuel ignited fires.^[24] NIST also found "no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001".^[46]

Physicist Steven E. Jones, among others, points to many descriptions by individuals working on the WTC rubble pile suggesting the presence of molten steel in the pile^[6][12] and a stream of molten metal that poured out of the South Tower before it collapsed^[3] as evidence of temperatures beyond those produced by the fire. Jones has argued that the molten metal may have beenelemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. Jones and other researchers analyzed samples of dust from the World Trade Center buildings and reported their findings for evidence of nano-thermite in the dust.^[12] Jones informed NIST of his findings and NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody" proving that the dust indeed came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies with dust under custody of NIST itself, but NIST has not done so.^[13]

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.^[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.^[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.^[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.^[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.^[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.^[6][50]Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.^[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts^[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.^[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.^[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,^[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.^[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.^[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting from the open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).^[59]

In September 2011 Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who holds a PhD in Transportation Engineering and Planning, said that it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them and that some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.^[60] Al-Qaida sharply criticised Ahmadinejad in their English-language publication, Inspire, calling his assertions "a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence".^[61]

7 World Trade Center 

The position of 7 WTC in relation to the other WTC buildings. WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories allege that 7 World Trade Center—a 47-story skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main part of the World Trade Center site—was intentionally destroyed with explosives. Unlike the Twin Towers, 7 World Trade Center was not hit by a plane, although it was hit by debris from the Twin Towers and was damaged by fires which burned for seven hours, until it collapsed completely at about 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11 (a new building has been erected on the site of the old and opened in May 2006). Several videos of the collapse event exist in the public domain, thus enabling comparative analysis from different angles of perspective.^[62] Proponents typically say the collapse of 7 World Trade Center was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report and that the federal body charged with investigating the event, NIST, required seven years to conduct its investigation and issue a report.^[63]

In November 2010, Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera hosted members of a television ad campaign called "BuildingWhat?", a series of commercials in which 9/11 family members ask questions about 7 World Trade Center and call for an investigation into its collapse. Rivera called the television ads "not so easy to dismiss as those demonstrators were," and stated that, "If explosives were involved, that would mean the most obnoxious protesters in recent years ... were right."^[64] Days later, Rivera appeared on the program Freedom Watch with legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Fox Business Network to discuss the BuildingWhat? TV ad campaign. Napolitano stated, "It's hard for me to believe that [7 World Trade Center] came down by itself. I was gratified to see Geraldo Rivera investigating it."^[65] FOX News was heavily criticized for airing programs questioning the basis for the collapse of 7 World Trade Center by the internet media groups Media Matters and Newsbusters.^[66]

Some proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories suggest that 7 WTC was demolished because it may have served as an operational center for the demolition of the Twin Towers, while others suggest that government insiders may have wanted to destroy key files held in the building pertaining to corporate fraud. The WTC buildings housed dozens of federal, state and local government agencies.^[67] According to a statement reported by the BBC, Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center.^[67] The former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the President, Richard Clarke, does not think that 7 WTC is mysterious, and said that anyone could have rented floor space in the building.^[68]

No steel frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire, although there had been previous cases of collapses or partial collapses of smaller steel buildings due to fire.^[69] However, 7 WTC also sustained significant structural damage from 1 WTC debris after its collapse. BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell.^[70] The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks.^[71] Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.^[72]

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.^[68][73][74]

NIST Report 

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.^[75] A draft version of its final report on the collapse of 7 WTC was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it used, which simulated the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground; and NIST says the time taken on the investigation into 7 WTC is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash.^[75] The agency also says another 80 boxes of documents related to 7 WTC were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion^[who?] the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.^[74]

NIST released its final report on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008.^[76] Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The investigation could not include physical evidence as the materials from the building lacked characteristics allowing them to be positively identified and were therefore disposed of prior to the initiation of the investigation.^[75][77] The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".^[75] The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse.^[53]

NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather that nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.^[75]

Reactions 

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.^{[2][78][page needed]}

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,^[79] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.^[80]

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"^[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.^[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".^[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.^[22]

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.^[81] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).^[2]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.^[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."^[82]

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,^{[6][7][8][12]} Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",^[83] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.^[84] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.^[85]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.^[86] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.^[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers^[6][87] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.^{[1][50][86][87][88][89]} Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"^[90]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. “I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”^[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.^[91]

References 

Then again, you could watch a totally impartial film.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Probably the same cuckoo's nest as the story about the moon landing being rigged.  

Indeed. 

Quack, quack, quack.

I actually had a peek at the nutjob website. It took me about five seconds to spot the first mistake:

"Editor’s note: To this day most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed along with the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001."

I actually deal with that above, so plenty of people know about it.

I then looked at the next paragraph - and remember, you put your best arguments first:

On April 9, 2013, Senator John McCain appeared on C-SPAN’s live call-in show Washington Journal. I asked him the following question:

Click the image above to Watch the Video

“The National Institute of Standards and Technology asserts that the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was caused by fire. Yet they acknowledge that the first 100 feet of that collapse took place at free-fall acceleration. Engineers will tell you that fire cannot do this, that the only method by which it can be accomplished is the use of pre-planted explosives.How do you explain this discrepancy...of a hundred feet of free fall, without the use of explosives?”

