WTC 7 (Building 7)

[F4Jock]

Wow! That is more people than I thought that don't buy the official story . . .

And I bet most of them didn't even read the NIST Report . . .

And if they had, assuming that they COULD read, do you think all would have come down on the conspiracy side?

 

[F4Jock]

Point being people don't need to believe any particular theory about the collapse to disbelieve the official story . . . the US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice . . . maybe no country can; however, the more one interferes and blow things up the less people trust anything you say . . . funny thing about human nature . . .

But don't you have to consider the happenstances individually? To make a blanket statement as you have suggests that if the US government said the sun is the center of the solar system people would discount it because of the source therefore rendering the poll invalid because the statement wasn't evaluated on factual merit.

 

[George B]

And if they had, assuming that they COULD read, do you think all would have come down on the conspiracy side?

Hypothetical question diserves a hypothetical answer . . . I knew the Air Force attaché to Ethiopia who was there before and during the socialist military coup in the 1970's . . . he was convinced the existing government fell once the print media came under the complete control of the socialist forces . . . though most Ethiopians were illiterate they felt what was read to them was like readings from the Holy Scriptures . . . Radio, TV and the Internet may well be the new word of God. . .

 

[Cairenn]

The 'US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice ' is a useless comment to me. Can you give me a government that hasn't?

The US government, like all others is composed of fallible humans. One can spend their life expecting the worst in folks, and you will find it, however, one can spend their time looking for the good in folks and in government.

You remind me of a person that after having a spouse cheat on them, declares that they will never remarry, because all men/women are liars and cheaters. Instead of looking for someone to love them, they spend their lives in misery and anger.

 

[George B]

But don't you have to consider the happenstances individually? To make a blanket statement as you have suggests that if the US government said the sun is the center of the solar system people would discount it because of the source therefore rendering the poll invalid because the statement wasn't evaluated on factual merit.

Hmmm . . . you assume people believe based on facts and data . . . people believe on a whole set of complex input not the least of which is the historical behavior of people or nation . . . once distrust is created it takes ten times the evidence to convince them otherwise . . .

 

[hiper]

Vastly more convincing that silent fireproof nano-thermite. How would that even work?

It did work. It was a demolition masterpiece.
You vastly underestimate the Bush administration.

 

[F4Jock]

Hypothetical question diserves a hypothetical answer . . . I knew the Air Force attaché to Ehtopia who was there before and during the socialist military coop in the 1970's . . . he was convinced the existing government fell once the print media came under the complete control of the socialist forces . . . though most Ethoprans were illiterate they felt what was read to them was like readings from the Holy Scriptures . . . Radio, TV and the Internet may well be the new word of God. . .

As many of us believe today. There is, however, in many cases a predisposition to believe certain sources. For instance, MSNBC, CNN and Fox all have their audiences, audiences that due to certain predispositions believe one or the other preferentially. It's instructive to watch their defense of these beliefs.

If one is predisposed to mistrust government one is predisposed to accept conspiracies involving them. The interesting point to ponder is, are they selective, if so, which ones do they choose to accept and finally, why.

 

[F4Jock]

Hmmm . . . you assume people believe based on facts and data . . . people believe on a whole set of complex input not the least of which is the historical behavior of people or nation . . . once distrust is created it takes ten times the evidence to convince them otherwise . . .

Yup. Which in that case makes their opinions less than valid wouldn't you say?

 

[Oxymoron]

Gee! Looks like Al Queda and other possibilities are doing pretty well except in the Middle East! Also, you give no details of the polls or the information they are based on. When you add it all up your chart just proved that 9/11 truthers ARE essentially a fringe group. Thanks for that!

Yep we are ALL 1 in 10 in some way but not apparently when it comes to those in search of the truth and who do not buy into the OS BS... Oh no, despite copious amounts of brainwashing propaganda a very significant percentage of the world population can still think for themselves.

Best get the RFID chipsand compulsory medication in quick to try and change all that eh... perhaps you will be able to go on facebook and chat forums without being frightened by the dissenters who dare to disagree with you.

 

[F4Jock]

The 'US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice ' is a useless comment to me. Can you give me a government that hasn't?

The US government, like all others is composed of fallible humans. One can spend their life expecting the worst in folks, and you will find it, however, one can spend their time looking for the good in folks and in government.

