REPOST: Questions SCOAN must answer about the attack on their building

Today is the day the trial against SCOAN and the engineers begins. Already it has been established beyond doubt that the building collapsed due to structural deficiencies (if you still question that, please first read the coroner’s report then come back to us), but SCOAN are still sticking to their “strange hovering aircraft/controlled demolition/terrorist attack” theories. Below is a repost of an article we wrote a few months ago explaining why these theories are completely inadequate to explain what actually happened on September 12th 2014. Let’s pray these deceptive stories get put to bed for good during this trial and the bereaved families get the truth and justice they deserve. If you lost family members in the disaster, you should know about the civil case against SCOAN. If you are interested in participating, please email tbjoshuawatch@hotmail.co.uk.

Regardless of your position on TB Joshua and SCOAN, you probably agree with us that the families who lost loved ones in the building collapse deserve the truth about what happened. The coroner has ruled that the building collapsed due to inadequate foundations, SCOAN strongly dispute this and have offered up evidence they believe points to sabotage, or some kind of terrorist attack – some serious claims! They have offered three lines of evidence (primarily though social media):

1. Footage of a plane “hovering”, almost an hour before the building came down.
2. CCTV footage that appeared to show the building come down symmetrically “like a controlled explosion”.
3. The testimony of “experts” claiming that the foundations and supporting columns were sound.

Although it seems to only be SCOAN supporters who take these theories seriously, SCOAN has a lot of supporters, and they’re rather vocal. In this article we look at the three lines of evidence and ask some probing questions that we believe SCOAN should answer if it expects the general public to take them seriously.

Questions about the plane

Proof that it was 50 minutes between the last flyover of an aircraft and the building collapse

The plane is the weakest piece of evidence. SCOAN seem to be suggesting that a plane seen on their CCTV system could have caused the collapse through some unspecified chemical or sonic attack. Here are some questions we would like to hear answers to:

1. How did a sonic or chemical attack from an aircraft only demolish one building and leave the adjacent ones intact? Surely any technology if this nature wouldn’t be this directional when deployed from the air?
2. If the building was attacked from the air, how does that explain it appearing to come down symmetrically?
3. If it was chemical, what chemical was used? What traces were found of it on the site? How could the chemical be potent enough to destroy a building, but without causing any loss of life outside of the building?
4. What does the airplane have to do with controlled demolition? These appear to be mutually exclusive theories.

Unless SCOAN can answer some of these questions and give some more details to explain why the appearance of a plane an hour before the collapse had anything to do with it, we think it is a complete red herring that can be rejected out of hand. So we will put aside this line of evidence and move on to the next.

Questions about the controlled demolition

Some examples of genuine building implosions.

By “controlled demolition”, what SCOAN are referring to is known as a “building implosion”, you can read more about this highly complex and technical demolition technique here. Normally a building implosion requires perfectly timed charges to be detonated in strategic locations across multiple floors. At the very least, to execute this kind of plan successfully, the perpetrators would need to have structural knowledge of the building to know where the key load bearing columns were. Then they would need access to the building to drill into these columns and plant the charges. If SCOAN want this line of evidence to be taken seriously, here are some questions they need to answer:

1. How did terrorists gain access to structural data on the building in order to plan a controlled demolition?
2. How did they get large quantities of explosives and other paraphernalia onto the site without being stopped by the armed security guards or caught on CCTV?
3. How did they manage to drill into multiple points on the building to rig the explosives without being noticed or caught on CCTV?
4. If the collapse was caused by explosives, why were there no reports of loud bangs? Why were all the injuries consistent with crushing, not burns and explosions?
5. Were any traces of explosives or associated paraphernalia found on the site? Please give details.
6. Who do you think was responsible for the attack? Why has nobody claimed responsibility? Why would a terror group go to the bother of executing a highly sophisticated attack, but neglect to claim responsibility?
7. If you really do believe that your site was compromised to the extent that terrorists were able to prepare and execute this controlled demolition, what measures have you taken to ensure it won’t happen again? Have you had bomb disposal experts check the whole site? Why were you allowing large public gatherings to take place just days later? Either this was highly irresponsible, or you don’t believe your own stories.

