The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11

Pete Tar said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that verinage in a high rise steel framed building wouldn't work. And verinage is not really a gravitational collapse in the way that you mean it. It is just a different means of removing resistance in a building, causing the top portion to do much of the work of destroying the lower portion. If I wanted to say the words that you attributed to me, i would have typed them now wouldn't I. The towers accelerated constantly, according to NIST. In a verinage you can see the conservation of momentum kick in quite clearly as a decceleration. This is missing from the observed collapses though.

Let's stick to explosives. Verinage elsewhere please.

gerrycan said:

....If I wanted to say the words that you attributed to me, i would have typed them now wouldn't I. ....

Click to expand...

I say that because it logically follows to my mind, and you might not necessarily see the logical connection.
I accept that my view is simple and yours might be complicated by technical knowledge.
But I will drop the subject.

Pete Tar said:

I say that because it logically follows to my mind, and you might not necessarily see the logical connection.
I accept that my view is simple and yours might be complicated by technical knowledge.
But I will drop the subject.

Click to expand...

This stuff isn't that difficult, and believe me, I am far from a genius. If I am making it sound complicated, then that is most likely due to a lack in my ability to explain, rather than your ability to understand. If I can explain anything to you I will, and if I can't I will admit that i don't know, or am unsure, so feel free to ask rather than dropping anything.

I think the disagreement there was more semantic than technical. I think of Verinage as failing a floor, so the building destroys itself. You focussed more on the jacking aspect.

Anyway, explosives. Can you flesh out an explosives scenario a bit?

Take out the central core and let the rest be pulled into the space. An interesting question for you before i go further,which is relevant, trust me. Do you think that it would take a lot of explosives to do the job?

'Take out'?
Meaning remove or disentegrate either utterly or remove significant portions of, or, just induce buckling ie, compromise it's ability to push vertically?

gerrycan said:

Take out the central core and let the rest be pulled into the space. An interesting question for you before i go further,which is relevant, trust me. Do you think that it would take a lot of explosives to do the job?

Click to expand...

What's the job exactly? You could destroy one section of C79 with like 100 pounds of PE4 placed next to it, or considerably less in shaped charges if you had access. Would be rather loud though.

100lbs would be a bit much i would think for one section of one column. Better to use an incendiary to do the cutting then apply a lesser charge to do the concussive bit. The job would be to demolish WTC7. The point is that it would take a fair bit of explosives to do it, and they would need to be controlled. Yet, we are asked to believe that fire can do the same thing.

gerrycan said:

Better to use an incendiary to do the cutting then apply a lesser charge to do the concussive bit.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could draw a diagram with dimensions of how that would work?

Pete Tar said:

'Take out'?
Meaning remove or disentegrate either utterly or remove significant portions of, or, just induce buckling ie, compromise it's ability to push vertically?

Click to expand...

I suppose the column transition points would be a good place to hit. I tend to think that to induce buckling would not be enough though to be sure it wouldn't arrest. The stairwells would also present a significant resistance, so they would have to be weakened maybe.

Mick West said:

Maybe you could draw a diagram with dimensions of how that would work?

Click to expand...

Well typical pre-weakining would be a straight cut in a column, and that cut part would have to be moved by means of a more concussive blast.

gerrycan said:

Well typical pre-weakining would be a straight cut in a column, and that cut part would have to be moved by means of a more concussive blast.

Click to expand...

I mean where the C4 is relative to the nanothermite. Seems like there might be some problem with the C4 melting.

gerrycan said:

Well typical pre-weakining would be a straight cut in a column, and that cut part would have to be moved by means of a more concussive blast.

Click to expand...

Its things like this that get forgotten about when people see a CD being done on the day. Weeks of pre work weakening elements to the point of failure ready do be finally cut in the sequence.

Hitstirrer said:

Its things like this that get forgotten about when people see a CD being done on the day. Weeks of pre work weakening elements to the point of failure ready do be finally cut in the sequence.

Click to expand...

Not really the same thing though. Here I believe gerry is talking about pre-weakening with thermite, so that a "quiet" level of conventional explosives can be used.

Mick West said:

Not really the same thing though. Here I believe gerry is talking about pre-weakening with thermite, so that a "quiet" level of conventional explosives can be used.

Click to expand...

