Zembla: WTC 7 was a controlled demolition
With the increasing attention being paid to conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks, the Studium Generale at the University of Delft decided to have students research some of the claims made by the makers of the Loose Change documentary, which is the flagship of the conspiracy theorists. This drew the attention of the makers of a Dutch “behind the news” tv show called Zembla (get it? Nova Zembla, behind the news), who decided to report on the findings and to hold their own investigation.
Their findings in short:
- Almost none of the major claims of Loose Change hold up.
- WTC 7 crashed because of a controlled demolition.
- There were almost certainly Americans who knew the exact details of at least the WTC attacks beforehand.
Specifics below the fold.
Perception of the conspiracy theorists
No Dutch MSM reporters were willing to research the conspiracy theories. All dismiss them out of hand.
None of the Dutch politicians that were talked to (admittedly a few) were willing to take even a fraction of the theories seriously. One even said: “Even if parts of those theories were true, I still wouldn’t be interested. I’ve got more important things on my plate.” Hm, I wonder what those could be…
The missing Pentagon plane
Plane parts found in and near the Pentagon were consistent with the theory that a Boeing 757 had flown into it. Loose Change had shown only a fraction of those parts, had claimed that the ones they knew about could not have come from a 757, and had omitted to show much damage to the Pentagon, suggesting that a large plane such as the 757 could not have caused this little damage. Even the Zembla reporter, who knows nothing about planes, was able to identify the parts found in and around the Pentagon as likely belonging to a 757.
A scientist showed how very little mass there is in a plane. Basically a plane is a skeleton, engines, a landing gear and a very thin metal hull (approximately 1 mm). Typically a Boeing 757 will not cause much damage, even though a plane like that looks huge. A clip was shown of a fighter jet flying into a concrete wall with about the same speed as the Pentagon 757; almost the entire jet disintegrated. A 757 hitting a building will cause damage with its hard bits, such as the engines.
The claim that the Pentagon 757 could not have taken such a sharp turn, that the plane would have undergone too many G-forces, and that the pilot was too unexperienced, was thoroughly debunked. The Delft scientists calculated that the G-force for the turn had likely been around 1.5, “as much as you might experience while driving your car”. Zembla also had an unexperienced pilot sit in a 757 flight simulator, and had him try and hit the Pentagon three consecutive times. He hit it every time.
WTC 1 and 2
Danny Jowenko, who was introduced as the Netherlands’ leading demolition expert, made short shrift of the Loose Change claims that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because of controlled demolition. He pointed out that the tower that was hit last, was likely to collapse first (as it did), because of the higher weight on top of the weak spot.
Explosives would not have detonated from top to bottom, as Loose Change claims, because the detonators near the fire would have gone off way before that. Also, it would have taken trained professionals approximately a year to place all the explosives and wiring necessary, according to Jowenko. Such activity would likely have been noticed.
Note though that if folks want to hide a controlled demolition (which is a horrible phrase to use considering that there were thousands of people alive in those buildings, but I am afraid I know of no better term) — that if people want to hide a controlled demolition, they are not going to make it look like a controlled demolition. Zembla did not raise this point.
Prior Knowledge and WTC 7
Zembla then kicked to lower gear and started exploring the theories for which they did find corroboration.
First, they claimed, there is a high likelyhood that there were Americans who weren’t just fully aware of planned attacks against buildings in New York, but who also knew about specifics such as time and date, and buildings involved.
As evidence they proposed the missing hard disks of a company called Convar. These hard disks were found in one of the collapsed buildings, and showed the possibility of illegal money transactions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. A German data rescue company Convar was called in to investigate these harddisks, but has since been ordered not to disclose its findings.
Danny Jowenko, the demolitions expert, was shown footage of WTC 7 without being told what he was shown. “See!” he exclaimed, “now that is a controlled demolition! Notice how the explosions go from bottom to top?”
“A controlled demolition?” the reporter asked.
“Sure,” Jowenko confirmed again. “This was done by experts.”
Conclusions and further questions
Zembla did not study the questions surrounding United Flight 93.
Interesting is that Zembla used two independent sources for each of the major Loose Change claims they falsified, but that no such rigour was applied for the claims that were affirmed. No scientists affirmed Jowenko’s claim that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and the “high likelyhood that Americans knew about the attacks beforehand” is based on findings that once again support the notion that hindsight is 20/20 vision.
There are still plenty of questions left. For instance, why did WTC 1 and 2 collapse so “easily” compared with other buildings that planes have flown into? And why did they collapse so neatly?
Personally I was shocked the most by the fact that no Dutch journalist was willing to investigate the conspiracy theories before Zembla were. Journalists are truth seekers. If loads and loads of Dutch citizens are seeking truth where reporters aren’t, that’s A) a news worthy fact in and by itself, and B) a direct challenge to the united MSM. Professional journalists are always yapping on and on about how they are superiour news filters compared to citizen-journalists — here was a chance to prove that. Why did they not grasp that chance sooner?
This episode of Zembla can be found on the website of the VARA broadcaster. I am not linking to it, because it is an especially shoddily built website, and I am certain the link would be dead in a few weeks or so. Undoubtedly the entire documentary will appear on the darknet somewhere, most likely even on the greynet (read: Youtube).
Jowenko is a boob, apparently desperate to see his name in print and drum up business.
For a real analysis by industry professionals, look at the WTC paper at http://www.implosionworld.com. If should lay to rest any lingering doubts that the conspiracy mongers are complete idiots and con men.
Are you saying that Jowenko acted surprised when he saw the collapse of WTC7? That he lied?
“Jowenko is a boob, apparently desperate to see his name in print and drum up business.”
The standard method used to “debunk” all experts who challenge the official story – attack the messenger, usually with a completely false smear upon their character, and ignore the message.
Some even tried to claim Jowenko later changed his mind, but he recently confirmed he has no doubt that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
I don’t believe Jowenko is a boob.
I don’t believe he is desperate to see his name in print.
I don’t believe he wants to “drum up business”.
But he is also not an expert.
He does not have any field work or scientific data from the collapse available, no evidence gathered at the site, no measurements or chemical analyses. All he has is the video he was shown.
I would not call that a basis for an expert testimony, I don’t care how good you are at your job. All he can say, is what it LOOKS like on a video. And we can all agree that it looks just like a well-executed controlled demolition. One of the most pretty ones I’ve ever seen, in fact. But that does not make me believe that it WAS a controlled demolition. There is plenty of other reasons for the building to drop, and I find it entirely plausible that it collapsed naturally.
If with “expert testimony” you mean something that a court of law would accept you’re right. But nobody mentioned that kind of testimony. This was “expert opinion,” simply an expert giving his opinion based on the information at hand. And yes, he is an expert.
If I were to witness a bank robbery, I would call the police.
You instead would say: “Well, I am not an expert, so let’s do nothing. Even if I were an expert, I still would not do anything, because I do not have any field work or scientific data or evidence gathered at the site or measurements or chemical analyses that could form the basis for an expert testimony.”
I find that strange.
Scientific theories start with scientists asking themselves questions. These questions start with observing something unexplained. With 9/11 it seems that people would prefer if all questions would simply go away.
Nearly 6 and a half years later and still no report on building 7 from the experts at NIST.
[…] In 2006 investigative news show Zembla took claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists serious by testing them. It concluded most of the claims were unfounded. The show is also famous for “exposing” (the news was not news to a limited circle) that politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali had lied in her asylum claim, which led to her resignation from parliament. […]
The World Trade Center site progress has been slow over recent years. Finally we are starting to see some progress with the WTC replacement the Freedom Tower. The Freedom Tower will stand 541 metres or 1776 feet once complete.