Originally posted by Ahabstar
Not to belittle the subject nor the lists of professional (of various flavors) but the only list that would really say something truly concrete would
be a list of professional demolitions experts that have years of experience imploding large skyscrapers.
That seems reasonable enough at first thought, but consider the demand for demolishing skyscrapers and how many professionals are actually active in
this field.
There are only so many skyscrapers in any given major city, and they are rarely, if ever, demolished explosively if and when they are brought down.
It's typically a major risk to adjacent properties to try to demolish a tall skyscraper in a dense urban area. So they are more often deconstructed
piece-by-piece or brought down carefully with cranes, wrecking balls, and bulldozers. And most demolition work in general is done with much smaller
and less sturdy structures, again by bulldozer/wrecking ball/etc.
Of all controlled demolition companies in the US that offer explosive demolition of high-rises, CDI (Controlled Demolitions Inc) is foremost in the
field with the most experience and contracts for high-rises. The same company was contracted to help clean up Ground Zero after 9/11 (reasonable
enough given the totality of the destruction of the buildings) and had a couple related conflicts of interest if I recall correctly. Nonethless they
have had employees outspoken against the official story of why the towers collapsed, as I'll show you below.
I personally contacted CDI a few years ago and asked if they were capable of top-down explosive demolitions of high-rises, mentioning nothing of 9/11.
Their first reply stated that they would be happy to answer my question if I provided background on myself and why I was asking the question, because
of modern "heightened focus on security" (post-9/11 I assumed). I lied and told them I was a member of a local town council and we were considering
options to deal with a series of degraded buildings that would require top-down demolition for technical reasons, and we were exploring all feasible
(and legal) options. CDI then responded that a "skilled professional" would be able to accomplish most anything, and that it was only an issue of
where the charges were placed and what order they were set off, which could be arranged in many different ways.
Anyway here is an article on Tom Sullivan, former CDI employee who believes the towers were controlled demolitions:
www.ae911truth.org...
He talks about wireless detonations and other technologies that are available even to all commercial/legal demolition companies today.
There is also the Dutch expert who was shown WTC7 collapsing for the first time, and instantly said it was obviously a controlled demolition, and he
went on explaining why it was obviously demolished. This is in the video below. He was then informed that this building collapsed on the day of
9/11, after the Twin Towers, and was in apparent disbelief. He said there was no way such a professional job could be carried out on such short
notice.
Since that time, he still believes WTC7 was demolished deliberately and has had to come to terms with the implications of that, though he still
denies that the Twin Towers were also demolished.
Then there was the case of the demolition expert from New Mexico, Van Romero:
New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have
been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal 1 and are reprinted below. Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which
Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." 2 His assertion of the official line in the second article is
not backed up by any explanation or analysis.
Romero's initial statement before his bare retraction 10 days later:
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of
explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of
controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero
said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ...
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is
consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary
device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second
explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan
Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into
terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
911research.wtc7.net...
I thought those would be discussion-worthy examples of demolition experts discussing the WTC buildings. Just like these other fields, the various
experts are apparently not in agreement. Figuring out why they are not in agreement should prove interesting either way.