One problem I have over nanothermite is lack of knowledge about its speed of operation. We know that standard thermite can be pretty rapid, like a second or so, when used in a shaped charge device, but would nano be instantaneous ? Millisecond ? If so it could be timed very accurately and relied on to comply with the sequence needed. Ordinary themite isnt that precise. And if its instantaneous then a lesser 'push' charge of different formula nanothermite rather than the 'cutting ' recipe could be placed close and timed a few milliseconds later. That kind of thing.

gerrycan said:

The point is that it would take a fair bit of explosives to do it, and they would need to be controlled. Yet, we are asked to believe that fire can do the same thing.

Click to expand...

The CD theory assumes that the building was meant to fall in a specific manner, and that the individual pieces were at full strength. In the fire theory, much of the steel is assumed to be weakened and the the fire wasn't concerned with where the debris would end up.

Knocking a building down would likely require much less explosives if you didn't care how it actually came down.

Freak said:

The CD theory assumes that the building was meant to fall in a specific manner

Click to expand...

CDs usually do.

In the fire theory, much of the steel is assumed to be weakened and the the fire wasn't concerned with where the debris would end up

Click to expand...

When steel is heated it loses strength, i agree. But when it cools it more or less goes back to its original tensile strength.

Knocking a building down would likely require much less explosives if you didn't care how it actually came down.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. Correctly placed explosives release the potential energy in a structure in a very controlled way, so that the kinetic energy is used to do much of the work of crushing the mass below.

Mick West said:

Not really the same thing though. Here I believe gerry is talking about pre-weakening with thermite, so that a "quiet" level of conventional explosives can be used.

Click to expand...

Whether it is done with a torch or thermitic charge the end result is the same.

gerrycan said:

When steel is heated it loses strength, i agree. But when it cools it more or less goes back to its original tensile strength.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that all of the steel in WTC7 had cooled back down at the time of collapse?

gerrycan said:

Correctly placed explosives release the potential energy in a structure in a very controlled way, so that the kinetic energy is used to do much of the work of crushing the mass below.

Click to expand...

Yes, but many of those explosive charges aren't actually needed to bring the building down, they're used to direct the collapse and ensure that the debris lands in the safest and least destructive (to nearby buildings) manner. If that isn't a concern, less would be needed. Just destroy what you need to in order for it to collapse, and let the rest fall where it may.

Hitstirrer said:

You are obviously aware that the use of det cord and a central signal generator is the chosen method for commercial demo events. But that is for economy reasons, and also to avoid RF complications using available frequencies.

Det cord and dozens of dets are far cheaper than dozens of radio devices, and easier to manage. ( Your Q #4 aabove )

Technically, there is no other reason not to use remote initiation methods apart from cost and RF.

And you are being a tad disingenous saying that you are unaware of devices capable of detonating remotely when in your own input you refer to problems over managing the RF issues involved with them.

What if frequencies far outside the range normally available to people were involved ? What if cellphone tech was used to send that signal. Does your cellphone ring when its allocated number is connected or do you have to take extreme measures to prevent it constantly going off due to millions of other phones in your area ? You really arn't thinking this through from the other side are you ?

Co-incidentally, I worked very closely with EOD teams in the UK for some years in the RLC. My experience is that they are very open to getting inside the terrorists brain and spent a lot of time devising initiation devices that didn't so far exist, to test their fellow ATs.

For that reason I find your own comments at great odds with what I have observed with other EOD guys.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I have been away. The 'remotely operated devices' I was referring to were these devices that often get cited by truthers, from their research based on Hollywood movies. For a detonation to occur, you need an electric detonator, a firing device (power source) and something to send the signal to the firing device, of which the safest is wire or obvious reasons, and all the detonators connected with wire for reliability. For each detonator to be power sourced, signalled and fired independently then one would lose reliability and increase you RF concerns. Clearly there are remote firing devices, but when using those one must ensure the signal is not interrupted, and also the electric detonator is still susceptible to RF hazard. From all this discussion, and others that I have had, I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the physical wires of the electric detonator are RF proofed, and if we are going with the independent firing theory, then 100% reliability would be required, not to mention the problems of them not being discovered and surviving the fires.

On the matter of frequencies, the firing frequency is not the one I am concerned about, it is the frequency range which can prematurely set off the detonators.

I am an RE flavour EOD operator and not RLC. You can check me out here as you doubt my word:

http://www.justgiving.com/Robert-Campbell4

If I am lying, then clearly I am doing it very publicly and open to scrutiny. Feel free to make a contribution.

