The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please don't read selectively.

I already explained that such 'sparks' are typically jagged edged and not perfectly formed spheres, or slightly pear shaped, depending on how far they fall when cooling. So please dont refer to your 'scraping of sparks ' as being microspheres. Those are microparticles. And such jagged edged 'sparks' are what is normally found in all background dust in an industrial zone, but in a far less concentration.

Also, the very large percentage of microspheres that was identified in the dust are elemental iron, not scraped off steel particles. And elemental iron is impossible to separate out from steel simply by friction.

But elemental iron is a bi-product of a thermetic reaction of course.

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"
Content from External Source
The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
I like what you have posted here, but can you please let me know your source.

The source is Ry Dawson, if you comment on his videos on Youtube he'll probably reply to you.

And the source of his viewpoint mainly seems to be investigative journalism based on FOIA requests and so forth. Given that all we have are comparative theories and the fact that a new theory will probably be needed based on the falsification of some of NIST's crackpot theories and scenarios, I would just note that there may be more evidence on the side of investigative journalists (That have been brutalized and censored.) than on the side of those that apparently didn't follow standard procedures or test and investigate for explosives at all (NIST, between breaks for donuts... I'd imagine.).

If WTC 7 did collapse due to office fires, they didn't run an actual investigation that would have wound up showing that while falsifying theories about explosives and so forth. So they're responsible for wasting a lot of time and so forth if their theory is actually true. I can see why some people would think that collapse by fire could, conceivably, be the case... mainly based on simulations and imagining things. But it has been pointed out from the beginning, that's not a real investigation based on evidence or even standard operating procedure. So if that actually is the case and "collapse by fire" is the most plausible theory or scenario, then NIST has done everyone a huge disservice.. created a lot of acrimony in the meantime... and generally just wasted everyone's time, money and energy.

On the topic of plausibility, none of the alternative theories matched my worldview originally. (And that's usually what people are really talking about there.) So it took me a while to even consider that it could be true. And even if it is true there are still Jihadis in the world, so I can see why some people would tend to go with the principle of throwing some dust in your own eyes as an excuse to gouge out the eyes of your opponents before they kill you. Especially given the fact that whether it's gay Tel Aviv or Honey Boo Boo and Beyonce's America, what this looks like to hard men incorporated into the military industrial complex is that their own people simply don't know what it takes to protect their happy and gay forms of civilization from Jihadis.

But in the end the philosophy of false flag attacks and preemptive war based trying to find WMDs in everyone's underpants isn't even an eye for an eye, though. So although the Jihadis are some crazy bastards, I'm not sure I can agree on the methods that "democracies" seem to tend to use against them anymore. If you're going to kill them, just do or openly advocate that based on a "clash of civilizations" or whatever view. Don't kill some of us peasants as your justification or try to justify war and calamity by imagining that you're preventing an even bigger imaginary calamity. I could be wrong. (Used to be a neocon... always thought there might be something wrong. Maybe there's something wrong with most truthers too. From some perspectives we're all too naive with our ideas about being against false flags, preemptive wars and so forth... no doubt.)

The only trouble I have is the covertness of the operation even if, for some indeterminable reason, the President's brother had a moving company and it happened to be in the towers and building 7. How did they strip the building and rig it with explosives without anyone seeing them at work.

Another investigative journalist notes:
As the application of the super-thermite must have occurred during the months prior to 9-11, I have used FOIA and other means to try to find who could have been doing such work in the towers during 2000-2001. There was one significant clue at the very beginning. Two days after 9-11, Engineering News-Record (ENR) reported that an asbestos abatement and demolition company called LVI had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the World Trade Center ....
LVI was immediately a suspect because it does a great deal of pre-demolition work in which it prepares buildings for demolition. LVI has done several large demolition jobs with Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Maryland.