Ironically, if we are to take the controlled demolition theory seriously (which we don’t) it actually ends up implicating SCOAN far more than the structural failure option. Executing a plan like this would have required such high level access for lengthy periods of time, doing indiscreet things like drilling into columns and laying wires that it is inconceivable that the building could have been demolished this way without it being an inside job. If SCOAN want this line of evidence to be pursued, they should be ready for all SCOAN staff and contractors to be treated as suspects. Structural failure would be criminal negligence, controlled demolition would be mass murder.

Questions about the “expert” testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbWOmSECc-I

The “expert” testimony SCOAN have presented is a 13 minute video with 4 supposed “experts” standing over a small, exposed section of foundation. Not only is this video a completely inadequate way to address a hugely complex topic, the experts they have chosen are neither experts nor impartial. For example, the most lengthy “expert” testimony was Dr Stephen Asheri Ntoga, resplendent in an Emmanuel TV t-shirt (there goes any hope of impartiality). He claims to be the “Dean of the Faculty of Engineering in Tanzania”, but no University is mentioned! This title is completely meaningless if it’s not attached to a University. Furthermore, this Doctor has absolutely no online presence apart from this video, or references to the video. No published articles or papers, no news articles, no LinkedIn profile, no faculty staff page, nothing! The three other “experts” fair no better, none have any expertise that can be verified. Here are some questions SCOAN should answer:

1. Why did the video only concentrate on a very small exposed part of the foundation? How do we know you weren’t just showing the part that was intact?
2. If you are convinced that your structure was sound, why didn’t you pay for a nationally recognised impartial expert to produce a full, comprehensive report and make it public? If this report countered the findings of the coroner’s witnesses, you might have a point – but a few quotes on video from 4 “experts” with questionable credentials looking at a tiny exposed part of the foundations tells us nothing.

To conclude, the plane theory is nothing short of crazy, the controlled demolition theory is far fetched (but if it’s to be believed actually implicates SCOAN) and the expert testimonies are woefully inadequate, little more than soundbites from people on the street.

If there was any credibility at all to these claims, surely TB Joshua would have turned up in court to present the evidence? Since he refused (4 times) to do this, SCOAN should do the victims families a favour and either shut up about their so called evidence, or do it properly and provide something substantial and believable.

Questions SCOAN must answer about the attack on their building

Regardless of your position on TB Joshua and SCOAN, you probably agree with us that the families who lost loved ones in the building collapse deserve the truth about what happened. The coroner has ruled that the building collapsed due to inadequate foundations, SCOAN strongly dispute this and have offered up evidence they believe points to sabotage, or some kind of terrorist attack – some serious claims! They have offered three lines of evidence (primarily though social media):

1. Footage of a plane “hovering”, almost an hour before the building came down.
2. CCTV footage that appeared to show the building come down symmetrically “like a controlled explosion”.
3. The testimony of “experts” claiming that the foundations and supporting columns were sound.

Although it seems to only be SCOAN supporters who take these theories seriously, SCOAN has a lot of supporters, and they’re rather vocal. In this article we look at the three lines of evidence and ask some probing questions that we believe SCOAN should answer if it expects the general public to take them seriously.

Questions about the plane

Proof that it was 50 minutes between the last flyover of an aircraft and the building collapse

The plane is the weakest piece of evidence. SCOAN seem to be suggesting that a plane seen on their CCTV system could have caused the collapse through some unspecified chemical or sonic attack. Here are some questions we would like to hear answers to:

1. How did a sonic or chemical attack from an aircraft only demolish one building and leave the adjacent ones intact? Surely any technology if this nature wouldn’t be this directional when deployed from the air?
2. If the building was attacked from the air, how does that explain it appearing to come down symmetrically?
3. If it was chemical, what chemical was used? What traces were found of it on the site? How could the chemical be potent enough to destroy a building, but without causing any loss of life outside of the building?
4. What does the airplane have to do with controlled demolition? These appear to be mutually exclusive theories.