BombDr said:

Apologies, I have been away. The 'remotely operated devices' I was referring to were these devices that often get cited by truthers, from their research based on Hollywood movies. For a detonation to occur, you need an electric detonator, a firing device (power source) and something to send the signal to the firing device, of which the safest is wire or obvious reasons, and all the detonators connected with wire for reliability. For each detonator to be power sourced, signalled and fired independently then one would lose reliability and increase you RF concerns. Clearly there are remote firing devices, but when using those one must ensure the signal is not interrupted, and also the electric detonator is still susceptible to RF hazard. From all this discussion, and others that I have had, I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the physical wires of the electric detonator are RF proofed, and if we are going with the independent firing theory, then 100% reliability would be required, not to mention the problems of them not being discovered and surviving the fires.

On the matter of frequencies, the firing frequency is not the one I am concerned about, it is the frequency range which can prematurely set off the detonators.

I am an RE flavour EOD operator and not RLC. You can check me out here as you doubt my word:

http://www.justgiving.com/Robert-Campbell4

If I am lying, then clearly I am doing it very publicly and open to scrutiny. Feel free to make a contribution.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that your EOD experience claim wasn't true at all. I just said that I found it at odds with comments made by RLC ATs. And they were. You initially said that you were unaware of remote devices - now clarified by explaining that you meant ones dreamed up by people with no clue on this subject - and I agree with you now.

But you didn't also cover the problem of cellphone detonation. As you well know, much work has been done on systems to negate cellphone signals in known terrorist areas, by the use of mobile devices accompanying convoys and patrols. . But no such threat was perceived in Manhattan that day so no defence systems would be operating anywhere near there. As the city required full cellphone coverage such a cloaking would be unthinkable. I would have thought that such tech would be the method of choice if you wished to pre-position dets and avoid RF issues, but perhaps you can advise me differently. If such systems were used than all the concerns in your posting re RF, either frequency or range, are not relevent, as are power sources to ignite a strip of magnesium.

I earlier told you that I had observed ATs brainstorming to devise 'unbeatable' systems that would be almost impossible to either disrupt or dismantle, could be detonated from anywhere in the world using satallite phone tech, and could be sequenced in any pattern desired. One guy once told me that his team had cracked that problem - and that they hoped that others on the dark side hadn't.

If you and your team had not been doing that same kind of mental exercise I would be very surprised. As a result you will know that if you had been tasked to install covert charges under cover of -say - an elevator overhaul, and that the sequential detonation was required to be RF proof and robust, then you and your team, given time and infinite resources, could have overcome all the obstacles that you yourself are posing in here.

If thats true, then what makes you think that others couldn't do that too.

Hitstirrer said:

I didn't say that your EOD experience claim wasn't true at all. I just said that I found it at odds with comments made by RLC ATs. And they were. You initially said that you were unaware of remote devices - now clarified by explaining that you meant ones dreamed up by people with no clue on this subject - and I agree with you now.

But you didn't also cover the problem of cellphone detonation. As you well know, much work has been done on systems to negate cellphone signals in known terrorist areas, by the use of mobile devices accompanying convoys and patrols. . But no such threat was perceived in Manhattan that day so no defence systems would be operating anywhere near there. As the city required full cellphone coverage such a cloaking would be unthinkable. I would have thought that such tech would be the method of choice if you wished to pre-position dets and avoid RF issues, but perhaps you can advise me differently. If such systems were used than all the concerns in your posting re RF, either frequency or range, are not relevent, as are power sources to ignite a strip of magnesium.

I earlier told you that I had observed ATs brainstorming to devise 'unbeatable' systems that would be almost impossible to either disrupt or dismantle, could be detonated from anywhere in the world using satallite phone tech, and could be sequenced in any pattern desired. One guy once told me that his team had cracked that problem - and that they hoped that others on the dark side hadn't.

If you and your team had not been doing that same kind of mental exercise I would be very surprised. As a result you will know that if you had been tasked to install covert charges under cover of -say - an elevator overhaul, and that the sequential detonation was required to be RF proof and robust, then you and your team, given time and infinite resources, could have overcome all the obstacles that you yourself are posing in here.

If thats true, then what makes you think that others couldn't do that too.

Click to expand...