I called LVI and spoke with Burton T. Fried, the founder and CEO of the company, and asked him if his company had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the twin towers as reported in ENR. He immediately denied that his company had done the work saying that another company called AASI had, but he added that they had gone out of business. (NB -- One of the branch offices of LVI is named ASI.) ....
I then contacted the authors of the original ENR article to see what they had based their statement on. Debra Rubin, one of the authors, confirmed the information in the article and told me that LVI, i.e. the company itself, had been the source of the information. This is quite interesting because ENR and LVI clearly have an on-going relationship in which any substantial error, especially of such importance, would be corrected. ENR's report is, after all, on the record that LVI did extensive asbestos abatement work in the now demolished twin towers. This is certainly a very significant error that would have to be corrected -- if it were false.

Although Fried denied to me that his company had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the twin towers, he has not demanded a correction or retraction from the engineering magazine, a journal of record in the engineering industry. Furthermore, LVI has continued to do work at Ground Zero, where it has been involved recently in the pre-demolition clean-up of the Deutsche Bank building at the south end of the site. Link
Content from External Source
There is no singular theory: "Some Israelis with such and such, due to this access." There again, the overall view of "collapse by fire" doesn't rest on a singular theory either. Instead it goes something like this "multiple failures... due to fire." Given that, apparently I can propose multiple ways that explosives were possibly planted based on imaginary scenarios. Plausibility is comparative at this point, seems to me.
How many men [or Israelis] would they require for this sort of work, how long would it take? It is a very complicated theory to pursue no matter how intriguing.

Most wouldn't have to know much about it or necessarily be Israelis either:
The record clearly indicates that LVI is a company that has a long-standing practice of exploiting illegal aliens in very dangerous working conditions. These illegal practices don't seem to prevent the company from getting multi-million dollar federal contracts with the U.S. government and military. The demolition company has some very unusual "research and development" contracts with the U.S. military, such as the multi-million dollar R&D contract with the U.S. Army in 2000. What kind of R&D does a private demolition company do for the U.S. Army?
Content from External Source
Perhaps it is complicated. But I'm not sure that NIST's simulation of an investigation is actually all that simple either, given all the unprecedented events they wound up speculating about and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Urban Moving Systems has been covered 14 other times on MB. Old news.

Along with all the spy rings and so forth? That sounds like a talking point in the corporate media about their coverage of events and the "investigative journalism" by which they had the case basically solved the day after the attacks. (After Ehud Barak told everyone who to blame and how to begin a "war on terror" because he happened to be on the BBC, etc. )

Be more specific. It's been "covered." I know, I've been involved in covering it because it seems like no one else will. I could be wrong. But as I recall, all I got from the "coverage" was that when a dog says that explosives have been stored in a moving van, people don't necessarily treat that as evidence for a different theory if they like unfalsifiable theories and fancy simulations involving unprecedented events too much.

So it's at that point that one begins wondering what would be evidence that they would perceive as a verification of a theory or the possible falsification of another theory. Because the standard of evidence for some of their own theories doesn't seem to be as high. (If only a dog could tell if shear studs were or were not used "according to the drawing," huh?)

I'll go with the dog ultimately revealing the work of the metaphoric Wizard of Oz/Gold. It's more likely than people doing so.

But apparently the perceptions of other people as to what evidence is or how a theory can be specified and therefore verified/falsified based on actual evidence and not unfalsifiable simulations based on imaginary events.... varies.

Again I would note that everyone could be spared a lot of trouble if NIST framed things in falsifiable/verifiable terms and ran an actual investigation based on standard operating procedures instead of beginning to try to run simulations to generate "plausible explanations" based on video evidence instead. Because that begins to look more like explaining the evidence away than generating a theory based on it. (And then we're back to all the acrimony and wasted time, especially if WTC 7 actually did "collapse due to office fires." That would be ironic.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can propose multiple ways that explosives were possibly planted based on imaginary scenarios.
In how many different ways did the explosives not blow up when exposed to 600 deg C? Sorry, 300 deg C? Oh, they knew in advance WTC7 was going to catch fire? How? And don't office fires reach 1,100 deg C in places?