As the video shows, John McCain claimed ignorance, saying, “To tell you the truth, this is an area that I’m not very familiar...and if you would drop me a note and mention that we talked on C-SPAN, I’d be glad to get you a more complete answer.

"Engineers will tell you" = "I've decided that"... the ace reporter also seems to have decided that the collapsing building fell at "free fall acceleration" - well, yes, because the floors fell - but states this could only be caused by explosives.

What rubbish.

Senator McCain is too polite to say " go away you nutjob" and so just says that he is not an expert in demolitions. From this, the nutjob website decides he's party to a coverup.

Sniper, you are funny.

The whole point about conspiracy theories (and their debunking) is that they have usually gone beyond logical debate and entered the realm of ideology and belief; usually 'substantiated' by reams of evidence for either side. Much of this lacks validity, neutrality or indeed relevance as a rule.

Retaining some sense of balance for the uninitiated is virtually impossible, and generally nobody changes their mind. Evidence is never enough, ask the remaining accolytes of former-doctor Andrew Wakefield about MMR and autism.

Tarquin, Sniper and others; I fear you are whistling in the wind from your entrenched positions!

Bruce

Sniper,

I watched the first 30 minutes of your beloved film yesterday evening. Its a pile of rubbish!! (the film that is, not WTC7)

Please tell me why I should bother to watch the remaining couple of hours - just so that I know what you want us all to look out for.

Cheers

Don

Bruce, we're all whistling in the wind. Nobody is going to allocate huge resources, (never mind the entire global resources that Sniper demands), to further investigation of these conspiracy therories, or the technical reasons behind the collapse of WTC7.

Cheers

Don

I note you don't say why it is rubbish. I fear, not for the first time, that you are just not very bright. No doubt you will start one of your tedious 'Brain teaser' threads of A level maths in the hope of regaining some credibility. 

I believe I have made it quite clear that my position is far from entrenched I, at least, am happy to look at rebuttal evidence whereas TNP and Don have not watched the whole film. The film does not go into conspiracy theories it just shows that official NIST report is dramatically wrong in a number of places and offers other interpretations based on hard evidence. My only entrenched position is that one can't assume that a rebuttal is correct unless one has examined the original material. 

TMP, you do realise that you are a joke, don't you? On the one hand you maintain that watching the movie is two hours wasted, yet you expect everyone else to read all the text you put up on this thread???!! Death by text? More text doesn't necessarily make it any more true. Most of what you've posted is based on the NIST report, which, if you had watched the film, you'd know has many questionable assumptions and propoositions. It doesn't prove anything and none of what I read above from your posts invalidates the original questions, which are in fact science based questions and equally backed up by scientists as well as other experts in the field, academic and professional.

Interestingly enough I came across this piece of information yesterday:

"Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official  explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

***

First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.  According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion.

***

Near the times of the planes’ impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes’ impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.

***

We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently
detonated explosives ….

***

Controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

This seismic analysis is just one of multiple lines of scientific evidence implying that 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition."

Since you love text so much, the entire report can be found here: Journal of 9/11 Studies

I hardly think that my comment ' a full independent investigation MUST take place no matter what the cost' is the same as 'the entire global resources that Sniper demands' - you argue like a 12 year old Don. Try to up your game a little and explain why the film is a pile of rubbish. 

And by the way, you were asking for witnesses who heard the explosions, there are plenty firemen and policemen on record / video stating that they heard the explosions. Many of the testimonies are also listed in the referenced report in my post above. But of course in the TMP world live testimonies of firemen and policemen, who were in the middle of the action at the time when it happened, recorded on camera, don't count. It must be written in a report with references as posted by you above. Because we all know whatever is written down on paper is true and what's spoken is easily false.

TMP logic, hhhmmm makes sense. No really, it does make sense!!

Controlled demolition of the three towers..

 suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses

But there is no such visual and audio witness testimony because TMP says so. If he does not watch the film the evidence simply does not exist. 

Thanks for the new evidence Totemphile.

Well Sniper, there is no point having a discussion with TMP really. Some people just can't see past the trees in front of them. But never mind, anyone with an inquisitive mind will realise that it all just doesn't add up. If just one person realises this as a result of the lengthy discussion, I guess it's been worth the time spent here.

Best

tp

If, by "it", you mean the ludicrous conspiracy theories then I think you're right.

Another chump who has not watched the film. If it is so ludicrous you will, no doubt, be able to explain why? If you have not watched it your view is irrelevant. 

For my own part I am entrenched in the belief that a fully independent, rigorously scrutinised, peer investigation of all the evidence presented from all sources would be welcome. This won't prove anything but it will allow people who are curious from a disinterested POV to draw their own informed conclusions. It is difficult to assemble a cohort of scientists who don't represent a cross section of conflicts of interests but since scientific investigation proves nothing (as any trained scientist will confirm), a balance of probability based on evidence, not rhetoric, politics, self interest or burning belief couldn't do any harm. If such a thing could ever be achieved.

Quoting, for example, The Old Testament verbatim does not irrefutably prove the existence of god. In fact quite the opposite. And refusing to believe it does not prove that god doesn't exist. This applies to all sides of a debate.

One thing which is obvious, as has already been alluded to, is that no amount of discussion of this nature will result in anything useful. I wonder if anybody will ever be allowed to have a crack at weighing the evidence scientifically? Unlikely IMO for all sorts of reasons.

Got a lot of oil out of it though. So I suppose that's something.