With respect, I think we are talking about two separate things when I am discussing the RF hazard of the detonator itself, not a cell phone. It is also not my desire to give a working guide on making things blow up on the internet, but at some stage, if the independent initiation theory is to work, someone will need to attach a detonator, or initiator to the material they wish to initiate (be it explosive or thermite), and then they need to attach this to the power source, and then attach this to whatever is sending the signal be it scores of cellphones, or a more sophisticated system. If no wires are allowed in this implausible setup, then each one must be done separately. So, do you want to rig them up on site? If so someone needs to control the RF, not least from the huge mast on top of North Tower emitting who-knows through the electromagnetic spectrum, or do you want to connect them in another location and drive through lower Manhatten with them all rigged up in your van? Neither is a favourable option for me.

http://www.nclabor.com/osha/etta/indguide/ig11.pdf

This is a simple guide to the hazard. So if no wires are allowed, you have multiple independent charges which must work with 100% reliability, if wires are allowed, then you have a greater RF hazard, but more manageable set of charges, albeit with greater probability of leaving evidence behind or discovery prior to the event.

If you and your team had not been doing that same kind of mental exercise I would be very surprised. As a result you will know that if you had been tasked to install covert charges under cover of -say - an elevator overhaul, and that the sequential detonation was required to be RF proof and robust, then you and your team, given time and infinite resources, could have overcome all the obstacles that you yourself are posing in here.

Click to expand...

If I had been tasked with such an exercise, I would first ask why is it necessary to drop the building in the first place? Would the WTC buildings have been recoverable after the planes had hit and the fire had burned? Why go to all that effort and risk of getting caught, when the act of terror to justify (fill in reason) had already occurred...? Next, I really would question the ease to which some ninja team can crawl into an elevator shaft, place a few charges and walk away without the necessary prep work. Im struggling to see why this is totally plausible in the truther community, yet the idea of a fire burning uncontrolled and the building no longer being able to support itself is crazy-talk. Why is the 'its never happened before' argument valid for fire, yet the same argument does not apply to 'thermite demolition by super secret ninja team using unprecedented demolition techniques but simply having access to the lift shaft and not leaving behind a single shred of evidence' is perfectly within the norms of what truthers think about the application of energised materials. But to answer your question, if the parameters are that I need to use some charges to cut some columns, with only access to the elevator shafts, and I cannot remove what is covering the columns and they must survive burning jet fuel falling on them, as well as aircraft debris, and not leave a single trace - as well as getting around the aforementioned RF hazard and not setting off all the charges as I am setting them up, I would ask politely for a different task. You are aware of the size of the columns, right?

BombDr said:

If I had been tasked with such an exercise, I would first ask why is it necessary to drop the building in the first place? ..............

.......................... But to answer your question, if the parameters are that I need to use some charges to cut some columns, with only access to the elevator shafts, and I cannot remove what is covering the columns and they must survive burning jet fuel falling on them, as well as aircraft debris, and not leave a single trace - as well as getting around the aforementioned RF hazard and not setting off all the charges as I am setting them up, I would ask politely for a different task. You are aware of the size of the columns, right?

Click to expand...

[...]
thanks for your pdf. Look at page 10 where there is this gem to refute your fixation with RF :-

Quote - "Although the power is low on CB radios and cellular telephones, precautions should be taken in their use around electric
blasting operations. CB radios and cellular telephones should not be operated by anyone on the property during blast
hole loading operations. In areas close to public roads where it is impossible to control their usage, mine operators and
construction crews should restrict the use of electric detonators and use a nonelectric blasting system." ( emphasis mine)

You are aware of such systems arn't you ?

[...]

BombDr said:

You are aware of the size of the columns, right?

Click to expand...

Yes, 47 of them in each building. All massive. I'm not surprised that you are impressed by their strength. I wouldn't like to be tasked to cause such a perfect global collapse - twice. But then again - fire and gravity managed that didn't it. So perhaps it wouldnt have taken as much energy to be introduced as at first sight. Have you done the energy in / out calcs ?

Hitstirrer said:

[...]
thanks for your pdf. Look at page 10 where there is this gem to refute your fixation with RF :-

Quote - "Although the power is low on CB radios and cellular telephones, precautions should be taken in their use around electric
blasting operations. CB radios and cellular telephones should not be operated by anyone on the property during blast
hole loading operations. In areas close to public roads where it is impossible to control their usage, mine operators and
construction crews should restrict the use of electric detonators and use a nonelectric blasting system." ( emphasis mine)

You are aware of such systems arn't you ?

[...]

Click to expand...

