On the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11, the European Scientific Journal published an article in which the organization stated that they believe the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York City were the result of controlled demolition, not the result of planes crashing into them.
The Journal, a publication of the European Scientific Institute (ESI), published the article titled, “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses.”
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993 report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
The report from AnonHQ went on to cite a statement by Mr. Skilling from The Seattle Times.
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side, however back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much,” Skilling said.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building,” Skilling added. “There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there. However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
Consider this is the first time in history that a high rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. Yet, not only did the Twin Towers completely collapse, but so did Building 7, which in my opinion, is the smoking gun in all of this.
“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists.”