05:16 GMT +324 March 2017
    9/11 Terror Attacks: World Trade Center

    9/11: Twin Towers 'Could Have Been Destroyed by Controlled Demolition'

    © Flickr/ Cyril Attias
    Get short URL

    The destruction of the World Trade Center's high-rise buildings triggered a lot of controversy prompting various speculations. On the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy a group of physicists published a study, suggesting that the towers could have been destroyed by controlled demolition.

    The World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers possibly were destroyed by controlled demolition, the study published by Europhysics News, the magazine of the European physics community, assumes.

    "On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred," the article dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the September 11 read.

    The authors of the study argue that neither before, nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total destruction of a steel-framed high-rise. 

    "The only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally," the study underscored.

    In an interview with Sputnik Deutschland Europhysics News' editors and scientists Victor R. Velasco and Jo Hermans shared their views on the controversial issue.

    "According to some physicists, in three cases it remained unclear why the steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed from exposure to high temperatures in a way it occurred [on September 11, 2001]. Several groups of scientists, including those from Purdue University, have carried out a number of rigorous simulations of tower destructions and conducted endurance tests on steel girders exposing them to kerosene fire. These simulations and experiments have brought different results," the scientists told Sputnik.

    Answering the question on the consistency of the US' official position on the 9/11 tragedy the scientists noted that although they cannot speak for the authors of the study they have no reasons to throw into question Washington's official stance.

    However, they highlighted, there appear to be gaps in the US' argument.

    "We hope that the discussion triggered by this article will help to shed some light on these matters in scientific terms. Our personal opinion on the theory is that it is highly unlikely that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. However, given the fact that the issue is considered controversial by specialists more competent in this area than we are, we believe that the best — and really scientifically correct — way to resolve such matters is to publish these opinions. Then an open discussion with due arguments would lead us to truth," Velasco and Hermans emphasized.

    The scientists clarified that the authors of the article were recommended to them by the magazine's editorial board. However, Velasco and Hermans remarked that since the study contains some speculations and controversial conclusions they attached the disclaimer which says:

    "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."

    When asked about the comments on the study, the editors noted that some media reports have touched upon the issue. However, it seems that American media sources remained largely silent. Remarkably, Germany's reputable weekly news magazine Stern paid attention to the article.

    "What is more important is that independent researchers may read the article and provide their own arguments to refute the claims," Velasco and Hermans told Sputnik.

    Fifteen years ago the 9/11 terrorist attack sparked a heated debate, prompting numerous speculations and theories. The issue has caught a second wind after US President Obama approved the publication of the 28-page inquiry on the matter. 


    US Bill Allowing 9/11 Victims to Sue Riyadh Threatens Global Stability
    US Repeating Post-9/11 Mistake in Syria Policy by Ignoring Saudi Role
    President Obama Stands With Saudis Against 9/11 Families
    demolition, destruction, terrorist attack, physics, scientists, explosion, World Trade Center, 9/11, United States, Middle East, New York
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment
    • Tree Oxygen
      [Several groups of scientists, {INCLUDING THOSE From PURDUE UNIVERSITY},
      have carried out a number of rigorous simulations of tower destructions.]

      Hmmm..... Well, at least it is good that they ALLOWED the Purdue University
      Scientists to conduct experiments as well; especially on WTC Building 7...::'';

      Oops... When did the [Real Estate Law Office Net] go down?
      Please don't tell me they kidnapped HIS daughter, too 2 to??
    • avatar
      not noted for IQ levels .... room temperature centigrade !
    • avatar
      terryjohnodgersin reply toquestfortruth(Show commentHide comment)
      questfortruth, so right! But it was not just the demolition that stood out as a worrying factor in how such buildings could collapse, it was the white hot centre of molten metal that was exposed at ground zero that has never been adequately explained - what caused that?

      In 1942 a B-17 four engine bomber accidentally flew into the Empire State Building - a subsequent fire erupted and after being put out, parts of the building had to be strengthened which then led to laws requiring even more highly strengthened buildings of the future be built.

      Those towers should not have come down, and Building Seven which was completely removed from the impact zone should not have been affected.

      Remember the recent high rise fire in Saudi Arabia - that building is still standing even after many days of it burning before being put out - why didn't it collapse like the Twin Towers?

      The TRUTH is out there and you are onto it!
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toterryjohnodgers(Show commentHide comment)
      terry, it was a B-25 Mitchell (twin engined). :)
    • avatar
      mzungu in Africa
      Finally official Russia jumps on the truther train.
    • avatar
      mzungu in Africain reply toJammy(Show commentHide comment)
      Jammy, RT and Sputnik are government and you should not be surprised that they follow certain dos and don'ts. The Russian government does NOT want to pick up every fight possible.
      I'm sure that you can find private Russian media who devote more attention to 9/11 truth.
      And first of all it is the task of the US citizens to hold their leaders accountable.
    • Jonathan Ferguson
      I'm not buying it. I really don't believe it was a 'controlled demolition.' I'm pretty sure the terrorists made the building collapse.