Yes, which would denote an igniferous (a word we use, and clearly not known by microsoft word) system, which if you now want to introduce igniferous systems into the scenario, you now have a new set of variables. Firstly, you will need flash detonators, which initiate when the match head inside the detonator is exposed to heat and ignites the low explosive, usually PETN. The heat is provided by safety fuse, which is also flammable, which then has to be initiated by something flammable such as a match fusee, flash initiator, pull initiator, grip switches, or if you want a combination of both electric and non electric systems (for reasons unknown) then you could use an ISFE, which is really just like an electric detonator, except instead of exploding, it lights safety fuse and has the same RF hazard considerations as electric detonators, basically nullifying their RF resistance to this scenario. Happy for you to explain how your above quote nullifies my 'fixation' with RF.

I take people at face value, and on here I only debate their beliefs and claims on their merit, or lack of, but don't make assumptions about them. I am a Captain (selected Major) and not an NCO as you assumed incorrectly. I also sincerely meant 'with respect', although that sentiment is now waning somewhat, as I believe we were talking at crossed purposes when I was discussing detonators and your were discussing cellphones. I did answer your question by saying that I would not attempt such a task as it is too implausibly difficult. I can destroy the building with explosives, I doubt I can fit them to the building without anyone noticing. Your opinion of what qualities you think an EOD operator require are irrelevant to the debate, and if it makes you feel any better about my lack of perceived skill, I am not longer permitted to perform EOD tasks due to being wounded in Afghanistan in 2007, and am now only permitted to write policy, training and equipment doctrine, as well as conventional explosive engineering.

I am more than happy to continue the debate, including any further facts you feel I may have overlooked in my 'fixation' with RF, for which nobody on Metabunk has been able yet to get around. I may occasionally use flippant modes of expression such as 'black-ops ninja demolition crew', but I will treat the person that I am debating respectfully, and not cast doubt on their integrity or character. I politely request that you do the same.

Hitstirrer said:

Yes, 47 of them in each building. All massive. I'm not surprised that you are impressed by their strength. I wouldn't like to be tasked to cause such a perfect global collapse - twice. But then again - fire and gravity managed that didn't it. So perhaps it wouldnt have taken as much energy to be introduced as at first sight. Have you done the energy in / out calcs ?

Click to expand...

There is a thread to which I commented in the summer on here, with calculations for explosives. Take a look.

BombDr said:

Yes, which would denote an igniferous (a word we use, and clearly not known by microsoft word) system, which if you now want to introduce igniferous systems into the scenario, you now have a new set of variables. Firstly, you will need flash detonators, which initiate when the match head inside the detonator is exposed to heat and ignites the low explosive, usually PETN. The heat is provided by safety fuse, which is also flammable, which then has to be initiated by something flammable such as a match fusee, flash initiator, pull initiator, grip switches, or if you want a combination of both electric and non electric systems (for reasons unknown) then you could use an ISFE, which is really just like an electric detonator, except instead of exploding, it lights safety fuse and has the same RF hazard considerations as electric detonators, basically nullifying their RF resistance to this scenario. Happy for you to explain how your above quote nullifies my 'fixation' with RF.

I take people at face value, and on here I only debate their beliefs and claims on their merit, or lack of, but don't make assumptions about them. I am a Captain (selected Major) and not an NCO as you assumed incorrectly. I also sincerely meant 'with respect', although that sentiment is now waning somewhat, as I believe we were talking at crossed purposes when I was discussing detonators and your were discussing cellphones. I did answer your question by saying that I would not attempt such a task as it is too implausibly difficult. I can destroy the building with explosives, I doubt I can fit them to the building without anyone noticing. Your opinion of what qualities you think an EOD operator require are irrelevant to the debate, and if it makes you feel any better about my lack of perceived skill, I am not longer permitted to perform EOD tasks due to being wounded in Afghanistan in 2007, and am now only permitted to write policy, training and equipment doctrine, as well as conventional explosive engineering.

I am more than happy to continue the debate, including any further facts you feel I may have overlooked in my 'fixation' with RF, for which nobody on Metabunk has been able yet to get around. I may occasionally use flippant modes of expression such as 'black-ops ninja demolition crew', but I will treat the person that I am debating respectfully, and not cast doubt on their integrity or character. I politely request that you do the same.

Click to expand...

You treated me with no respect. You simply dismissed any possibility of alternative tech being deployed on the grounds that you couldn't imagine it. You even earlier asserted this :- quote- "For a detonation to occur, you need an electric detonator......... From all this discussion, and others that I have had, I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the physical wires of the electric detonator are RF proofed.......".

