22-02-2017, 11:56 AM
I'm not aware if this has been posted before, but it won't hurt repeating if it has.
The article from the journal in question is HERE.
Quote:It's Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled DemolitionSource
BY NLM ON DECEMBER 8, 2016
September 11th is a day known to the globe as the moment when nations banded together to fight a single threatening ideology terrorism. Due to the released findings stating that terrorists were the ones to hijack a few airliners to kamikaze them into important buildings and landmarks the global community was shocked to learn that something so horrific could take place, let alone on American soil. Even with the outrage there were still many in disbelief that such a tragedy could occur under the ever-watchful eye of the government, especially since many things weren't adding up.
The old meme "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" has some truth and some fiction to it; no, jet fuel cannot entirely melt steel beams, but yes it can lower the structural integrity of the steel itself. This is the first time in history (and since for that matter) where a fire successfully managed to bring down three separate high rises all within the same time-span of each other. To get a bit of perspective on what's wrong with that scenario, listen to what this controlled demolitions expert has to say about it:
[video]https://youtu.be/k82vowo7doE?t=9[/video]
Incontrovertible New 911 Documentary
Even if you refute that evidence there are still plenty more people still searching for the truthful answers as to what really occurred that day, and what they're finding isn't looking pretty. In the European Scientific Journal an article was published titled "15 Years Later: On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapses" where scientists and engineers analyzed the collapse of all three buildings. They discovered that it would have been impossible for the buildings to collapse the way that they did without a controlled demolition taking place. This is news that helps back up many different Truther theories, but the problem is that most of the evidence has been destroyed already it's too neat for terrorists.
The study was written with collaboration from Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter all of whom carry prestigious degrees from highly accredited universities and are masters in their crafts. As if that scientifically backed study weren't enough to make you question the real happenings of that horrific day then at least take the word of lead structural engineer John Skilling.
"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. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)would dump into the building. 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."
Before you say anything about the plane's impact, back in 1993 the Seattle Times reported that the towers were analyzed years ago for that scenario, and each tower could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Taking this knowledge into account the authors of the 9/11 study had this to say:
"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."
In a time when it's becoming more apparent that the U.S. Government has it's own agendas outside of the needs of the people they serve it's hard to tell whether this new research is damning or just evidence of the sad new reality we live in.
The article from the journal in question is HERE.
:
hock::::hush::
: