9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters


Implosion-World.com is a website with information about controlled demolitions, featuring numerous videos of such events.

STATUS: sent to ImplosionWorld.com


Dear Implosion World,

I wanted to thank you for your fascinating website.  I hadn't had the
opportunity to witness a controlled demolition before; it's a real
technical marvel; an impressive feat to bring down big structures in
a controlled way, so as not to harm other buildings and do as little
harm as possible. I read that Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition,
Inc., said that "by differentially controlling the velocity of failure
in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can
make it spin, you can make it dance.  We'll have structures facing
north and end up going to the north-west."  That takes skill.  My hats
off to the professionals who are able to do that.

I was curious what your take was on the WTC collapses, including not
only the twin towers, but WTC7?  The demolitions you show appear to
have some of the same features that were evident at all three of the
WTC building collapses.  Van Romero, PhD, a demolitions expert,
current vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, and a former director of the Energetic Materials
Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech which studies explosive
materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures, said on the day of the attacks that, "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."

In the interview, Romero goes on to say that 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,' 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"  (9/11/01  Albuquerque Journal, Olivier

And Steven E Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, wrote a
paper that will be published later this year that suggests that the
official theory, that the collapses were the result of a progressive
'pancaking of the structures that resulted from fire-softened steel
giving way, doesn't hold up to analysis; that in fact explosive-
demolition hypothesis accounts for the photographic, video, and
physical evidence and eyewitness testimony much better than does the
official theory.


He shows that all the WTC collapses show at least 11 features of
controlled demolition, including 1) The large quantities of molten
metal observed in the basement areas of all three buildings.  Those
making these observations included the structural engineer who
designed the WTC, Leslie Robertson.  This molten metal is a byproduct
of high explosive reaction.  Buildings falling due only to the energy
of gravity wouldn't generate molten metal, would they?  Government
reports admit the building fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel.
The official theory has a hard time explaining this; it doesn't
explain this at all.  In fact all government reports omit any mention
of the molten metal.  2)  Symmetry of collapse-the buildings didn't
topple over.  Especially curious in this regard is that a 34 story
section of the South tower began to topple over, but then the block
"turns to powder in mid-air!", quoting Dr Jones.  3) The collapses
were not gradual, they were rapid and symmetrical, even though the
fires were random, scattered, not very big nor very hot.  How could
random, weak fires simultaneously weaken many steel support columns?
A random fire should have produce asymmetrical failure (if even that
were possible due to a fire, which has never collapsed a steel
structured building before or since 9/11), and a gradual, not sudden
failure of the building.  But a controlled demolition easily explains
these observation.  And do you know what FEMA, who did a major study
of the causes of the collapse said?  It said that fire + damage-caused
collapse has "only a low probability of occurring."  They can't
actually explain why the buildings collapsed, especially when they
refuse to consider the demolition hypothesis.

And what about WTC7, a 47 story building that was not hit by a plane,
nor was it engulfed in fire, but it collapsed completely in or near
its footprint.  It could set the record for worlds tallest building
subject to controlled demolition {if not for the Twin Towers}.  Have
you seen pictures of this collapse?  It almost looks like those rare
implosions you talk about on your site.  And the New York Times wrote
an article about it, "Engineers are Baffled over the collapse of 7
WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated"  "Experts said no
building like it (WTC7), a modern steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever
collapsed because of uncontrolled fire."  There is no way the fires in
WTC7 could've caused the "partly evaporated" steel.

I'd like to know what you're take on this is.  Could you shed light on
what happened?  This demands an investigation, don't you think?  There
has yet to be a true investigation of what happened on 9/11.  Perhaps
members of your profession would be willing to speak out to demand an
investigation.  Thanks for your time,

Greg Henricks
Northern California

Greg received this prompt reply from Implosion-World.com representative Brent Blanchard.

STATUS: sent to Greg Hendricks

From: Mail@Implosionworld.com [mailto:mail@implosionworld.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Greg Henricks

Subject: Re: Your Website

Thank you for your letter.  We welcome and appreciate all reasoned
dialog on this subject.  Here are our generalized comments:

1. We are aware of Mr. Romero and Mr. Jones statements, however they
both contain critical inaccuracies central to the explo-demo argument.
I would also question whether either has extensive experience working
in the explo-demo field.

2. Mr. Loizeaux's false and self-serving statements are designed to
market his company, and one would be wise to question anything he
says.  He does not have a reputable standing in the industry.

3. We plan on releasing a comprehensive analysis of the wtc-explosives
argument, although no timetable for completion is set right now.

Hope that helps a bit and please check our website in the coming

Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard went on to write:
which is the subject of this critique.