Open Letter To Coroner O.A Komolafe: Coroner’s Inquest Into The Synagogue Building Collapse

Ten Evidences That Synagogue Collapse Was An Act Of  ‘Controlled Demolition’
Dear Coroner,

I write this ‘open letter’ for your perusal having good hope in your impartial contemplation; emboldened because your good office afforded opportunity to members of the public with evidence material that will assist the court in its findings to indicate their interest.

Since the incident occurred at the SCOAN premises, online and print media have been awash with volumes of editorials on the catastrophe. The sordid fact about these reports is that most have turned out to be greatly misleading. They seem to be exploiting the tragedy for further barrage of criticism meant to destroy the SCOAN – criticisms that have trailed Joshua since the eighties.

It is a disastrous event and even as the whole nation mourns with the SCOAN, it should be evident that Joshua is the Chief mourner. No one should be permitted to cry more than the bereaved; or make frantic efforts to contort people’s perception from actuality to imagination, as much of the media have done in the past weeks. It is agonizing to watch how from their untruths, joined one to the other, the erroneous inference surfaced that the collapse of the building resulted from a ‘structural failure’ of the building. These are still being purported despite the CCTV videos put forth by The SCOAN to reveal what actually happened to the building. In wake of these events, I, having thoroughly studied the released CCTV videos and available survivor accounts, forthwith cite TEN REASONS why the collapse of the SCOAN building was definitely preplanned and effected by ‘controlled demolition’.

1. NO ABSOLUTE COLLAPSE BY STRUCTURAL FAILURE: The ‘structural failure’ collapse theory on the synagogue building collapse is first rendered implausible by one major problem. The simple fact that ‘structural failure’ has never — prior to or after 9/12, caused a consequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of buildings. Defenders of the ‘structural failure’ theory seldom, if ever mention this simple fact. There is also a reverse truth to this fact, that aside from the alleged case of 9/12, structural failure has never caused large storey buildings to utterly collapse like a pack of cards. The reverse truth is that every previous absolute collapse has been caused by the procedure known as ‘controlled demolition, in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. To see how ludicrous the claim is that the collapse of the synagogue building was induced by structural failure, here are other facts typical of controlled demolition.

2. SUDDEN ONSET: in controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden, one moment, the building is perfectly motionless, the next moment it suddenly begins to collapse. But buildings even when overweighed do not suddenly buckle or break. So in a structural failure caused collapse, if we had any examples of such, the onset would be gradual. It would begin by tilting to one side or by showing Cracks and fissures in the building when subjected to overwhelming live and dead weight; but there were no signs of tilting to any side or cracking or breakage. No pillar was broken off. The building was perfectly motionless up to the moment it began to collapse.

3. STRAIGHT DOWN: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it comes straight down, into, or at least close to its own footprint, so that it does not harm other buildings. A phenomenon which a building expert calls ‘falling inwardly’. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of controlled demolition. Inc. has explained, “To bring [a building] down as we want, so …. no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges.” (Else 2004) if the six storey building had fallen over, it would have caused enormous amount of damage to the smaller structures around the building. According to what is alleged by many critics, accepting that ‘structural failure’ produces collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, is verging on insane.

4. ALMOST FREE-FALL SPEED: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This occurs because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapse of the synagogue building mimicked this feature of controlled demolition is seen in the CCTV video released by the SCOAN. The building collapsed in approximately 4 seconds. If the building had collapsed through a structural failure, the lower floors with all their steel and concrete would have provided some resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through the air. Accepting that this building collapsed due to structural failure is accepting a charade, because every floor of every storey, fell as though nothing existed below it but air. The storey’s must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such short amount of time. This highlights a feature in the method known as controlled demolition. Each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above it is about to strike it, thus the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual free-fall. Only well placed explosives can do this. This is what happens in controlled demolition.

5. TOTAL COLLAPSE: The alleged ‘structural failure’ collapse theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapse was total. The large six-storey building collapsed into piles of rubble lesser than the height of the ground floor. How was that possible? There is no way a structural failure could cause a global that is total collapse at virtually free-fall speed. Some walls should most certainly have remained standing, even earthquakes, which have produced some partial collapses, have never produced total collapses. As is seen in the photo; each floor of the storey- building in the rubble was seen piled one upon the other like slices of bread. ​

unnamed

​6. SLICED STEEL: In controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative of controlled Demolition. Inc. has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a “razor blade through a tomato”. The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced: it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems… segment steel into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.” The collapse of the synagogue building, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Studying the building collapse site reveals that much of the steel has been chopped up into sections that can easily be loaded onto the equipment’s that were cleaning up the rubble.