You don't need an electric det, with all the RF issues at all. But now that I have drawn attention to your disingenous quote you admit full and detailed knowledge of that simple way to avoid the RF problem. Its well known in the industry, so why did you imply that there was no alternative? . This wasn't lack of imagination at all. It was quite deliberate. You already knew that by saying that you need an electric det, and then the means to RF proof it, you wern't being entirely accurate. All I asked was that imagination should be applied to 'think like a terrorist'. The EOD guys I knew were all capable of that. They wouldn't have assumed that conventional methods were the only way.

You then implied that I believed in a :- quote - "super secret ninja team using unprecedented demolition techniques but simply having access to the lift shaft ...... " And that is your way of giving me respect ?

To be fair, on the access issue, you may not be aware that in the previous few months to 9/11, total access to the cores of both buildings was allowed during the worlds largest elevator upgrade. That contract was not awarded to the elevator manufacturers (and maintenence company) but to a much smaller company who ceased trading soon after 9/11. You may not also be aware that access to the shafts gave total unfettered and unobserved access to all the core columns and then, using the crawl space under floor trusses, and above the false ceiling, to all outer columns on every floor. No super secret ninjas required. Just overalls and a pallet system in the basement. You then develop your objection by saying -quote " and I cannot remove what is covering the columns ...........". Who has said that a team would not be allowed to touch the SFRM ?

I have already said that I accept your expertise. What I seek is an open mind to use that experience to get into the 'other sides' brain. In effect to become gamekeeper turned poacher. That is a quality I much admired in the EOD guys that I came in contact with. RF issues can be overcome. Premature detonation can be avoided if measures are adequate. Timed, sequential dets are possible. Large conventional shaped charges are not essential if the steel is first attacked by thermetic means and then a much smaller charge used to throw the softened area aside. In effect, I seek expert input into possible methods rather than a simple dismissive- " its impossible".

So, with respect, please address my observations concerning access, means, available tech etc, and instead of saying you would question the need - or would refuse the task - try to think of how YOU would circumvent any RF issue as a starter. If you use your experience I feel sure that you could devise a means to ignite themetic material remotely and avoid your RF problems.

Hitstirrer said:

You treated me with no respect. You simply dismissed any possibility of alternative tech being deployed on the grounds that you couldn't imagine it. You even earlier asserted this :- quote- "For a detonation to occur, you need an electric detonator......... From all this discussion, and others that I have had, I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the physical wires of the electric detonator are RF proofed.......".

You don't need an electric det, with all the RF issues at all. But now that I have drawn attention to your disingenous quote you admit full and detailed knowledge of that simple way to avoid the RF problem. Its well known in the industry, so why did you imply that there was no alternative? . This wasn't lack of imagination at all. It was quite deliberate. You already knew that by saying that you need an electric det, and then the means to RF proof it, you wern't being entirely accurate. All I asked was that imagination should be applied to 'think like a terrorist'. The EOD guys I knew were all capable of that. They wouldn't have assumed that conventional methods were the only way.

You then implied that I believed in a :- quote - "super secret ninja team using unprecedented demolition techniques but simply having access to the lift shaft ...... " And that is your way of giving me respect ?

To be fair, on the access issue, you may not be aware that in the previous few months to 9/11, total access to the cores of both buildings was allowed during the worlds largest elevator upgrade. That contract was not awarded to the elevator manufacturers (and maintenence company) but to a much smaller company who ceased trading soon after 9/11. You may not also be aware that access to the shafts gave total unfettered and unobserved access to all the core columns and then, using the crawl space under floor trusses, and above the false ceiling, to all outer columns on every floor. No super secret ninjas required. Just overalls and a pallet system in the basement. You then develop your objection by saying -quote " and I cannot remove what is covering the columns ...........". Who has said that a team would not be allowed to touch the SFRM ?

I have already said that I accept your expertise. What I seek is an open mind to use that experience to get into the 'other sides' brain. In effect to become gamekeeper turned poacher. That is a quality I much admired in the EOD guys that I came in contact with. RF issues can be overcome. Premature detonation can be avoided if measures are adequate. Timed, sequential dets are possible. Large conventional shaped charges are not essential if the steel is first attacked by thermetic means and then a much smaller charge used to throw the softened area aside. In effect, I seek expert input into possible methods rather than a simple dismissive- " its impossible".