I will never be able to understand this mindset. I can only see multiple ways "controlled demolition" during a "fully-involved" fire would fail to work.
 
@Jazzy

Perhaps the explosives were planted on a floor that was not on fire. Then when fires got too close to that floor the explosives were detonated? (Hypothetically of course:))
 
@Jazzy

Perhaps the explosives were planted on a floor that was not on fire. Then when fires got too close to that floor the explosives were detonated? (Hypothetically of course:))

There are many hypothetical theories. The one with most traction was that #7 was intended to come down by CD hidden under the cloud of #1 falling down. But something went wrong and it had to be done 5 hrs later when the glitch was repaired. That wouldnt have any conflict over explosives being affected by fires as there were no fires before #1 dropped.
 
That is pure nonsense. So an undamaged building just 'happens' to collapse when another building collapsed.

No conflict over explosives 'not affected by fires', when in reality WTC 7 endured many fires. They should have set off the 'unprotected explosives'.

Nope, that 'dog won't hunt'.
 
@Jazzy

Perhaps the explosives were planted on a floor that was not on fire. Then when fires got too close to that floor the explosives were detonated? (Hypothetically of course:))

Then where was the sound of the explosions? From the NIST FAQs:

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Content from External Source
Taken from here as the NIST site is down due to the shut down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think clearly to be plausible, the explosives have to be quiet. Hence the hypothetical nano-thermite.

The question is HOW you'd rig the building with this silent super explosive. Some suggest it was painted on, hence the red/gray chips. But can you actually destroy 2" of steel with 0.005" of nano thermite?
 
If it is more energetic than plain thermite it is going to be noisier than plain thermite. The video demonstrating the cutting of columns using thermite was noisy enough.
 
Here is a plausible way to relatively quietly demolish WTC7 (or any other skyscraper:eek:).

By the theory of gravitational collapse it is sufficient to initiate the collapse of a single floor (provided there are enough levels above it). The weight of the floors above combined with the kinetic energy of their fall is too much for the next level to withstand, and it too collapses, and so on recursively. There is a very high probability (probably >0.8) that the building falls down rapidly and non-chaotically.

So only one floor is required. Obtaining a whole floor to oneself appears plausible given the low occupancy of the old WTC buildings. It would be particularly easy if you owned the buildings (or if you were a very rich well politically connected family like the Saudi Arabian Bin Ladens).

I would then make thermate and the beam cutting devices as described and demonstrated in this video provided by @gerrycan



These are placed into the beams and girders. While, according to the NIST report, all that would be required is to cut one (number 79 say) or even just walk it off it's plate, I would suggest laying a few more.

In fact, I would just cut the bolts using the bolt cutting device in the video.

The reason I would take this approach is that (as demonstrated in the video)
  1. relatively little noise is generated by these devices (listen to the bolt cutter in the video), and
  2. very little thermate is required.

Then detonate the devices and the building collapses.

Is there an the issue of fires accidentally setting off these devices?
  • Well wouldn't the devices detonate and cut the bolts and the building fall down anyway?
  • If not, be sure to detonate before the fires reach the device.
 
I cannot really disagree with that, but there is still the question of noise.

There is no start noise to a buckling structure. Buckling begins quite silently, and there is no sign of noise in the collapse videos at that point in time which must have been the start of collapse.

If those charges were really silenced, then it's possible that one couldn't tell the difference. But silencing normally used in CDs is very bulky and very visible.
 