unnamed2

7. PULVERIZATION OF CONCRETE AND OTHER MATERIALS: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of A LOT OF DUST, because explosives powerful enough to cut steel columns will pulverize concrete and most other metallic and non-metallic substances into tiny particles. The CCTV video of camera 6 reveal so much dust emanating from the building sides due to the implosion. Observations at the collapse site also reveal that there was nowhere near enough rubble to account for the entire six-storey building; No single concrete block remained upon another; not even one electrical appliance like an air conditioner or refrigerator could be recovered from the building. How on earth can this happen through structural failure? The only explanation for this occurrence is the fact that most metallic constituents of the six-storey building together with the concrete were pulverized into fine powder. This fact creates a problem for the theory of ‘structural failure’ collapse, whose only available energy was gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break some of the concrete into fairly small pieces, but it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the metallic contents of the building into tiny particles of dust.

8. DUST CLOUDS: Yet another common feature of controlled demolition is the production of dust cloud. Incredible amounts of dust and smoke result when explosions eject concrete dust from the building with great energy. And as one can see by comparing videos on the web, the collapse of the synagogue six-storey guest house produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures. The question of the source of the needed energy again rises, which by far exceeded the gravitational energy available. Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the ‘structural failure’ collapse theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the building to the intact portion was only a few feet per seconds. A great amount of very fine concrete dust is ejected from the base of the building very early in the collapse when concrete slabs would only have been bumping into each other. A Zambian, Melvin Bwalya, who was standing very close to the building when it fatally caved in said to the Zambian newspaper: the church that “…I collapsed and fell a few meters away from the building where I was buried in A HEAP OF DUST.”

9. HORIZONTAL EJECTIONS: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives were set off. In the case of the synagogue building, the CCTV Video from camera 6 reveal that large blocks of concrete and heavy pieces of steel were ejected from the areas of the building in which explosives were set off to great distances from the building. But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so a collapse by structural failure cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

10. SOUNDS PRODUCED BY EXPLOSIONS: Still another common feature of collapse induced by explosion’s are sounds and demolition rings, in which a series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapse of the synagogue guest house. Like all the previous features except the cutting of the steel columns inside the building. This one could be observed by witnesses. And as we have seen in the reports, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapse of the synagogue building. A fact which was confirmed by a survivor of the incident. khathuathelo Ramovha speaking to the BBC expressed how He heard a very small sound shiiiiii….shiiiiii….shiiiiii – something like a wired bomb that had to run that wire before it could reach were the bomb is – rrrrrrrrrrrr…….grrrrrrrrrrrr so quick and wha… the building came down…..” A 39 years old Zambian businessman, Melvin Bwalya, was standing very close to the building when it fatally caved in. Speaking to Zambian Christian newspaper, ‘The Church’, also explained: “I JUST HEARD A HUGE BANG. I don’t remember anything from that moment because I am told I fainted.”

OTHER SUSPICOUS FACTS:

(a) Although we have already considered sufficient evidence for the theory that the building was being brought down by explosives, there is still more. Before the collapse of the building, it was recorded that at least four times, there was a crossing of a military airplane which appears to be a Hercules C-130 – a military aircraft, not civil. It remains a disturbing mystery, why and for what purpose a fighter plane was doing at midday over a residential area that many times (at least 4 times as the CCTV Camera shows) and, most especially, at close proximity over the synagogue building. It seems entirely bizarre, unserviceable and, therefore, entirely suspect.

(b) Finally, the date of the collapse of the building (September 12) refers by inference to a similar collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center of the United States on September 11, in the USA. It is therefore a logical connection of similar terrorism on The Synagogue Church of All Nations, led by Prophet T.B. Joshua.

Conclusion:

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the collapse of the synagogue guest housewas done by controlled demolition; orchestrated by high level terrorists. Domestic terrorists likeBokoharam in Nigeria could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the building collapsed straight down,rather than falling overonto surrounding buildings. In the light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay.

I do therefore request your good office, and the Government of Nigeria to take the Lead in finally exposing to the world the truth about how the synagogue building collapsed.

Ref: 9/11 attack on WTC controlled demolition of high rise building; implosionworld.com; Demolition Inc.

Stanley Oghogho – freelance Nigerian Journalist.

Advertisements

One thought on “Open Letter To Coroner O.A Komolafe: Coroner’s Inquest Into The Synagogue Building Collapse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s