This is one of the best articles to read. It deals with nine assertions that claim evidence for the use of controlled demolitions in the collapse of the three WTC towers on September 11. The author, Brent Blanchard, is [was] the “Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com (http://www.implosionworld.com/) and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protectservices.com)." Protec is according to their report one of the largest and / or most experienced explosive demolition companies in the world, and they furthermore actually had teams working in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11 with their own independent field seismographs running all through this day.
— Synopsis Questions and Answers —
ASSERTION #1: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”
ASSERTION #2: “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.
ASSERTION #3: “But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.
ASSERTION #4: “Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.
ASSERTION #5: “An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used… such as thermite, which gets very hot and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.
ASSERTION #6: “Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.
ASSERTION #7: “WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”
PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.
ASSERTION #8: “A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three steel buildings collapsed on one day…therefore explosives must have been responsible.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, actually it means three steel buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.
ASSERTION #9: “Anyone denying that explosives were used is intentionally ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit their conclusion.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.