Letter to Implosion World
1/3/06
Dear Implosion World,
I wanted to thank you for your fascinating website. I hadn't had the opportunity to witness a controlled demolition before; it's a real technical marvel; an impressive feat to bring down big structures in a controlled way, so as not to harm other buildings and do as little harm as possible. I read that Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., said that "by differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance.We'll have structures facing north and end up going to the north-west." That takes skill. My hats off to the professionals who are able to do that.
I was curious what your take was on the WTC collapses, including not only the twin towers, but WTC7? The demolitions you show appear to have some of the same features that were evident at all three of the WTC building collapses. Van Romero, PhD, a demolitions expert, current vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, said on the day of the attacks that, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
In the interview, Romero goes on to say that the "collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. 'It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,' If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. 'It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,' Romero said." "'The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers', he said" (9/11/01 Albuquerque Journal, Olivier Uyttebrouck)
And Steven E Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, wrote a paper that will be published later this year that suggests that the official theory, hat the collapses were the result of a progressive 'pancaking of the structures that resulted from fire-softened steel giving way, doesn't hold up to analysis; that in fact explosive-demolition hypothesis accounts for the photographic, video, and physical evidence and eyewitness testimony much better than does the official theory. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
He shows that all the WTC collapses show at least 11 features of controlled demolition, including 1) The large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of all three buildings. Those making these observations included the structural engineer who designed the WTC, Leslie Robertson. This molten metal is a byproduct of high explosive reaction. Buildings falling due only to the energy of gravity wouldn't generate molten metal, would they? Government reports admit the building fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel. The official theory has a hard time explaining this; it doesn't explain this at all. In fact all government reports omit any mention of the molten metal. 2) Symmetry of collapse-the buildings didn't topple over. Especially curious in this regard is that a 34 story section of the South tower began to topple over, but then the block "turns to powder in mid-air!", quoting Dr Jones. 3) The collapses were not gradual, they were rapid and symmetrical, even though the fires were random, scattered, not very big nor very hot. How could random, weak fires simultaneously weaken many steel support columns? A random fire should have produce asymmetrical failure (if even that were possible due to a fire, which has never collapsed a steel structured building before or since 9/11), and a gradual, not sudden failure of the building. But a controlled demolition easily explains these observation. And do you know what FEMA, who did a major study of the causes of the collapse said? It said that fire + damage-caused collapse has "only a low probability of occurring." They can't actually explain why the buildings collapsed, especially when they refuse to consider the demolition hypothesis.
And what about WTC7, a 47 story building that was not hit by a plane, nor was it engulfed in fire, but it collapsed completely in or near its footprint. It could set the record for worlds tallest building subject to controlled demolition {if not for the Twin Towers}. Have you seen pictures of this collapse? It almost looks like those rare implosions you talk about on your site. And the New York Times wrote an article about it, "Engineers are Baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated" "Experts said no building like it (WTC7), a modern steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of uncontrolled fire." There is no way the fires in WTC7 could've caused the "partly evaporated" steel.
I'd like to know what you're take on this is. Could you shed light on what happened? This demands an investigation, don't you think? There has yet to be a true investigation of what happened on 9/11. Perhaps members of your profession would be willing to speak out to demand an investigation.
Thanks for your time,
Sincerely,
Greg *****
Northern California