      Anyway, the real truth is ugly enough: politicians took advantage of a brutal terrorist attack by violent jihadis in order to endanger their own citizens and to open the gates of hell in the Middle East. Is that any less 'evil' than what the conspiracy theorists are saying
    • avatar
      terryjohnodgersin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, thanks. Oh well, my saving grace is that it was a bomber. Have you read up on the incident and the after effects of the crash? Some people in that building were very unlucky that day.
    • avatar
      terryjohnodgersin reply toJonathan Ferguson(Show commentHide comment)
      Jonathan Ferguson, if you're not 'buying it' then I would suggest you know little of the mechanics of steel beams and jet fuel. Maybe you could do some research into the engineering aspects of all three buildings before labelling those who have bothered to research this historical false flag event as being part of a conspiracy theory?
    • Jonathan Fergusonin reply toterryjohnodgers(Show commentHide comment)
      terryjohnodgers, There is no scientific consensus that the towers could not have been brought down as officially stated. The burden of proof is on those who reject the 'official narrative.'
    • avatar
      terryjohnodgersin reply toJonathan Ferguson(Show commentHide comment)
      Jonathan Ferguson, what you say is true, but lack of consensus is not lack of proof for the event as those who have taken the time to investigate have had revealed to them. Myself included. The whole West suffers from lack of TRUTH in nearly all the info now made available by the media sources that are paid to keep quiet on some aspects while propagandizing and telling lies in other areas.

      It is not consensus that now provides some TRUTH throughout the West but the alternative media such as this site which we both find ourselves on picking out the snippets as we find them.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toterryjohnodgers(Show commentHide comment)
      terry, I read about so long ago that I don't wish to embarrass myself publicly! :)
      I remember reading the contemporary reports but not of long term effects. The reports were linking the event with the war as well as listing the casualties. :)
    • JoyInStruggle
      Medieval Authorities: "There is some slight chance that the Earth revolves around the sun, some slight chance that Galileo and other heretical conspiracy theorists are right, but that would mean that the Holy Roman Empire is fallible, and that is Unthinkable! So we will publish the findings of the heliocentrists, but we advise readers to cover their eyes and put fingers in their ears."
    • JoyInStrugglein reply toJammy(Show commentHide comment)
      Jammy, I had the same experience at RT -- My pro-Russia comments were blocked and then my id stopped working. This experience seriously undermined my faith in Russia's state media.
    • avatar
      JC Lincoln
      Cars blocks away had melted engines. On some cars, only door handles disintegrated.
      Building 6 had a big cave-like hole in the center of it.......with not nearly enough debris at the foundation to account for 8 floors of building.
    • avatar
      Die Katze
      Auch zu merken ist die Leistung von ein B 767.

      Wie kann eine von 34000ft im Sturzflug aus 250ft dann über zum Horizontal Flug um die Turm direkt an die Seite zu treffen, ohne das ein Mensch ohne Druckanzug wegen die irrsinnige "G" kraft nicht ohnmächtig wird? Und das die Tragfläche wegen Überschreitung der OVM bei 150Kn nicht abgerissen wird.

      Egypt-Air-Flug 990 Gleiche Flugzeugtyp war nur 65kn zu schnell wenn es beide Tragfläche verlor. In 1999.

      Selbst die Concorde konnte um Meereshöhe nicht Überschall Fliegen.
    • avatar
      This is not new. When I watched videos of the collapse of the buildings, it was easy to see the vertical white puffs of smoke at regular intervals on the structural corners of the buildings.
      This could easily be controlled demolition, indeed , it is one of the ways to bring a tall building down.
      It should not come as a surprise that American "media" ignore this subject, beholden to political, corporate and military interests which profited from the 9/11 attack.
    • Sea Pig
      Yawn... This is not a new theory. It's the same 9/11 truther BS that has long since been disproven.
    • Sea Pigin reply toas98119(Show commentHide comment)
      as98119, why does everything have to be a conspiracy, with the media at it's cornerstone? The sheer number of people required to take part in such a plan and never talk about it, alone, makes this theory utterly ridiculous. You saw puffs of smoke. So did I. You can say "structural corners of the buildings", but that doesn't make it true. That's just something you choose to BELIEVE that helps make this silly explanation plausible for you.
    • avatar
      The buildings were designed (by a Seattle firm) to withstand a hit from a "fully fuel-loaded passenger jet." They had to be. Many commenters on this thread have pointed out numerous facts about the building destruction that do not add up to the "official" explanations. And... we have not even begun to speak of the hole in the side of the Pentagon, supposedly from a plane crash, ... and the men in suits hurriedly picking up all debris none of which included passenger bodies or luggage.
      Conspiracies are always scary, aren't they.
    Show new comments (0)