You remind me of a person that after having a spouse cheat on them, declares that they will never remarry, because all men/women are liars and cheaters. Instead of looking for someone to love them, they spend their lives in misery and anger.

Or you could say you just described a conspiracy theorist...,

 

[Oxymoron]

Hmmm . . . you assume people believe based on facts and data . . . people believe on a whole set of complex input not the least of which is the historical behavior of people or nation . . . once distrust is created it takes ten times the evidence to convince them otherwise . . .

Very profound George.

 

[F4Jock]

Yep we are ALL 1 in 10 in some way but not apparently when it comes to those in search of the truth and who do not buy into the OS BS... Oh no, despite copious amounts of brainwashing propaganda a very significant percentage of the world population can still think for themselves.

Best get the RFID chipsand compulsory medication in quick to try and change all that eh... perhaps you will be able to go on facebook and chat forums without being frightened by the dissenters who dare to disagree with you.

We obviously have different opinions about who has been "brainwashed." I postulate that just because one dissents doesn't automatically make them an enlightened free thinker.

Brainwashed? It can also be demonstrated that your significant percentage of the world population hasn't the education and / or information to make informed decisions on very much at all.

Frankly very little frightens me, least of all those who disagree with me. In fact I might opine that most of those who are truly frightened may be those who believe in conspiracies and think that as a result someone or something is coming for them.

 

[F4Jock]

Very profound George.

But unfortunately not taken to the next level.

 

[hiper]

The 'US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice ' is a useless comment to me.

So the millions upon millions upon millions of people who died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century
is probaby also a useless fact to you best to be forgotten.

The US government, like all others is composed of fallible humans

For those who have been killed by their own governments I am sure that would be the understatement of the century.

Or you could say you just described a conspiracy theorist...,

Still with the finger in the meme-pot I see.
Are you aware you are a defender of the official conspiracy theory...

 

[George B]

The 'US Government has given many people in this country and the World many reasons to doubt their honesty and belief in justice ' is a useless comment to me. Can you give me a government that hasn't?

The US government, like all others is composed of fallible humans. One can spend their life expecting the worst in folks, and you will find it, however, one can spend their time looking for the good in folks and in government.

You remind me of a person that after having a spouse cheat on them, declares that they will never remarry, because all men/women are liars and cheaters. Instead of looking for someone to love them, they spend their lives in misery and anger.

Hmmmm . . . Observations of historical events may or may not include personal bias but usually does. . . another human trait . . . I often look for and find the good in people and governments. In fact, if it was not for the white hats the world would be a much, much darker place than it is . . . I am a realist not a hopeless cynic . . . I am actually a very happy person . . .

 

[Cairenn]

It did work. It was a demolition masterpiece.
You vastly underestimate the Bush administration.

Explain HOW, and explain how it was placed and the supports weakened.

let's see

1) how was it placed
2) how did they protect it from the flames
3) how did they know EXACTLY where the planes would hit and where the fires would be.
4) why did they use thermite? when other explosives are better suited

That is enough from me. If they can't be answered, then why are you insisting that it was a controlled demolition.

It seems to me, that you are insisting on zebras, when folks saw horses, and where there had never been a zebra.

 

[Jazzy]

The nano-thermate residue they found is made from the nano scale up. You can't get it by flying airplanes into skyscrapers and collecting the dust.

Except that smoke is a nano material. Paint is a nano material. Vaporized materials are nano materials.

Forgot to mention. LOL

 

[George B]

Yup. Which in that case makes their opinions less than valid wouldn't you say?

Your opinion of valid or invalid is based on your beliefs and is not a statistical test of reality . . . Just because something is thought to be true based upon belief does not make it unreal or not true . . . nor does it make it less likely to be true or real . . .

 

[Jazzy]

It did work. It was a demolition masterpiece. You vastly underestimate the Bush administration.

A ludicrous hand-off.

How would silent fireproof nano-thermite even work? This is a serious question. Address it.

 

[George B]

As many of us believe today. There is, however, in many cases a predisposition to believe certain sources. For instance, MSNBC, CNN and Fox all have their audiences, audiences that due to certain predispositions believe one or the other preferentially. It's instructive to watch their defense of these beliefs.

If one is predisposed to mistrust government one is predisposed to accept conspiracies involving them. The interesting point to ponder is, are they selective, if so, which ones do they choose to accept and finally, why.

