Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Controlled demolition

There is an excellent series of letters in Undernews concerning the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers. Here is one of them (scroll down):

"The videos of the planned demolitions raises one question above all others, why did the WTC towers collapse from the top down while all controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up? The WTC collapse was in exactly an opposite sequence of a controlled demolition. In a controlled demo the lowest supports are blown out and the building falls straight down inward. In the WTC case the collapse occurs top down in succession. The reason for this is contained in engineering based reports on the WTC building failures.

Since the idea of charges being used to destroy the towers presupposes conspiracy one must ask what would be the motive? The collapse of the towers added only an exclamation point on the attack. While it certainly added to the death count if that was the aim then bringing the towers down very soon after the plane strikes could have raised the death toll towards 20,000. The towers left standing as ruined hulks would have been an even more powerful image especially since they would have persisted for months if not years. The difficulty and risks of placing charges would have been huge. Many people would have been involved, Discovery was eminently possible. And again one must ask, why take all the risk for the sake of redundancy."

Here is the comment of the editor:

"For our part, we believe it highly likely that hundreds of people lost their lives because of the way the buildings were constructed - including inadequate fireproofing and excessive space without vertical support. The buildings were exempted from the New York City building code and fire engineers, among others, have expressed concern about this but have received little attention. We are also bothered by the way the structural evidence was prematurely removed from the scene and by the unexplained explosions (without any assumptions as to what caused them.)"

I think the main reason people want to believe that explosive charges were used is that it makes the scenario less frightening. Nobody wants to face the fact that any given tall building might have been improperly constructed or designed, and might collapse under relatively little stress. In the case of the World Trade Center, the towers were constructed inside the legal framework of the Port Authority for the specific purpose of avoiding having to comply with the building code. That's a real conspiracy. For my part, I'd like to know why the controlled demolition theorists are considered to be the sane ones, valiant researchers whose work is undermined by the crazy people like me who think that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.