Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

Remove this Banner Ad

Hmmmm... my father in-law is a science jounro. Very rigorous mind and delves deeply. Was going on about how he had been following a recent report that appeared in a peer-reviewed European journal by some respected people about 9/11 being a controlled demolition. Said it was interesting. and interesting that that journal had published it too.

Gunna look it up now. Anyone else read it?

Here's an exceprt from some site:

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.
The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#OH1pSR5U16xxdpdF.99
 
Last edited:
For towers 1 and 2 I would say the simplest explanation would be the inward bowing theory. As far as building 7 goes, I find it plausible that given the building took some damage the owner of the lease Silverstein would have preferred an insurance payout rather than to save the building. If the building were considered unsafe I would not consider it unethical to bring building 7 down intentionally.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sorry I'm really draft

Dead

Anyway. If it gets knocked down that means it was rigged if that's what you mean. So it was rigged and an inside job
It wouldn't surprise me if after the attack it was decided to take down building 7. Which I think could be done on short notice if you're not concerned about damaging other buildings.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this journal is not especially credible from what I've read...
Posted this elsewhere:

The journal this article was published in is an open access journal. What's that you ask? It means the writers pay for publication.

Why is that a problem?

It means there is little to no peer review. Money talks, and what gets paid gets published.

This very journal has been busted for plagiarism, and publishing gibberish papers (literally gibberish, zero sense made in the entire paper) in the past. They published them because they were paid to do so.

The result, this "pulbication" does not afford the authors any credibility.

Furthermore, the authors, a physics professor in the field of solar energy, fusion and archeometry, a civil engineer, an aerospace engineer and the director of A&E911 truth, have precisely ZERO expertise in the relevant fields.

So here we have unqualified people paying for their article to be published in an obscure online journal, that has zero academic credibility.

In my opinion, this is no different to the other conspiracy junk put online.
 
I'm not a demolition expert, but my two degrees in architecture (what would they know, right?) and construction have me curiously questioning the melting of steel members via burning aircraft fuel theory.
I don't know...the even way in which those buildings came down is just a bit weird. And I know the stacked floor inertia/physics thing might have some semblance of kudos here, but surely it cannot occur so evenly in both towers? Especially when they were each hit in different spots by the planes.
 
I'm not a demolition expert, but my two degrees in architecture (what would they know, right?) and construction have me curiously questioning the melting of steel members via burning aircraft fuel theory.
I don't know...the even way in which those buildings came down is just a bit weird. And I know the stacked floor inertia/physics thing might have some semblance of kudos here, but surely it cannot occur so evenly in both towers? Especially when they were each hit in different spots by the planes.
You weren't paid for your opinion. Your thoughts don't matter
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm not a demolition expert, but my two degrees in architecture (what would they know, right?) and construction have me curiously questioning the melting of steel members via burning aircraft fuel theory.
I don't know...the even way in which those buildings came down is just a bit weird. And I know the stacked floor inertia/physics thing might have some semblance of kudos here, but surely it cannot occur so evenly in both towers? Especially when they were each hit in different spots by the planes.

The official explanation doesn't claim steel melted. Only conspiracy theorists claim that this is the official position. Why they keep doing this after so many years...I just don't know.

Even collapse is something you will need to elaborate on.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Last edited:
You weren't paid for your opinion. Your thoughts don't matter
They matter equally as much as any other Joe Schmoe, he is definitely entitled to his opinion. What he shouldn't (and hasn't so far as I can see) is claim that his opinion matters more based purely off the back of his education, which is not in a relevant field.

The guys who put together this paper are also just "some guys", they don't have any relevant experience in the required fields.
 
They matter equally as much as any other Joe Schmoe, he is definitely entitled to his opinion. What he shouldn't (and hasn't so far as I can see) is claim that his opinion matters more based purely off the back of his education, which is not in a relevant field.

The guys who put together this paper are also just "some guys", they don't have any relevant experience in the required fields.

Careful with the gender realignment there, champ. ;)

Also, my first post was a little tongue-in-cheek. Of course my opinion is just that. I know as much as anyone else on the street.

But there are demolition experts out there in industry that would be able to say either way.
 
Hmmmm... my father in-law is a science jounro. Very rigorous mind and delves deeply. Was going on about how he had been following a recent report that appeared in a peer-reviewed European journal by some respected people about 9/11 being a controlled demolition. Said it was interesting. and interesting that that journal had published it too.

Gunna look it up now. Anyone else read it?

Here's an exceprt from some site:

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.
The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#OH1pSR5U16xxdpdF.99

Did you read the first part of the article?

"NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."​

Not something usually added to their articles.
It has been discussed a bit in the 911 thread. The authors are just the same group of people who have been saying the same thing for years. It isn't new findings, or new research.

One of the authors of the paper:
Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)​



It wasn't a new forensic investigation.

Could you point to one thing in that article that hasn't been discussed in the years previously?
What new evidence did the "four physicists" uncover?

It isn't fair for me to just discredit the article, because of the authors, and because of the editor's note.
So I'm happy to talk about the actual article.

But it seems to me, the reason that this article has been given so much airtime, is because it made it's way into a scientific journal. But they often avoid pointing out that it wasn't considered entirely factual... and that it was more a timing and money thing, than some kind of truly credible 'new forensic investigation'.
 
I honestly can't see how you can look at all of the available evidence and accounts from the day and not come to the conclusion that there was far more to the story than the "official" picture that is painted.

Inside job or no inside job there was a whole lot more to that day than a handful of terrorists highjacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

I just think the majority of the general public don't want to even entertain this idea because of what it means and the repurcussions - even though it is the truth.
 
I honestly can't see how you can look at all of the available evidence and accounts from the day and not come to the conclusion that there was far more to the story than the "official" picture that is painted.

Inside job or no inside job there was a whole lot more to that day than a handful of terrorists highjacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

I just think the majority of the general public don't want to even entertain this idea because of what it means and the repurcussions - even though it is the truth.
You and I might get along great in here ;)


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top