You have just described human nature; however, while we understand it we are still unable to escape its influence . . . why do you think propaganda is used by political parties and governments . . . I myself am normally on the opposite side of the prevailing mainstream consensus . . . I don't run with any crowd . . .

 

[hiper]

Explain HOW, and explain how it was placed and the supports weakened.

let's see

1) how was it placed
2) how did they protect it from the flames
3) how did they know EXACTLY where the planes would hit and where the fires would be.
4) why did they use thermite? when other explosives are better suited

That is enough from me. If they can't be answered, then why are you insisting that it was a controlled demolition.

It seems to me, that you are insisting on zebras, when folks saw horses, and where there had never been a zebra.

Don't you see 9/11 was a day filled to the brim with 'coincidences'?

If they wanted to have a better chance people believing the official story they should have only
demolished 1 building instead of 3.
WTC 1 collapsing identical to WTC 2 gave it away. Add WTC 7 and you have to be firmly in denial to believe the official explanation.


1) by hand by Marvin Bush's minions

2) There is a picture of a woman standing in the jet entrance hole in WTC 1 so the flames were obviously not raging.
explosives on the core columns of the few impact floors would be sufficient. All the other floors were unaffected.
3) they hit the towers on the exact spot they wanted to hit them so obviously they knew where the planes where going to hit

4) they used nano-thermate which is an incendiary with explosive characteristics unlike C4 which is an unequivocal high velocity of detonation explosive.

 

[Mick West]

Don't you see 9/11 was a day filled to the brim with 'coincidences'?

Every day is filled to the brim with coincidences.

Every day a one in a billion occurrence happens to seven people.

Let's focus a little though. How was the "nano thermate/thermite" that you say was used in WTC1 made fireproof?

 

[hiper]

Every day is filled to the brim with coincidences.

Maybe with people but not with 110 story skyscrapers Mick.

Let's focus a little though. How was the "nano thermate/thermite" that you say was used in WTC1 made fireproof?

There is a picture of a woman standing in the jet entrance hole in WTC 1 so the flames were obviously not raging.
Most of the core columns on the few impacted floors were undamaged and all the other floors were unaffected.

They knew where the planes would strike so in the impact zone only the core collums would have to be rigged.

 

[George B]

Maybe with people but not with 110 story skyscrapers Mick.




There is a picture of a woman standing in the jet entrance hole in WTC 1 so the flames were obviously not raging.
Most of the core columns on the few impacted floors were undamaged and all the other floors were unaffected.

They knew where the planes would strike so in the impact zone only the core collums would have to be rigged.

Interesting theory . . . would require precision flying I don't think the Hijackers were capable of much less an experienced pilot . . . hit the tower maybe but the exact altitude . . . Hmmmmmm

 

[Cairenn]

Do you have a link to the picture of that women?

What evidence do you have that the support columns were not damaged?

and yes I want to know about the fireproof thermite also.

 

[Jazzy]

There is a picture of a woman standing in the jet entrance hole in WTC 1 so the flames were obviously not raging.

She was standing upwind, in the fire's updraft. The fire was above her and behind her.

Most of the core columns on the few impacted floors were undamaged and all the other floors were unaffected.

That's a laughing-out-loud moment. Shall we count together all those unaffected floors?

And when did they "rig" the bow in the building?

They knew where the planes would strike so in the impact zone only the core collums would have to be rigged.

But WTC2's core columns didn't fail first. Did they know not to "rig" them?

You were never once persuaded that no freshly-trained pilot could possibly strike a tower, obviously, because now you claim that they knew exactly where to position explosives in advance.

A bit of a reach, that, believing that someone was going to be THAT accurate, even though they were going to kill themselves.

Or was the plane a precision-guided seventy-ton guided missile, carrying ten tons of fuel and four tons of human flesh?

 

[jomper]

And you, of course, are a paragon of accepting logic.

Quote back to me the illogical remarks I've made you'd like to discuss.

In the meantime, I think Jazzy is still trying to work out what argumentum ad metum even means. He's continuing to blindly attempt it.

 

[jomper]

It's ironic that people can misuse such information, gathered as it is by a subtle aspect of scientific engineering research.

While you're puzzling over the argumentum ad metum fallacy you're so committed to, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate you do at least have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method by explaining the basic principle of falsifiability and its importance in eradicating the kind of confirmation bias evidenced by Mick's outstanding example.

