
15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses (2016) - rasengan
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
======
wglass
Snopes has some nice commentary on this. Key takeaway-- this is not a peer
reviewed journal. [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-
endorses-911-consp...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-
endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/)

------
dpatru
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has a study on the
collapse of just World Trade Center Building 7, which fell even though it was
not hit by a plane. So far he has concluded that:

"The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.
Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner
core of this building failed nearly simultaneously."[1]

[1]: [http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/](http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/)

------
rasengan
TL;DR:

From the article's conclusion:

"Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three
buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."

------
rootusrootus
I was hoping for something more interesting. All they did here is raise the
usual doubts, and provide no evidence to bolster their conclusion. At best
what they've done is show that we still can't completely explain through
modeling what happened with those buildings. That's a looooong ways from
proving it was really a controlled demolition.

------
cpr
I know it sounds nuts, but Dr Judy Wood makes a damned good case that the twin
towers (not bldg 7) were turned to dust by directed energy weapons.

Watch with an open mind and just look at the evidence, don’t prejudge based on
“come on, our government would never do something like that...”.

[https://youtu.be/ermHx3akejc](https://youtu.be/ermHx3akejc)

------
dmh2000
question for people who know the subject (from someone who doesn't) : is this
paper legit or written by conspiracy minded individuals? I didn't want to say
'nuts'.

~~~
netsharc
the 2nd part is for sure true (they believe it's controlled demolitions, and
when you believe something, confirmation bias
([https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-
bias/](https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/)) probably
makes you find more and more evidence that prove your belief), and whether
it's legit, well, considering who the writers associate with, I would
scrutinize their claims more, if finding the truth about this topic really
bothered me...

------
netsharc
TL;DR: two (edit: four) 9/11 Truthers wrote a paper. Can't be bothered to see
if what they claim about the NIST investigation being un-transparent and
sloppy is valid.