So, with respect, please address my observations concerning access, means, available tech etc, and instead of saying you would question the need - or would refuse the task - try to think of how YOU would circumvent any RF issue as a starter. If you use your experience I feel sure that you could devise a means to ignite themetic material remotely and avoid your RF problems.

Click to expand...

The premise was with remote initiation, which implies electrical detonators.

Igniferous initiation makes the task harder.

The scenarios that we might discuss are based on precedent and nothing historically, or since has occurred. Nothing on a scale that you describe has ever been attempted. The nearest I can think of is the Grand Hotel in Brighton bombing in which a clockwork timer was used, and that it left physical evidence, and that all the bombers were caught and convicted.

I cannot do the task within the parameters that you describe, I do not have the skill or the imagination. We are done.

BombDr said:

The premise was with remote initiation, which implies electrical detonators.

Igniferous initiation makes the task harder.

The scenarios that we might discuss are based on precedent and nothing historically, or since has occurred.

Click to expand...

There is evidence that similar events were attempted.

Nothing on a scale that you describe has ever been attempted. The nearest I can think of is the Grand Hotel in Brighton bombing in which a clockwork timer was used, and that it left physical evidence, and that all the bombers were caught and convicted.

Click to expand...

Your reasoning is thrown off because you don't know the facts. In this case, there is evidence that even if possible conspirators were basically caught with the explosives and diagrams of the buildings that they would not be investigated by anyone but the local police. And that they would ultimately be released* to their home nation in the name of national security so that simulations of investigations could begin.

You and others keep trying to develop theories based on assumptions that can be falsified based on documented forms of evidence.

I cannot do the task within the parameters that you describe, I do not have the skill or the imagination. We are done.

Click to expand...

Your parameters are wrong factually and the facts are not a matter of imagination. You can have your own imagination but not your own facts.

And the facts show that some "black ops ninja teams" would be able to be caught and have evidence of explosives found by local police but then ultimately be released by the intelligence agencies and oligarchy of the target nation. Another example. Given those types of parameters that there's documented evidence for in the real world (no imagination necessary) you can't reach the limits of your imagination as easily as you can when imagining your own facts.

Imagination: A thorough investigation would begin and be followed all the way through on if evidence was found and/or the conspirators were caught.

Fact: people have already been caught with explosives and released while simulations of investigations and PR and diplomacy and all the rest of it began instead.

Factual errors:

The scenarios that we might discuss are based on precedent and nothing historically, or since has occurred.

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. You seem like an honest theorist but you don't seem to be theorizing based on all the facts.

BombDr said:

I do not have the skill or the imagination. We are done.

Click to expand...

Indeed we are done. The plausibility of explosives being used far exceeds the plausibility of fire and gravity.

@BombDr

Do you think my idea will work?

qed said:

Here is a plausible way to relatively quietly demolish WTC7 (or any other skyscraper).

Click to expand...

qed said:

Here is a plausible way to relatively quietly demolish WTC7 (or any other skyscraper).

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.

Click to expand...

If you subscribe to this, logically you cannot dispute the possibility that fire alone could have caused the global symmetrical collapse at near free fall, virtually into its own footprint.

Ergo, I would suggest there would have to be a number of beams which were so primed with thermite, (but don't ask how many because I do not know).

BTW, I think I was the first to post that vid on this site, some time ago on another thread.

Jazzy described the guy who made the video as 'some looney'.

Jazzy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is the thermite not quiet enough for you Jazzy. Do you think people could hear that over the general noise... and if they did, do you think that no one would think to say 'explosions are not necessarily caused by explosives'?

Mick West said:

Nothing. But bringing up Jowenko is an argument from authority. The vast majority of people who use Jowenko to bolster their WTC7 arguments will ignore his WTC1/2 interpretation. If you say an expert is right about one thing, but wrong about another, then where is his authority? If they can discern what is correct better than Jowenko can, then they are basically saying Jowenkos has less authority than they have, and are simply arguing based on their own opinions.

Click to expand...

I've said this before in other threads, but I think it's important to restate given the shape this argument tends to take.
Danny stated in the interview I believe you're referencing that he thought the demolitions of the twin towers were a logistical impossibility. Not that it was physically impossible, or even that the collapse of the two towers didn't look like a demolition (he actually states, when the interviewer speaks to the claim that the 'pressure puffs' bursting through the windows were squibs going off, that 'That's what it looks like.'.) he simply stated that the effort would take a fair-sized crew with a large amount of explosives and a large amount of time in which to work, and that he didn't believe it's possible such an operation could have been undertaken. This was an opinion he stated before his viewing of and comments on the WTC 7 video.