 

[Jazzy]

While you're puzzling over the argumentum ad metum fallacy you're so committed to, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate you do at least have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method by explaining the basic principle of falsifiability and its importance in eradicating the kind of confirmation bias evidenced by Mick's outstanding example.

You didn't answer, among others, my post 256.

I always find that opponents bring their means of defeat to the table. Or in this case the conspicuous absence of their means of defeat. Which is, in your case, the heat-protected silent nanothermite.

In spite of repeated requests for you to explain how that might have worked, you don't reply. Your non-reply falsifies your stipulation.

With that out of the way as a consideration, then Mick's "outstanding example" is indeed what remains. And what do you know, it needs no "confirmation bias".

Furthermore, the publishing of the root data to the simulation isn't necessary, and if the scientist claims there's a security risk to its publication to the public, I BELIEVE THEM. They have already produced a helpful masterpiece of a report.

You I find quite impossible to believe. You selectively forget to answer questions in the fond hope of driving home points which are in fact concealed by your own activities.

I'd sooner buy snake oil from a fairground barker.

 

[hiper]

Interesting theory . . . would require precision flying I don't think the Hijackers
were capable of much less an experienced pilot . . . hit the tower maybe but the exact altitude . . . Hmmmmmm

The planes were flown by remote control. The exact floor they wanted to hit was of course at a fixed altitude above sea level
so flying that exact altitude would be a piece of cake.. just dial in a number on the keyboard really.

They already flew remote controlled planes half a century before 9/11.
The nuclear tests of operation greenhouse in 1951 on Enewetak Atoll already used drone airplanes for dust sampling.

"An important experimental program at GREENHOUSE was the use of unmanned, radio-controlled
drone aircraft for cloud sampling. Eight B-17 drones were flown close to the detonation to measure
blast and thermal effects and then into the nuclear cloud to collect radioactive samples."

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/factsheets/Greenhouse.pdf

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26802-qb-17-b-17-drone-photos-and-film/

This is a boeing B-17 drone at Eniwetok few years earlier in 1948.

Do you have a link to the picture of that women?

Here is the raging inferno that you guys need to 'soften' the steel needed for your disintegrate by fire theory.

What evidence do you have that the support columns were not damaged?

Nobody has that evidence.

and yes I want to know about the fireproof thermite also.

The entire building was rigged maybe a few core columns at the impact zone were affected.
Even if the core columns were damaged to assume that the top of the building falls straight through the unaffected and massive lower parts
of the building is absurd.

This is what you guys are confident in defending :

 

[George B]

The planes were flown by remote control. The exact floor they wanted to hit was of course at a fixed altitude above sea level
so flying that exact altitude would be a piece of cake.. just dial in a number on the keyboard really.

They already flew remote controlled planes half a century before 9/11.
The nuclear tests of operation greenhouse in 1951 on Enewetak Atoll already used drone airplanes for dust sampling.

"An important experimental program at GREENHOUSE was the use of unmanned, radio-controlled
drone aircraft for cloud sampling. Eight B-17 drones were flown close to the detonation to measure
blast and thermal effects and then into the nuclear cloud to collect radioactive samples."

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/factsheets/Greenhouse.pdf

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26802-qb-17-b-17-drone-photos-and-film/

This is a boeing B-17 drone at Eniwetok few years earlier in 1948.






Here is the raging inferno that you guys need to 'soften' the steel needed for your disintegrate by fire theory.





Nobody has that evidence.



The entire building was rigged maybe a few core columns at the impact zone were affected.
Even if the core columns were damaged to assume that the top of the building falls straight through the unaffected and massive lower parts
of the building is absurd.

This is what you guys are confident in defending :

Hmmm . . . I have speculated myself about a remotely piloted final approach to the towers and Pentagon . . . I did not rule it out as a possibility. . .

 

[Jazzy]

The planes were flown by remote control. The exact floor they wanted to hit was of course at a fixed altitude above sea level
so flying that exact altitude would be a piece of cake.. just dial in a number on the keyboard really.

But they hit at different levels?

They already flew remote controlled planes half a century before

They did indeed.

Here is the raging inferno that you guys need to 'soften' the steel needed for your disintegrate by fire theory.

I would rather pick this picture, because it catches two of your lies at once:

Nobody has that evidence.

but what we DO know is that the planes struck with an impact energy equivalent to one and a half tons of TNT. (Actually I remember photos showing broken vertical columns). Here a ton of ANFO to compare:

[video=youtube_share;saU3ftuG7CQ]http://youtu.be/saU3ftuG7CQ[/video]

There is an important proviso to the energy equivalence: the explosive radiates its energy in all directions, but impact energy is concentrated at the point of impact.