Unless SCOAN can answer some of these questions and give some more details to explain why the appearance of a plane an hour before the collapse had anything to do with it, we think it is a complete red herring that can be rejected out of hand. So we will put aside this line of evidence and move on to the next.

Questions about the controlled demolition

Some examples of genuine building implosions.

By “controlled demolition”, what SCOAN are referring to is known as a “building implosion”, you can read more about this highly complex and technical demolition technique here. Normally a building implosion requires perfectly timed charges to be detonated in strategic locations across multiple floors. At the very least, to execute this kind of plan successfully, the perpetrators would need to have structural knowledge of the building to know where the key load bearing columns were. Then they would need access to the building to drill into these columns and plant the charges. If SCOAN want this line of evidence to be taken seriously, here are some questions they need to answer:

1. How did terrorists gain access to structural data on the building in order to plan a controlled demolition?
2. How did they get large quantities of explosives and other paraphernalia onto the site without being stopped by the armed security guards or caught on CCTV?
3. How did they manage to drill into multiple points on the building to rig the explosives without being noticed or caught on CCTV?
4. If the collapse was caused by explosives, why were there no reports of loud bangs? Why were all the injuries consistent with crushing, not burns and explosions?
5. Were any traces of explosives or associated paraphernalia found on the site? Please give details.
6. Who do you think was responsible for the attack? Why has nobody claimed responsibility? Why would a terror group go to the bother of executing a highly sophisticated attack, but neglect to claim responsibility?
7. If you really do believe that your site was compromised to the extent that terrorists were able to prepare and execute this controlled demolition, what measures have you taken to ensure it won’t happen again? Have you had bomb disposal experts check the whole site? Why were you allowing large public gatherings to take place just days later? Either this was highly irresponsible, or you don’t believe your own stories.

Ironically, if we are to take the controlled demolition theory seriously (which we don’t) it actually ends up implicating SCOAN far more than the structural failure option. Executing a plan like this would have required such high level access for lengthy periods of time, doing indiscreet things like drilling into columns and laying wires that it is inconceivable that the building could have been demolished this way without it being an inside job. If SCOAN want this line of evidence to be pursued, they should be ready for all SCOAN staff and contractors to be treated as suspects. Structural failure would be criminal negligence, controlled demolition would be mass murder.

Questions about the “expert” testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbWOmSECc-I

The “expert” testimony SCOAN have presented is a 13 minute video with 4 supposed “experts” standing over a small, exposed section of foundation. Not only is this video a completely inadequate way to address a hugely complex topic, the experts they have chosen are neither experts nor impartial. For example, the most lengthy “expert” testimony was Dr Stephen Asheri Ntoga, resplendent in an Emmanuel TV t-shirt (there goes any hope of impartiality). He claims to be the “Dean of the Faculty of Engineering in Tanzania”, but no University is mentioned! This title is completely meaningless if it’s not attached to a University. Furthermore, this Doctor has absolutely no online presence apart from this video, or references to the video. No published articles or papers, no news articles, no LinkedIn profile, no faculty staff page, nothing! The three other “experts” fair no better, none have any expertise that can be verified. Here are some questions SCOAN should answer:

1. Why did the video only concentrate on a very small exposed part of the foundation? How do we know you weren’t just showing the part that was intact?
2. If you are convinced that your structure was sound, why didn’t you pay for a nationally recognised impartial expert to produce a full, comprehensive report and make it public? If this report countered the findings of the coroner’s witnesses, you might have a point – but a few quotes on video from 4 “experts” with questionable credentials looking at a tiny exposed part of the foundations tells us nothing.

To conclude, the plane theory is nothing short of crazy, the controlled demolition theory is far fetched (but if it’s to be believed actually implicates SCOAN) and the expert testimonies are woefully inadequate, little more than soundbites from people on the street.

If there was any credibility at all to these claims, surely TB Joshua would have turned up in court to present the evidence? Since he refused (4 times) to do this, SCOAN should do the victims families a favour and either shut up about their so called evidence, or do it properly and provide something substantial and believable.