Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Controlled Demolition?

One of the nuttier claims in the 9-11 "Truth" movement is that the World Trade Center Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. Charlie Sheen, that noted expert on building engineering, commented:

Later on that day I was with my brothers at my parent's house. We were out on the deck and I said, "Call me insane, but did it sort of look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?" And he said, "Well, kind of, but gosh that’s impossible if you think what it would take for them to orchestrate that." And so as the days and the weeks went on, I was sort of told what to believe, and I was told through mainstream media and all of the talking heads about what really happened. …

Now, as I have commented before, the reason it "sort of looked like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition" is because that is the only way we had seen large buildings collapse before.

But does it really look like a controlled demolition? Let's look at some controlled demolitions of the past.

Here's a look at the Schuykill Towers demolition:

Notice anything different between these pictures and the pictures of the collapse of the two towers?

Yep, the WTC came down from the top, while the Schuykill Towers, which was demolitioned, came down from the bottom.


At 10 May, 2006 12:15, Blogger Neo said...

The two towers collapsed exactly at the point of impact of both planes. The buildings literally crumpled right on the floors that were most heavily damaged, and on fire for an hour or so.

The problem with the "controlled demolition" conspiracy is that the WTC was not designed like any other building before it. There was no internal structure except around the core (elevators, mechanicals). Most of the superstructure holding up the building was in the outer walls, which was severely damaged on impact by two large planes flying hundreds of miles per hour.

Add to that the massive fire burning for an hour or so and you get a badly damaged superstructure that gave way under the massive weight of all the floors above that point.

At 10 May, 2006 12:42, Blogger atomistlogician said...

It is, of course, possible that a controlled demolition was planted to not look like demolitions that occurred previously, but was supposed to look like 'messy demolition.' It seems this is speculative, but definately somthing to be considered, since, of course, a planned attacker would be dumb to not make his/her demolition look NOT like a demolition. So the trade centers would be a planned demolition that was planned to not look so planned.

At 10 May, 2006 12:42, Blogger Unknown said...

Both this post, and the 1 comment reply is so lightweight, so not even comming close to discussig the evidence, the details, and the surrounding logic that I must conclude that this is the best that you've got. You attempt here to discredit the obvious controlled dems at the WTC 1,2, 7 shows you must think you can do some good be appealing to the those who are too lazy or unexposed to the truth.

This blog is a complete joke. For anyone interested in the truth, please consult

At 10 May, 2006 12:54, Blogger nukemhill said...


There *is* no logic behind the claims the towers were brought down through controlled demolition. The logistics involved to plant the munitions alone would be prohibitive. It's an insane, literally, proposition. There's no there there. Give it up. You're peeing in the wind and have nothing but a yellow shirt to show for it.

At 10 May, 2006 16:56, Blogger James B. said...

I am not sure the order of the collapse is that big of a deal. The big problem for the conspiracy theorists is the difficulty in placing these thousands of charges, and the fact, especially in the case of WTC7, that these charges are somehow fireproof.

How does the building burn for 50 minutes, to 7 hours, without setting off the explosives in the first place? The detonators could have been set off by the electromagnetic inteference from the radio towers and office equipment, much less 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel.

At 10 May, 2006 18:31, Blogger fo0hzy said...

bg: "You attempt here to discredit the obvious controlled dems at the WTC 1,2, 7 shows you must think you can do some good be appealing to the those who are too lazy or unexposed to the truth."

The only 'controlled dem' here is you.

At 10 May, 2006 23:39, Blogger M. Simon said...

I"m troubled by the top of the WTC looking "bent"

At 11 May, 2006 03:14, Blogger truthcommission said...

Do me a favor, guys? Put Loose Change aside..thats kids stuff. Dispute the above, claim for claim, and I will never speak of 9/11 again. Don't get your hopes up because you can't do it. It's sure gonna be fun to see you try though. Good luck!

At 11 May, 2006 16:16, Blogger Realist06 said...

Why not compare your controlled demolition pics to the WTC 7 collapse? It looks almost identical. In fact, WTC 7's collapse is even cleaner, but that might ruin your fun here!

At 12 May, 2006 21:07, Blogger pyro4444 said...

James B., you sould how could the charges ben planted? Did you not watch the movie? It clearly states that bomb sniffing dogs where removed weeks before and the buildings where closed down for around 12 hours due to a bomb threat. In 12 hours and alot of men im sure you could plant a few bombs. Also the jet fuel was all burned off in amters of seconds after the crash. And fire fighters got all the way up to a few floors below the "intesnse fire". one the building colapses you can clearly see explotions shoting out of the building. Lastly the buildings colapsed in 10 seconds that is near free fall rate, the rate of free fall is abou 9,8 seconds. Him this is yet anether one of your facts busted.


Post a Comment

<< Home