Oxymoron said:

If you subscribe to this, logically you cannot dispute the possibility that fire alone could have caused the global symmetrical collapse at near free fall, virtually into its own footprint.

Ergo, I would suggest there would have to be a number of beams which were so primed with thermite, (but don't ask how many because I do not know).

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "so primed"? How, roughly, would the thermite be attached to col 79?

Grieves said:

I've said this before in other threads, but I think it's important to restate given the shape this argument tends to take.
Danny stated in the interview I believe you're referencing that he thought the demolitions of the twin towers were a logistical impossibility. Not that it was physically impossible, or even that the collapse of the two towers didn't look like a demolition (he actually states, when the interviewer speaks to the claim that the 'pressure puffs' bursting through the windows were squibs going off, that 'That's what it looks like.'.) he simply stated that the effort would take a fair-sized crew with a large amount of explosives and a large amount of time in which to work, and that he didn't believe it's possible such an operation could have been undertaken. This was an opinion he stated before his viewing of and comments on the WTC 7 video.

Click to expand...

No, that's not all he simply stated.

He also stated that the collapse started at the floors that were on fire. Which means that explosives were not used. We've discussed this before:

Grieves said:

He suggests it looks like a top-down demolition likely because of the bolts blowing out all the way down the core-columns, and that that's what the firefighters in question were seeing and experiencing. When asked why he thinks it couldn't possibly be explosives, his answer is because 'it would take a year'. Not 'that's not how explosives work' or 'what you're seeing is absolutely not evidence of explosives'. He's not commenting on the impossibility of explosives in such a collapse. He's expressing his firm disbelief that such a thing would be undertaken.

Click to expand...

...

...








But you're still just saying that this is Jowenko's opinion, and you pick one of his opinions and say it's right, and another and say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Mick West said:

What do you mean by "so primed"? How, roughly, would the thermite be attached to col 79?

Click to expand...

Watch the video from 12.00 on. He even had a replica of the wtc box columns made up.
What you need to take into account is 'this is just some guy in his back garden', (looney according to Jazzy)... what would experts with massive resources be able to do?

Here is the video

Mick West said:

No, that's not all he simply stated.

He also stated that the collapse started at the floors that were on fire. Which means that explosives were not used. We've discussed this before:





...

...








But you're still just saying that this is Jowenko's opinion, and you pick one of his opinions and say it's right, and another and say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Take another look.
"The Conspiracy Theory assumes that the explosions began at the top. Jowenko says that's impossible."
"It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned."
I agree, the explosions, if there were any, couldn't possibly have begun at the top of the building. If so much planning went into the attacks as to have explosives rigged in the buildings long in advance, it stands to reason the impact-locations of the planes would have been specific to the planned collapse, and explosives would have been rigged below the impact-sites, for a more believable/explainable collapse-scenario but away from any high concentrations of heat from the fires, which would be traveling upward.
Again, later in the interview, BEFORE reviewing the WTC 7 footage and discussing it, Jowenko:
A.) states that the nature of the twin-tower collapse bears a resemblance to demolition
B.) lists what such a demolition, were it to occur, would require... but expresses disbelief that such an undertaking would be attempted.

Keep in mind he makes these comments fully aware of the circulating theories presented by the authorities as to what caused the collapse, and as yet entirely unaware of the WTC 7 collapse and it's nature. This is highly significant, because it means his comments on the WTC 1 & 2 had already been directly influenced by NIST and the Media's reports on the causes of the collapse, and that he had absolutely no previous experience with alternate theories, nor any arguments from the 'conspiracy-theorists'... meaning his comments on WTC 7 were independent of any influence, as he wasn't even informed about the WTC 7 collapse.

Grieves said:

I agree, the explosions, if there were any, couldn't possibly have begun at the top of the building. If so much planning went into the attacks as to have explosives rigged in the buildings long in advance, it stands to reason the impact-locations of the planes would have been specific to the planned collapse, and explosives would have been rigged below the impact-sites, for a more believable/explainable collapse-scenario but away from any high concentrations of heat from the fires, which would be traveling upward.

Click to expand...

but the collapse(s) DID begin at the top- at the impact zone- in contradiction to the scenario you propose above.

The collapse initiated right in the fire zone at the point of impact rendering the use of explosives to initiate collapse as "impossible" (according to Jowenko).