The entire building was rigged maybe a few core columns at the impact zone were affected.

Was this with Jomper's silent heatproof nanothermate?

Even if the core columns were damaged to assume that the top of the building falls straight through the unaffected and massive lower parts of the building is absurd.

Why do you think it's an assumption? If the buildings were already leaning, then how could they NOT fall through the building beneath them? Were they going to straighten themselves to the vertical before they fell?

This is what you guys are confident in defending

Yes we are. For this you need a building ladder and a brick. Sit on the ground and rest the brick on your head, for comparison. Then get a friend (I'll do it if you like) to climb the ladder and drop the brick onto your head from a height of twelve feet above.

Did it feel heavier to you?

 

[F4Jock]

I have a general comment to make here about unintended (?) consequences. I've been closely following the Boston Marathon bombings. An interesting development has been reported re comments made by the (alleged) perpetrators' mother. In effect she stated that her oldest son believed that the WTC was staged by the US government to get Americans to hate Muslims. He was apparently the leader of the two brothers and the instigator of the plot.

It is one thing to voice theories that run counter to accepted explanations. It is another thing when those theories, unproven and unsupported by any but the most improbable chain of circumstances, might support and augment the beliefs of those who would actually use them to justify the murder of US citizens.

I refuse to be a party to such possibilities. I don't care what the 9/11 truthers believe but when it can be shown that their beliefs may have contributed to the zealotry of mass murderers I draw the line. I have seen two instances of utter and blind stupidity this week; the Marathon bombings and intransigence and apparent hatred of the government shown by the 9/11 truthers posting herein. Both represent zealotry that transcends the free exchange of differing ideas, either in a Mosque or on a forum, and have seemingly devolved into something far more sinister. While I can do nothing about the ideas expressed in the former I do not have to contribute to the circular stupidity that seems to delight the latter.

In my opinion this thread no longer serves any useful purpose. What the rest of you who are posting here do is up to you but I am out of any further discussions that involve these particular persons as it is more than obvious that they have no intention of participating in a rational exchange of ideas. All this debate now serves to do is provide a forum for their foolishness and this attention is obviously what they want and love!

I have actually seen people killed as a result of stupidity, lies and intransigence. I'll not be a part of perpetuating the atmosphere that further supports it.

 

[George B]

I have a general comment to make here about unintended (?) consequences. I've been closely following the Boston Marathon bombings. An interesting development has been reported re comments made by the (alleged) perpetrators' mother. In effect she stated that her oldest son believed that the WTC was staged by the US government to get Americans to hate Muslims. He was apparently the leader of the two brothers and the instigator of the plot.

It is one thing to voice theories that run counter to accepted explanations. It is another thing when those theories, unproven and unsupported by any but the most improbable chain of circumstances, might support and augment the beliefs of those who would actually use them to justify the murder of US citizens.

I refuse to be a party to such possibilities. I don't care what the 9/11 truthers believe but when it can be shown that their beliefs may have contributed to the zealotry of mass murderers I draw the line. I have seen two instances of utter and blind stupidity this week; the Marathon bombings and intransigence and apparent hatred of the government shown by the 9/11 truthers posting herein. Both represent zealotry that transcends the free exchange of differing ideas, either in a Mosque or on a forum, and have seemingly devolved into something far more sinister. While I can do nothing about the ideas expressed in the former I do not have to contribute to the circular stupidity that seems to delight the latter.

In my opinion this thread no longer serves any useful purpose. What the rest of you who are posting here do is up to you but I am out of any further discussions that involve these particular persons as it is more than obvious that they have no intention of participating in a rational exchange of ideas. All this debate now serves to do is provide a forum for their foolishness and this attention is obviously what they want and love!

I have actually seen people killed as a result of stupidity, lies and intransigence. I'll not be a part of perpetuating the atmosphere that further supports it.

I rather see a Forum tackling very difficult issues and discussions and exchange of ideas I see no where else . . . one has to break eggs to make an omelet . . .

 

[Jazzy]

You guys should watch this if you have the time or bandwidth - I haven't myself so I don't know how thorough it is - good premise though
​

It's what "turned" Charlie Veitch (on the left in the image). Old stuff.