Then where was the sound of the explosions? From the NIST FAQs:

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Content from External Source
Taken from here as the NIST site is down due to the shut down.
I would have thought that every 3 or 6dB would double the volume. Also, I think NIST are talking about RDX here which is one of the loudest of the lot. Important to remember that thermitic material of the nature discussed in the Harrit paper is advanced stuff and the rate of reaction can be tuned from incendiary to high explosive to suit, so it would be the perfect candidate for the job. Obviously an incendiary isn't doing the kind of pressure/volume work that a high explosive does, so is relatively quiet, as can be seen in the video. Also, hard to imagine how you could train a dog to sniff for it.
Here's Kevin Ryan demonstrating the principles of design and manufacture of such materials, note though, that these materials would be virtually impossible to get a hold of at the sub 120nm scale that they were found to exist in the unignighted chips that were found in the dust.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In how many different ways did the explosives not blow up when exposed to 600 deg C? Sorry, 300 deg C?

There were explosions reported throughout the day.

Oh, they knew in advance WTC7 was going to catch fire? How?

It wouldn't really matter either way. These conspiracies don't have to go according to plan.

[...]

Admin: OT material removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is pure nonsense. So an undamaged building just 'happens' to collapse when another building collapsed.

No conflict over explosives 'not affected by fires', when in reality WTC 7 endured many fires. They should have set off the 'unprotected explosives'.

Nope, that 'dog won't hunt'.

I think that you misunderstood that guys theory that I explained in post #127.

He theorised that #7 was supposed to be exploded by pre-planted explosives within a few seconds of tower #1 being exploded. That way there would be no questions about it falling, as its demise and explosive sounds would be hidden by the dust cloud and other noises and assumed to have been caused by #1 debris bringing it down. But the charges failed in some way with only one or two going off as described by Jennings and Hess. Then, after that glitch was fixed #7 was brought down later that day.
 
Here is a plausible way to relatively quietly demolish WTC7 (or any other skyscraper:eek:).

By the theory of gravitational collapse it is sufficient to initiate the collapse of a single floor (provided there are enough levels above it). The weight of the floors above combined with the kinetic energy of their fall is too much for the next level to withstand, and it too collapses, and so on recursively. There is a very high probability (probably >0.8) that the building falls down rapidly and non-chaotically....

This is verinage isn't it?
I'm sure someone on these threads was claiming verinage is impossible for a steel framed structure.
 
Here is a plausible way to relatively quietly demolish WTC7 (or any other skyscraper:eek:).

By the theory of gravitational collapse it is sufficient to initiate the collapse of a single floor (provided there are enough levels above it). The weight of the floors above combined with the kinetic energy of their fall is too much for the next level to withstand, and it too collapses, and so on recursively. There is a very high probability (probably >0.8) that the building falls down rapidly and non-chaotically.

And doesn't that throw off the whole "free fall is impossible" argument?
 
Keep in mind the is the explosives thread. Discuss verinage only as it applies to a demolition of WTC7 including explosives.
 
And doesn't that throw off the whole "free fall is impossible" argument?

I absolutely appreciate that. (I am a skeptic, not a believer!)

What I am describing combines gravitational collapse (GC) and the thermate devices of the video. So it is not controlled demolition, rather something new, uncontrolled demolition via GC.

Personally, I am not 100% satisfied that GC is valid, but, if GC is valid, I predict that a lot more buildings will be collapsing around the world in the near future, because the thermate tools invented in that video are going to be devastating! Hire out a few rooms in a skyscraper, the lower the rooms the better, and down it will go:eek:!
 
Personally, I am not 100% satisfied that GC is valid, but, if GC is valid, I predict that a lot more buildings will be collapsing around the world in the near future, because the thermate tools invented in that video are going to be devastating! Hire out a few rooms in a skyscraper, the lower the rooms the better, and down it will go:eek:!

WTC7 was not just Gravitation Collapse. It was primarily progressive collapse. I think most buildings are not as susceptible to the failure of a single column as WTC7 was.

Gerry does not agree with the single column theory though, hence his theory requires explosives on every column.
 
WTC7 was not just Gravitation Collapse. It was primarily progressive collapse. I think most buildings are not as susceptible to the failure of a single column as WTC7 was.

