All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
the controlled demolition hypothesis is unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers.[1] Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an explanation of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the mainstream consensus as presented in the NIST report, Bažant and Verdure note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. They trace "strange ideas" about, among other things, controlled demolition, to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While, strictly speaking, superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Moreover, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not in fact two separate modes of failure.[1]
KENNEBUNKPORT ?
Rumors of controlled demolition began to circulate immediately following the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. Today, the hypothesis is normally proposed as part of an argument for insider complicity in the September 11 attacks, or what is often called a "9/11 conspiracy theory". On this view, the destruction of the World Trade Center was a carefully organized spectacle or false flag intended to justify the prosecution of wars abroad and the curtailment of freedoms at home. Because it would be difficult to explain how terrorists were able to plant the necessary explosives, it is argued, the aircraft impacts were deemed necessary to suggest a more plausible external cause of structural damage.
The plausibility of this cause is precisely what the controlled demolition hypothesis questions. It proposes that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate collapse and that the buildings would in any case not have collapsed as completely, symmetrically, and quickly as they did without an additional source of destructive energy to undermine their structure. Various sources of this energy have been proposed; thermite and explosives is the most common suggestion being made today.[6][7]
Controlled demolition proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices. Journalist and experts commenting on the events as they happened speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives.[8] Many of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse," speculating that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.[9] He soon withdrew this assessment[10] and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like."[11]
Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[12][13][14] and some originally believed that explosives had been involved.[15] The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, however, and took it current shape in the 2005 NIST report.[16] [7] It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition.[citation needed] As late as September 2007, however, engineers were still looking for a "credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began", allowing speculations about controlled demolition to develop. Such an explanation is now about to be published.[17][18]
An early book-length treatment of the hypothesis[19] inspired both David Ray Griffin's critical inquiry[20] as well as the Popular Mechanics investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[11] In late 2005, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public.[6] Even before publication of the article in 2006,[21] his interest in the hypothesis brought a measure of scientific credibility and media exposure to the theory. BYU responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave in September, 2006.[22][23] Shortly thereafter, Jones accepted BYU's offer of early retirement.
Loading...
1:29:38
Talk - Webster Tarpley - Facing the Truth about 9/11 - Part IIby talkingsticktv15,021 views
your a dipshit.
2bitTank 2 years ago
maturin42
Webster wouldn't leave out the Israelis if he truly thought they were behind it.
I've been following him since about 1994 he will surely aim at the Zionists if they had the lead role.
Webster sees the Anglo American oligarchy as the main creator of war and underdevelopement in the world based on the findings of Carrol Quigley. The more you dig, the more you find it's true.
Read Webster's writings at actindependentdotorg. Then please circulate them.
jeffery234567 3 years ago
Hey, I get it damouno! Everybody in the entire truth movement is disinfo and conintelpro except me and you and I am not too sure about you, and now, I bet you are not too sure about me! What a crock. If you want to explain why we need an honest investigation, please don't start by assuming a bunch of technologies for which we have zero evidence. Thousands of people at least THINK they saw airplanes. You are going to tell them they didn't. Good luck with that.
maturin42 3 years ago
also..Tarpley ignores TV Fakery (September clues videos, check 'em out) IMHO,..he is controlled opposition, and/or a DUPE, maybe even FRAUD. His history lessons are good but his views on 9/11 attacks are incomplete at best and Dead WRONG at worst. No remote planes used, it was TV Fakery and Y'ALL got PLANES on the BRAIN(s)!! Roarrrr.....Har Har har
damouno 3 years ago
I think so (could be) Webster T (agent!? I hope it is not so..he not talking about TV-FAKERY which is almost self-evident (No BOEINGS hit TWIN TOWERS!!) also use of Direct energy weapons(D.E.W) also Webster has not 'DENOUNCED" Alex or Steven JONES as Frauds and disinfo-agents YET!! He has disillusioned me badly ! (But Hey GOOD LECTURE-He knows his history) too bad its irrelevent to 9/11 REAL TRUTH!!
damouno 4 years ago
Tarpley has interesting things to say. What he does not mention is Mossad. Francisco Cossiga, former president of Italy said to the leading Italian daily paper that it is common knowledge in European intelligence circles that the CIA and Mossad did 9/11. Outsourcing fits the style of this crowd - get a bunch of professional psychopaths to do the dirty work while you and your henchmen protect the patsies and the plot.
maturin42 4 years ago
nah, i speakin simple truth..a real cointelpro is ALEX JONES, fantastic 9/11 actor.I am raising the ALARM..if u dont like it, sounds nasty/unpleasant to you. Welll...then STICK it in your EAR dude ! Yeah... Lets hear it for RUPPERT's main pts: He still harping on it CHENEY behind all on 9/11, an evil maestro running the whole operation w/ONE PHONE YEAH!!
damouno 4 years ago
Damouno you're acting like a countergang agent sent to raise hysteria, dissent, chaos, confusion. You're acting like conintel pro so for all intents and purposes you are.
Damouno = Conintel Pro.
gosciu555 4 years ago
No dude, Ruppert plagiarized all his 9/11 'research' from the original 9/11 researchers like Gerard Holmgren, Nico Haupt, Rosalie Graber, J. ISrael and others...He copied whole volumes, Nice JOB Mikeee...also he made up THINGS out of WHOLE Cloth...THe bit about CHENEY running 9/11..come on man,..that is UTTER NONSENSE..no indication Dick Cheney behind anything at all that day..he was JUST THERE...so wake up...Ruppert is infilt.+Saboteur sent to wreck 9/11 truth..
damouno 4 years ago
ruppert is not an inflitrator haha don't crack me up. and please shut up about the tv fakery, you'e starting to sound like arabesque.
gosciu555 4 years ago