The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isnt it possible they ve used explosives for the concrete before while the first hours of this attack and later did the rest with thermite to the steel?

There is the word "possible", and the word "plausible"...in answer to this query, it is extremely implausible that this was in any part of reality.
 
Any theory of the fall of WTC 7 must account for the first visual evidence of the collapse, the fall of the east penthouse. Somehow, some way, the structure underneath the penthouse collapsed first.

The problem for advocates of demolition is that columns 79, 80, and 81, which supported the penthouse, were in the middle of open office space, like an old-fashioned steel gridwork skyscraper, not a modern tube-style. We've all seen the iconic column 79 photo in an unfinished floor, but here
is a photo of the Salomon Bros. trading floor, showing its size and how it was visible to all.

Conspiracists must explain how it could have been rigged for demolition without anyone noticing, or suggest another method of bring down the penthouse first by other means. If they wish, they can claim the demolition charges were planted after the building was evacuated on 9-11, but that still leaves them with explaining the brief period of freefall of the North Facade, without merely paralleling NIST's explanation, and explaining how the conspirators knew the building would catch fire in the pattern that it did, and not damage the demolition charges and their initiation mechanism.
 
Isnt it possible they ve used explosives for the concrete before while the first hours of this attack and later did the rest with thermite to the steel? in the first hours it was reportet ppl heard explosions, aswell the black guy , forgot his name, was last eyewittness in that building and said if i am correct.
it still sounds like clutching at straws to keep a floundering theory alive.
Definitely at least some of the "explosion" reports have been accounted for by transformers, gas bottles etc exploding, plus simply things crashing into other things. Elevators crashing into basements and planes crashing into buildings might have sounded like explosions. Certainly NO explosions were reported that were loud enough to be consistent with STANDARD Controlled demo explosions that you might use on concrete.

Plus, you still have to have explosives attached at EXACTLY the height the plane is going to hit. What's worse, is that in your scenario, not only do the TNT type explosives have to survive the impact and the fires, but the thermite charges have to survive the impact, the fires AND the TNT type explosives.
 
guy , forgot his name, was last eyewittness in that building and said if i am correct.
Jennings. He was with another, Hess. While Jennings says there was an explosion in the stairwell , his account does not make sense in many ways. Hess in fact says there was no explosion.

Nor were they the last in the building and no one else reported this supposed explosion which Jennings says occurred before either tower fell.
If he were correct in that timing there were dozens of people a few floors below them. No one else heard it.

In fact Jennings account fits well in having this event be the result of WTC1 collapsing onto WTC7
 
Last edited:
Jennings says the explosion occured to them in the stairwell on the sixth floor before either tower came down.
At the time just before the south tower came down there were still people on the third floor lobby.
 
The topic here is the plausibility of destroying WTC7 with explosives, not the NIST explanation of the collapse. Please stay on topic.
 
Jennings. He was with another, Hess. While Jennings says there was an explosion in the stairwell , his account does not make sense in many ways. Hess in fact says there was no explosion.

Nor were they the last in the building and no one else reported this supposed explosion which Jennings says occurred before either tower fell.
If he were correct in that timing there were dozens of people a few floors below them. No one else heard it.

In fact Jennings account fits well in having this event be the result of WTC1 collapsing onto WTC7

NIST says Jennings took 29 minutes to descend 17 floors, from F23 to F6. They say he was on F23 at 9:59 when WTC2 collapsed and he reached F6 at 10:28 when WTC1 collapsed. This is silly. Jennings himself said he was leaping from landing to landing, so how could it take him that long? Jennings himself said he saw the firemen run away twice while he was calling for help from the north face windows. How could he see this if he was in the stairwell during both events?

Jennings said he arrived at WTC7 before 9:03. Your account makes his stay in the OEM run over 45 minutes before he decides to leave, after receiving a phone call to get out.

Hess said on 9/11 in the Frank Uciardo UPN audio interview shortly after being freed that there were explosions. He reversed himself in a later video interview.
 
The topic here is the plausibility of destroying WTC7 with explosives, not the NIST explanation of the collapse. Please stay on topic.

The topic here is the plausibility of destroying WTC7 with explosives, not the NIST explanation of the collapse. Please stay on topic.

The plausible scenario is that eight floors of WTC7 were destroyed and that was enough to make WTC7 behave as we see in the videos.