Great post, F4Jock, but I go with George. These people go with this issue whether or not there is a thread here. At least here these people may by accident begin to think, and others as yet undecided can see arguments against.

Marshaling arguments and looking up things are also good general-purpose activities. Chin up...

 

[jomper]

heat-protected silent nanothermite

Was this with Jomper's silent heatproof nanothermate?

Jazzy, this is burden-shifting of such transparency it is truly beneath contempt. Quote back one reference to "nanothermate" I have made in this thread among the many ways I have indicated that the NIST report failed against the standard of the scientific method, or accept that you have nothing but misrepresentation, arrogance and logical fallacies to offer beneath your pseudo-scientific bluster.

You didn't answer, among others, my post 256.

Your post 256? You're so used to setting up straw man arguments you can't even identify your own questions with any accuracy.

 

[hiper]

Your position is unsupportable but if you have nothing better to do than cling to it be my guest. I'm out of this thread. I'll not provide any further excuses for you to showcase ignorance.

I have actually seen people killed as a result of stupidity, lies and intransigence. I'll not be a part of perpetuating the atmosphere that further supports it.

That's the second time you are out of this thread. Why don't you stick around.

A bit of a reach, that, believing that someone was going to be THAT accurate, even though they were going to kill themselves.

Again the planes we controlled remotely.

but what we DO know is that the planes struck with an impact energy equivalent to one and a half tons of TNT.

Maybe the planes did damage the core columns but to fall straight through the massive
structure below... all of a sudden elemental physics does not apply anymore.
And I remember you saying you were a science scholar.

Why do you think that structure was able to stand there for 30 years?
You defending the theory that the top section could fall through the massive core structure below it is with all due respect just asinine.
Sorry I can't think of another word.

 

[Jazzy]

Jazzy, this is burden-shifting of such transparency it is truly beneath contempt.

The "burden-shifting" is yours. You never adopted your burden, preferring instead to skate about it. The burden being evidence of unnatural cause, which you have yet to supply.

I have indicated that the NIST report failed against the standard of the scientific method

NIST decided there was no evidence of unnatural cause. This was probably because there wasn't any evidence of unnatural cause. IMO there certainly wasn't.

If you were to supply this evidence, it would be evidence of some sort of fireproof thermite, because there's no evidence of explosions other than fire-caused.

You're so used to setting up straw man arguments you can't even identify your own questions with any accuracy.

Engineering and logic are straw men to you. Try 526.

 

[jomper]

The "burden-shifting" is yours.

Show me the reference I made to what you call

Jomper's silent heatproof nanothermate

or accept that you're a blustering, arrogant pseudo-scientist who has been indulging in blatant misrepresentation.

Once you've acknowledged that, we can proceed.

 

[Jazzy]

Maybe the planes did damage the core columns but to fall straight through the massive structure below. All of a sudden elemental physics does not apply anymore. And I remember you saying you were a science scholar. Why do you think that structure was able to stand there for 30 years?
You defending the theory that the top section could fall through the massive core structure below it is with all due respect just asinine. Sorry I can't think of another word.

Very sweet-sounding but the mirror reflects someone arguing from incredulity.

Can the structure, incredibly tough as it is, resist 500,000 tons of steel falling on it at 120 mph?

The answer is that even if it were 500,000 tons of blancmange that fell upon it, it would have been squelched into the same twisted mess. There was 95 tons of TNT equivalent in that release of potential energy. That is why you might have seen some incredibly damaged large beams and columns. The LOWER the collapse was, the faster it became, and the HIGHER the energies it was able to release upon whatever it met. The larger the items were, the worse their treatment became, as transferred energies increased as the square of the speed. The thin columns and beams at the top were damaged far less severely. The fat columns and beams at the base were built proportionately larger, but in a linear proportion rather than the exponential proportion which would have been required to resist dynamic impact from above. That's as far as I can go without deploying some maths.

The reason I was trained as an engineer was that science and engineering are NOT "commonsense". They ARE outside normal experience. Even "elemental" physics.

I am pretty used to bossy people telling me a whole load of bollocks, believing what they say to be sensible. They seem to believe I should fix their plumbing or something.

Are you one of those? LOL.

Re-evaluate your concept of a hammer. How heavy is it? How much force can it apply?

You too should try the brick test. Post 560.

Jomper, you never mentioned your silent heatproof thermate, but it was the elephant in your room. Have you tried the brick test yet?