Gerry does not agree with the single column theory though, hence his theory requires explosives on every column.

That 'bell-tent pole' impossibility has been discussed many times.
 
But isn't qed's hypothesis of a GC initiated by a strategic explosion essentially verinage?

Yes, I just wanted to stop side discussion forming on fall-rates and video analysis of regular verinage. We are getting some overlapping theories here.
 
But isn't qed's hypothesis of a GC initiated by a strategic explosion essentially verinage?

Technically verinage doesnt use explosives as the columns are thrown out in a controlled manner using hydraulic rams. But verinage is still a form of CD as it is a Controlled Demolition method.
 
Technically verinage doesnt use explosives as the columns are thrown out in a controlled manner using hydraulic rams. But verinage is still a form of CD as it is a Controlled Demolition method.

Yeah, but nobody is suggesting an explosive-less veriange. So let's leave that. The verinage objection you refer to are specific to the towers.
 
Can you start a thread explaining why not? Assuming there's some way of removing a floor.
I may be wrong here, but i would imagine that to do so in a steel frame building would take many, many floors being loaded with hydraulics. The potential for the building to move enough to displace the hydraulics below the collapse point as the building drops would present a possibility of tip due to hydraulic failure. As i said, that's just my initial thoughts on it. The idea of it is something that I haven't seriously entertained.
 
verinage wouldn't work on a steel frame high rise

The link I posted in #140 explains that gerry. But my post #150 was really for info to Pete Tar who didn't seem to know that it was hydraulic.
The verinage objection you refer to are specific to the towers.

I wasn't objecting. Just replying to a question from a member. But one aspect re the towers is that in a vironage CD, buildings collapse floor by floor as in explosive CD, but with vironage you never see 'squibs'. Yet they appear in explosive CD - as seen in the towers.
 
I may be wrong here, but i would imagine that to do so in a steel frame building would take many, many floors being loaded with hydraulics. The potential for the building to move enough to displace the hydraulics below the collapse point as the building drops would present a possibility of tip due to hydraulic failure. As i said, that's just my initial thoughts on it. The idea of it is something that I haven't seriously entertained.

It's a silly objection. The point about Verinage is about the progressive collapse, not the single floor collapse initiation. Nobody is going to use hydraulics to destroy a steel framed building. That's obvious.

So would verinage started with explosives work?
 
It may well work, but it wouldn't be verinage would it? The whole point of verinage is to release potential in the building to crush the building. Conventional demos use the same principle, the release mechanism is what is different.
 
It may well work, but it wouldn't be verinage would it? The whole point of verinage is to release potential in the building to crush the building. Conventional demos use the same principle, the release mechanism is what is different.

Right, and this is more suited for a discussion about the towers. But the point qed was making was that it might be possible to rig the explosives in WTC7 just on one floor, and then let gravity do the rest, like in verinage.

You had earlier proposed a scheme with explosives every 8 floors. Was this for practical reasons, or cosmetic reasons?

Maybe you could go over your proposed placement in a bit more detail, and explain what it does, particularly to the exterior.
 
Right, and this is more suited for a discussion about the towers. But the point qed was making was that it might be possible to rig the explosives in WTC7 just on one floor, and then let gravity do the rest, like in verinage.

You had earlier proposed a scheme with explosives every 8 floors. Was this for practical reasons, or cosmetic reasons?

Maybe you could go over your proposed placement in a bit more detail, and explain what it does, particularly to the exterior.
Take out the core of the building first to give the exterior something to get pulled into, would be the simplest way i could put it.
 
verinage wouldn't work on a steel frame high rise

Therefore you are saying that qed's forced gravitational collapse hypothesis wouldn't work.

And you must also be saying that the collapse of the 1 and 2 towers is impossible without special intervention, because that was a gravitational collapse, or verinage. A floor (or several) failed, and gravity did the rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top