F7 through F14 inner core columns could have been rigged. When they went, they pulled in the exterior columns and the building dropped like a stone. We can't know exactly how this was done.

Just like NIST can't know what happened inside with their ridiculous C79 girder A2001 fantasy causing the entire interior floor system to gut itself WITHOUT any exterior deformations being seen, we cannot know the details of how the core was rigged. It is, however, plausible.

Someone posted a photo of a trading floor without a source. It shows a double height floor and a single column. So what? This assumes some relationship to C79 because it was out in the open. WTC7 exhibits evidence of being destroyed by the inner core failure. The East Penthouse collapse is the NIST single column, runaway progressive collapse theory. It is unsupported--if you consider the logic I offered.
 
Someone posted a photo of a trading floor without a source. It shows a double height floor and a single column. So what? This assumes some relationship to C79 because it was out in the open.

That would be me. I posted it to show how a finished floor in WTC 7 looked, with column 79 in the middle of work space, rather than the usual photo of column 79 in an unfinished floor:

The photo of the Salomon Bros. trading floor is carefully composed, and columns 80 and 81 can’t be seen since they’re behind 79. You can verify that the column in the picture is 79 by noting the passageway in the lower right of the picture. That puts the location as looking south from inside the building, and the column as #79. So you still have the problem of explaining how columns in the middle of open work space could have been rigged with demolition charges without anyone noticing.

I’m not sure what you’re implying with “without a source”. Are you saying the photo might be faked? My source is the premiere Truther tool, Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC...WTC+7+Salomon+Brothers.+Trading+floor&spell=1

The plausible scenario is that eight floors of WTC7 were destroyed and that was enough to make WTC7 behave as we see in the videos.

F7 through F14 inner core columns could have been rigged. When they went, they pulled in the exterior columns and the building dropped like a stone. We can't know exactly how this was done.

Please explain how that would cause the East Penthouse to fall some 6 seconds before the north façade. Delayed gravity?

Just like NIST can't know what happened inside with their ridiculous C79 girder A2001 fantasy causing the entire interior floor system to gut itself WITHOUT any exterior deformations being seen, we cannot know the details of how the core was rigged. It is, however, plausible.

Look again. There are obvious deformations before the collapse of the north façade, notably the “kink” just beforehand.
 
F7 through F14 inner core columns could have been rigged.

How? When? Not to seem argumentative, but this claim has existed for well over a decade now....and never been substantiated in any
way. Meaning, there would certainly be someone, somewhere who was "involved" in such "rigging" who would have come forward by
now, at the very least anonomously.

Also, by "rigged" if the inference is some sort of explosive charges, then the fact remains that there would have been sounds of those
explosions. No such sounds were recorded. And there were multiple audio/visual recording devices that captured the event.
 
NIST says Jennings took 29 minutes to descend 17 floors, from F23 to F6. They say he was on F23 at 9:59 when WTC2 collapsed and he reached F6 at 10:28 when WTC1 collapsed. This is silly.
First there is little to deduce that they started down the moment WTC2 collapsed so 29 minutes is the absolute worst case. Using that is well , silly. Second neither Jennings nor Hess was in great shape or young men. Jennings complained about knee or hip pain. Not likely they continued leaping down the stairs for long.
Jennings himself said he saw the firemen run away twice while he was calling for help from the north face windows. How could he see this if he was in the stairwell during both events?
He deduces collapses by FFs leaving the area. No mention of the huge dust cloud enveloping the streets and obscuring his view, plunging them into midnight darkness. Furthermore only five floors below on the third floor lobby the windows broke and filled that floor with so much dust it made life a living hell for the few people who were there. None of whom report an explosion some time earlier when supposedly, a explosion tore apart the stairwell. In fact at that supposed time , the lobby was full of people, some using that exact stairwell to exit the building.
How odd that only Jennings reports this explosion. How odd as well that Jennings and Hess did not experience choking dust on the eighth floor when supposedly they were there through both tower collapses. Odd as well that they make no mention of the building shaking violently as WTC1 rubble tears out columns on the south side of the very floor they are on.
In fact the sole anecdote that either man relates that includes the building shaking , going dark, and filling with dust is the event they experienced in the stairwell. That stairwell is only a couple dozen felt from the SW corner of the building, which was ripped out by WTC 1 rubble.

