Thursday, September 07, 2006

A Demolition Company Rebuts 9/11 Conspiracy Claims

I really don't want to get involved in the whole debate about the supposed "Controlled Demolition" of the twin towers, but a couple of recent friends have been talking about this lately and I am often willing to read things that otherwise don't interest me for friendship's sake. So, for those of you who want a concise and readable refutation of some of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, go here.

(Via 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher)

(Note: The article linked by Smasher was evidently an earlier one that has since been updated and the name and link has been changed. The link I have provided is current as of 9/7/06 but may change due to future updates. Go to Protec's home page if that happens and search for the paper on the World Trade Center.)

3 comments:

kevin charge said...

Do you really think that a company has the time or the money to produce a document for the sake of clearing a conspiracy? What CEO or manager would tell someone to produce this type of document?

It seams in the ethical practice of any company, if something were untrue, there would not be a document produced, as it is not the company's issue.

With the age of video - I have never seen, in my life time, three buildings drop to the ground like on 9/11. I have seen allot of video in my life time of buildings falling like 9/11 from Demo companies tapes.

The assertion that Demo companies make buildings fall from the bottom up not the top down actually supports what I saw on tape. Could it be that if someone knew that it would not make sense for the building to explode from the bottom up - they would suggest reversing the normal order of operation to support the plane theory and blow the tower from the top down? And if so would there not be an enormous amount of debris falling from all side if this technique were used. What did you see on tape? I saw debris falling from the top down – and in an outward motion – as if released from the center. Then once we have all agreed the rubble did come from the top and in an outward motion – can’t we go back to the way the TWIN TOWERS were created? These were very unique buildings they were supported by the inner frame. Like a spine –

Let suppose we wanted to collapse something with a spine we would set explosives were the spine connected to the body of the building. If we were to disconnect the middle were the building was connected to the spine, everything would peal off like a giant banana peel – OK let’s go ahead and call this the 9/11 banana theory – OK my 15 minutes of fame are up - I coined a new theory. But seriously – the outside of those towers was not the major supports like in most building. They were designed with a spine or center support. And yes my banana theory does hold one truth, a banana does have quite a center spine – the part you eat – the buildings had a smaller spines in relation to the outward part - but you get the point.

Imagine if your body was the building and a plane hit you in the neck – it would chop off your head – the top of the building would topple. Did the top fall off the building? No it collapsed – ok so let’s just say that the top of the building was so heavy that its collapse started a chain reaction downward – like your head being so heavy that if something severed your neck it collapsed your whole body – do you really think it would also collapse the spine? Shouldn’t then the towers have collapsed just like they did but with one exception; wouldn’t there be at least a partial spine still standing?

Hey - I’m not an expert but when two planes hit identical towers with even in slightly different angle and height, as they did – is it not strange that they fell the exactly the same fashion? Is it not also strange the second tower that was hit fell first – that is right – go back and check the tape – the second tower fell first. If all that heat from the plane was true in the original and chosen theory, why was the second collapse faster than the first?

Finally – I’m not even going to comment on building 7 – why? – You would think I would be all over this one – right? No plane hit it – right.

OK JUST ONE and it is my best – to support your friends from your article – IT DID COLLAPSE FROM THE BOTTOM– and yes it was just like every other demo tape we have ever seen – because it was built like any other building – with no center spine.

Don’t believe everything you read – but in this case – you may be right? It all just happened! Right

Jack said...

I don't really have time to comment in detail and I don't really care to be drawn into a debate on the topic in any event. But I will note the absurdity of kevin's first question "Do you really think that a company has the time or the money to produce a document for the sake of clearing a conspiracy?"

Yes as a matter of fact I do believe that a company would do such a thing, for the simple reason that I have worked for several companies that have been involved in projects for which they could claim no direct profit and have even assisted in some of those projects myself. It's called Public Relations and Name Recognition. Ask yourselfe this, before you followed the link had you ever heard of Protec or ImplosionWorld.com? Me neither, but we have now. Down the road, maybe months maybe years, someone is going to have Protec bid on a contract and some manager somewhere is going to say, "Oh yeah, I read your response to the 9/11 idiots. Good job." And it will all seem to be worthwhile. I don't claim that it is always a wise business move, but it is definitely a common one.

And note, this entire blog is posted using software which I did not pay for on a site which does not charge me a dime for the bandwidth. I have no idea if Google is making any return on what must be a fairly substantial investment and maybe someday they will shut it all down. But it is certainly an example of people putting time and money into something that will not directly pay for itself.

The suggestion that maybe this was a put-up job by some government official (or maybe ghost-written by Cheney himself?) is too silly for a response and only emphasizes the disregard for common sense that most of these conspiratists fall into. The facts are out there people; make of them what your wits allow.

sonia said...

The most ridiculous aspect of that conspiracy theory is that it doesn't make any sense. Why hijack all those planes if you want to demolish WTC with explosives and Pentagon with a missile ? Why not simply blame Al-Quaida for planting the explosives and firing the missile ?

And why blame Al-Quaeda ? If CIA did it, wouldn't they blame Saddam instead ?

It makes absolutely no sense!!!