Characteristics of Controlled Demolition

Controlled demolition is a technique used to bring down skyscrapers.

There are several distinguishing characteristics of controlled demolition.

Here are five ...

1. Sudden onset

2. Symmetrical descent

3. Freefall acceleration

4. Complete collapse

5. Dust cloud or plume

All of these characteristics were observed during the collapse of WTC Building 7.



None of these characteristics, however, are associated with fire ravaged buildings.

In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."

Dr Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, told No Lies Radio on August 21, 2008, that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC Building 7.

WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, with freefall acceleration, generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.28 pm on September 11, 2001.

To the casual observer, the collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition.

And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.

Instead, NIST decided the most credible hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."

NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.

NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.