Jennings said he arrived at WTC7 before 9:03.
When they got there only a few security people were there. When WTC 2 was hit by the aircraft , the WTC7 lobby was crowded with people. After that impact evacuation went into full effect. They , Jenning & Hess, arrived more likely around 9:20- 9:30.
Then they went up found the OEM locked went back down and then went up again.
 
Last edited:
The plausible scenario is that eight floors of WTC7 were destroyed and that was enough to make WTC7 behave as we see in the videos.
The lower eight floors? At what point were these explosives set off? I assume you would have this eight floor demolition explaining the approx eight floor free fall period in collapse. Thus it follows that these explosives were set off after the entire facade had already been moving for almost 2 seconds. That is some serious overkill since by that time the entire structure is doomed. It doesn't even help steer the debris to the south over WTC6 since the removal of the SW corner and other southern columns already were pulling the structure that way. Removing north facade columns would have acted against that. Not like there was any need to keep rubble off of WTC 6, it was already a total loss.
In fact WTC7 was doomed when the kink develops from roof to lower visible floor. At that point you now have severely compromised north face and interior at that line as well as loss of 20 floors of the SW corner and a few other lower columns of the south face.

F7 through F14 inner core columns could have been rigged. When they went, they pulled in the exterior columns and the building dropped like a stone. We can't know exactly how this was done.
Or those columns suffered from the progressive collapse outlined by NIST, the consequence of massive amounts of rubble falling onto TT1 destroying the east end of the core.

Rigged with what? Explosives fast enough to be timed to take these all out within even a half second of each other must be high explosives producing a supersonic blast wave. That is LOUD. Nothing of that type of LOUD was recorded by any device.
Therm?te of any flavour will not suffice in the time department.
Adding therm?te to explosives simply makes them hotter, it does nothing to reduce the blast wave or loudness.

Rigged when? In the days , weeks, months prior to this event , or between the collapse of WTC1 and the demise of WTC7. Each begs different questions that simply must be addressed before a determination if plausibility can be promoted.

Yes, NIST did not have cameras rolling inside WTC7 and thus cannot know exactly what went on. Instead they ran computer finite element analyses for various aspects of the building's response. They ran fire spread programs as well. They use all of these to deduce what they term as a most probable hypotheses.

Opposing this is AE911T and their contention of explosivev demolitions. Yet AE911T, and you, throw forth contentions with nary a speck of research to back it up. Its all pure unadulterated conjecture, and leaping to conclusions. Where is the fire spread simulation of similar complexity and cachet as that performed by NIST? Where is the FEA of similar complexity as that done by NIST? Where is the original research into input parameters for such programs?

,,, and wrt a scenario of explosive demolitions versus collapse due to the effects of fire, a logical person notes that fire damage requires only fires and fires were quite obviously present. OTOH demolitions requires the surreptitious loading of high explosives along with some sort of noise abatement installation none of which is in evidence whatsoever let alone obvious.
 
Last edited:
(I would like to add, for the casual reader of this thread...."shortcuts" such as:

"wrt" = 'with regard to'

"OTOH" = 'On the other hand'

OK...."Keep Calm, and Carry On!!"

:D
 
Redwood brings up a point that really begs repeating. Those who promote an explosive demolition often comp!ain of no structural movement prior to 'release' that sees the entire northern facade moving downward , yet this is patently and obviously untrue. Shortly after the in fall of the EPH, a kink in the building develops. This sees the entire height of the structure along that kink to begin moving downwards. It creates a change in the roofline as the roof tilts down towards that kink both east and west of its vertical line.

Such a development is entirely consistent with the loss of interior columns early in the collapse sequence.
However, while those promoting explosive demolition make the claim of no movement prior to global collapse , they consistently completely ignore all matters of collapse prior to that point in time. Many will say the building collapsed in six seconds, some will even claim it fell in 2.25 seconds at free fall. In actuality it took closer to 17 at least and likely took closer to 20 seconds from the time that the first floor failure ocured to the roof trusses bouncing off the rubble.
 
(I would like to add, for the casual reader of this thread...."shortcuts" such as:

"wrt" = 'with regard to'

"OTOH" = 'On the other hand'

OK...."Keep Calm, and Carry On!!"

:D
EPH = east penthouse
FEA = finite element analysis, a widely used engineering tool that allows testing of design without physically building it. Parameters can be adjusted and the program run again and again to test the effect of variations in specific areas.

Therm?te = a generic term to include thermite, thermate and nano-thermite. It arises from the Gish Gallop of 911 truthers in invoking all three. ( look up Gish Gallop in Wikipedia.).
 
Last edited:
Hilarious....as it has not yet been proven to exist!

Still...even "thermite" (??) must be "planted" (somehow) without anyone seeing it being done...and then initiated (somehow) without anyone seeing it being done).
Nanoparticle thermite does exist and burns quicker, more completely, and thus locally hotter than older mixes. It does not perform the feats of fanciful conjecture that some have put forth. For instance a painted on layer of nano-thermite will not melt a significant amount of steel let alone heat it to melting. The physics just t'aint there. Its science fiction, and most certainly has never been demonstrated though it has been put forth as fact.
Adding man of particulate thermite to existing high explosives will increase the heat of the explosion. It may also increase the duration of the pressure wave. It will not make the explosion quieter, nor has such a fanciful physics ever been demonstrated though it has been put forth as fact.

Furthermore, as I said, nano-thermite mixes burn more completely. In addition videos have been produced showing thermite devices being used to cut through columns. However, thermite supposedly is what allowed the rubble fires to burn so hot for so long , and was supposedly found in the dust after the collapses in such concentration as to suggest many unburned tons of it existed after all was said and done. No one has ever bothered to reconcile these various points.
 
Last edited:
The nature of the transfer trusses might lead to their destruction by failing the splices that were used in the panels when they were field assembled. Because the panels were at an angle perhaps once the splices were destroyed the panels would slide... and the truss would fail. It seems conceivable.
 
The nature of the transfer trusses might lead to their destruction by failing the splices that were used in the panels when they were field assembled. Because the panels were at an angle perhaps once the splices were destroyed the panels would slide... and the truss would fail. It seems conceivable.
Yes, that's a maybe, a conjecture that would work. No evidence of those splices having failed, or having failed before collapse, and certainly no evidence of either explosive or incindiary induced failure.
If in fact a small amount of therm?te was used to fail TT1 splices for instance, that would not reconcile with AE911T contention of high concentration of 'unburned" therm?te in the WTC complex dust.
 
Yes, that's a maybe, a conjecture that would work. No evidence of those splices having failed, or having failed before collapse, and certainly no evidence of either explosive or incindiary induced failure.
If in fact a small amount of therm?te was used to fail TT1 splices for instance, that would not reconcile with AE911T contention of high concentration of 'unburned" therm?te in the WTC complex dust.
No evidence or you have not seen or are aware of this evidence? Clearly these transfer trusses broke up at some point. there is evidence of that as they are not lying there in the pile intact. And they DID.... at least some that I've seen... break at their joints.
This sort of "evidence" is much like the meteor of the eutectic corrosion of the steel... evidence is there... but when and what caused this. I have not seen the sort of study of the transfer structures which might analyze how and when and what caused their failure... Have you? If not then you can't say that there is no evidence... only that you are unaware of it if it exists.
I have proposed what to me is a sensible coherent explanation matching the building movements. I can't see inside the building so I can't provide evidence to support this theory. On the other hand NIST's theories are not terribly supported by irrefutable evidence either... lots of assumptions and speculation.
 
NIST most probable hypothesis is bolstered by thevfact the fact that fire was evident in the vicinity of col 79 and that failure of column 79 matches well with observables.
Failure of TT1 also is a decent match to observables BUT there is no evidence of a proximate cause of failure.
There is also no evidence of explosive use concerning WzTC7 as a whole. That would include TT1 or column 79.
Did components of TT1 break, yeah, probably. Did they preceed the fall of the EPH? Maybe but there is no evidence of any reason for that to occur.
I've told you before that your hypothesis is compelling except that there is direct evidence of a proximate cause of a col 79 failure while there isn't for a TT1 failure led collapse.

My point wrt therm?te is that AE911T's evidence for it is the supposed finding of it being a significant component of the WTC dust. That does not reconcile with this being a small amount used to fail key components such as TT1, nor the use of therm?te burn directing devices or nanothermite. Instead, if true, it would point to extremely large quantities of therm?te that left a huge quantity of it unburned in the rubble. Furthermore the contention is that this leftover therm?te also allowed the extended hot rubble fire to exist, increasing the supposed amount of 'leftovers'.
 
I don't know the amount of energy to fail a truss connection in the form of heat of course. I suspect it is a lot less than failing the truss from heat expansion. I would certainly be interested to learn about that. And it can probably be modeled as an FEA or a real world experiment. But what it might be is a straw which broke the camel's back. Whereas everyone is looking for these huge massive fires... that may not be what was required. Maybe.
 
I don't know the amount of energy to fail a truss connection in the form of heat of course. I suspect it is a lot less than failing the truss from heat expansion. I would certainly be interested to learn about that. And it can probably be modeled as an FEA or a real world experiment. But what it might be is a straw which broke the camel's back. Whereas everyone is looking for these huge massive fires... that may not be what was required. Maybe.
Probably would not require a huge amount of heat to raise the temp of those smaller components of TT1. Still going to have to be a significantly large fire, a flipped cigarette is out of the question.
 
The amount of heat coming from a gas hob on a stove can be pretty destructive if left on for 7 hrs... probably melt the pot! The point is that the connection is a small area and does not necessarily require a huge amount of heat.. Maybe.
 
Now all that's needed is some mechanism by which a small but long lived heat source can be close enough to components of TT1
AND
an explanation of how it got there.
Someone leave a soldering propane torch pointed at a bolt?

You have proposed a desiel fuel fire affecting TT1 but that's hardly a small, proximate ( in the same way a pot on a stove element is proximate) heat source. There was no evidence found to support this and both FEMA and NIST specifically looked for it.
 
I have a German made diesel fired heater. It has a glow plug which ignites the diesel fuel. There is no reason why a small jet could not be ignited and burn as it does in my heater.... which of course has the temperature controlled by the return air which is heated to warm the cabin.

As I said Cantor thought this a possibility. I think he would know more about it than I could ever. FEMA suspected load transfer failure and they must of had a reason to as well.

Frankly I don't believe that the diesel was all recovered. That seems like a bold face lie. And why make it?
 
NIST says, iirc, not all desiel was recovered so hardly a lie.
Yes a TT1 failure would result in a very similar collapse.
I am pretty sure though that you understand my above posts concerning why I cannot support it as more probable than col 79 failure.
 
You can do whatever you want... Column 79 is not a probable cause... and the evidence supporting this was made up out of whole cloth. Obviously their recovery statement gets them off the hook.... because there is no start value of how much was in storage and how much was consumed by the emergency generators... It may not be a literal lie... but it does pass my sniff test.
 
I think you're reading into it what you want to see.

At any rate, was WTC7 , or #1 & #2 brought down deliberately by something other than direct/indirect consequence of two airliners being crashed?
IMNSHO, no!

Is it plausible that any of them were?
No, again IMO

Could it be done?
In an extremely far fetched scenario of supreme secrecy years of planning and testing a forehand, maybe. But the same applies to a lot of fiction. Jack Ryan springs to mind.
 
Last edited:
That's not the point... The point is to explain how heat finished off these structures. NIST failed to convince me in all three cases....
 
I don't think the NIST tried to show how heat "finished off these structures" - IMO it showed how heat started the collapse or allowed it to happen - gravity "finished it off"
 
In fact the point of the thread is plausibility. I have already stated, several times on several forums, that Jeffrey's scenario would be plausible if there was anything at all to suggest a heat source capable of damaging TT1. There isn't, so I cannot say its plausible.
 
got it... if there was no heat it wasn't plausible unless someone took the connections apart... and he have to have a big set of balls to do that!
 
You know exactly what I meant... heat overcame all the reserve strength of the frame... gravity makes things fall.
No, heat overcame the reserve strength of one component which failed and thus initiated a sequence of events in which heat was irrelevant, that saw the entire structure come down.
 
got it... if there was no heat it wasn't plausible unless someone took the connections apart... and he have to have a big set of balls to do that!
Well no more so than a guy crashing a plane into a building. OTOH I think stupidity and delusion would be bigger factors than testicular fortitude.

Then again there's evidence of planes crashing, no evidence of a guy with a big monkey wrench.
 
You know exactly what I meant... heat overcame all the reserve strength of the frame... gravity makes things fall.

No I don't know what unless you say as much - I know what you wrote, and you didn't write that. Don't blame me if you didn't get your idea across clearly.

but thanks for the clarification.

I don't see why you feel that is not the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top