The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oxymoron said:
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?
Click to expand...

Blowing some bolts of some box columns is one thing. Making a catastrophic cut to an I-shaped column is quite another.

This is about establishing plausibility. How would it plausible be done?

Best case, how would someone take out a bunch of columns with nano-thermite? Where would it be placed? How much would be needed?
 
Mick West said:
Best case, how would someone take out a bunch of columns with nano-thermite? Where would it be placed? How much would be needed?
Click to expand...

Why a 'bunch' ? And if NIST says that just fire and gravity were responsible, at one connection, why would it need tons of thermite to take out a 'bunch' ? They say that it didnt take any explosive ( conventional or non-conventional ) so why does it suddenly need a 'bunch' to be taken out with a presumably large amount of material ? Surely, logic would say that only a tiny amount would be needed to duplicate what fire and gravity alone did under their theory.
 
SR1419 said:
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).
Click to expand...
The top of a building is the top of a building, and the planes did not impact the top of the building. The collapse did indeed begin, in both cases, in the rough vicinity of the fires, which had not reached the top of the building. You don't know any better than I do however the specifics of that. The claim you make here "The collapse initiated right in the fire zone at the point of impact rendering the use of explosives to initiate collapse as "impossible"" implies you know precisely where and how the collapse initiated, which of course you don't, nor does anyone, including Danny.

If explosives of some kind were rigged directly below the impact-zone, and they cut the support out from under the impact-zone to start, the collapse would seem to initiate at the impact zone, would it not? He's also quite correct, in a typical demolition you'd go from the bottom up, not start high and work your way down... but there's more than one way to skin a cat, is there not? Is a top-down scenario 'impossible'?

Cairenn said:
Moving the goalposts again it seems to me?
Click to expand...
Then you've missed the point. He's pointing out the irony in making the claim that many thousands of pounds of explosives rigged to a great multitude of steel beams is essential to the generally level destruction of a building, which in turn makes the logistics of the explosive scenario beyond belief... while at the same time espousing the theory in which nothing but several floors of office-fires burning a few hours could result in the generally level destruction of a building.
 
Cairenn said:
Moving the goalposts again it seems to me?
Click to expand...

I agree. The goalposts always move when its suggested that freefall for over 100 feet could only be achieved by all columns being compromised simultaneously.

The goalposts move by debunkers to demand how much 'explosive' would be required to cut all the columns. And where would they be placed. And usually that goes on to ask how it was done- by who- and why didn't they talk.

Then in the same breath they say that fire and gravity did it.

If thats so, and initiation was a single connection on a single column, caused by fire, differential thermal expansion, and gravity, then how can it be that the only alternative involves tons of explosives - teams of men- and all columns attacked ?

If a single connection can cause it, then surely knocking that single connection out with a tiny charge would have the same effect.
 
Grieves said:
Then you've missed the point. He's pointing out the irony in making the claim that many thousands of pounds of explosives rigged to a great multitude of steel beams is essential to the generally level destruction of a building, which in turn makes the logistics of the explosive scenario beyond belief... while at the same time espousing the theory in which nothing but several floors of office-fires burning a few hours could result in the generally level destruction of a building.
Click to expand...

Thank you Grieves for putting it more succinctly and eloquently than I was able.
 
Grieves said:
Then you've missed the point. He's pointing out the irony in making the claim that many thousands of pounds of explosives rigged to a great multitude of steel beams is essential to the generally level destruction of a building, which in turn makes the logistics of the explosive scenario beyond belief... while at the same time espousing the theory in which nothing but several floors of office-fires burning a few hours could result in the generally level destruction of a building.
Click to expand...

It's a common opinion. But here we are trying to establish a plausible scenario of replicating the WTC7 collapse using quiet explosives. Those are the goalposts. How could it be done?

How do you take out ONE column with thermite? How would it be arranged around the column?
 
Mick West said:
It's a common opinion. But here we are trying to establish a plausible scenario of replicating the WTC7 collapse using quiet explosives. Those are the goalposts. How could it be done?

How do you take out ONE column with thermite? How would it be arranged around the column?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the purpose of this question. You have video in this thread of a man rather effectively compromising steel beams using back-yard equipment, back-yard know-how, and his back-yard. It's true, he wasn't capable of reproducing the complete compromise of a to-scale beam... but we can't exactly hold that against him, given he was in his bloody back-yard, and doesn't have any outside funding/authority. A curious novice has cooked up devices and techniques with rudimentary technologies that can effectively demonstrate how it could be done. What more of an answer do you want? The exact tools and techniques that would have been used? Sorry, I've got nothing in that regard. I suppose that somehow settles it...?
 
Grieves said:
The top of a building is the top of a building, and the planes did not impact the top of the building. The collapse did indeed begin, in both cases, in the rough vicinity of the fires, which had not reached the top of the building. You don't know any better than I do however the specifics of that. The claim you make here "The collapse initiated right in the fire zone at the point of impact rendering the use of explosives to initiate collapse as "impossible"" implies you know precisely where and how the collapse initiated, which of course you don't, nor does anyone, including Danny.

If explosives of some kind were rigged directly below the impact-zone, and they cut the support out from under the impact-zone to start, the collapse would seem to initiate at the impact zone, would it not? He's also quite correct, in a typical demolition you'd go from the bottom up, not start high and work your way down... but there's more than one way to skin a cat, is there not? Is a top-down scenario 'impossible'?
Click to expand...

Again with the semantics Grieves...ridiculous.

Indeed, the collapse did not start on the roof...but generally speaking, in comparison to standard CDemos- the collapse started much closer to the top of the building than the bottom..."near" the top.

"rough vicinity"?? - Try again- in both cases the visible collapse initiated exactly at the fire and impact zone. If the collapse started elsewhere it would have more than likely been visible.


 
Last edited:
Grieves said:
I don't understand the purpose of this question. You have video in this thread of a man rather effectively compromising steel beams using back-yard equipment, back-yard know-how, and his back-yard. It's true, he wasn't capable of reproducing the complete compromise of a to-scale beam... but we can't exactly hold that against him, given he was in his bloody back-yard, and doesn't have any outside funding/authority. A curious novice has cooked up devices and techniques with rudimentary technologies that can effectively demonstrate how it could be done. What more of an answer do you want? The exact tools and techniques that would have been used? Sorry, I've got nothing in that regard. I suppose that somehow settles it...?
Click to expand...

I could demonstrate cutting through 1" rebar with my angle grinder. That does not mean I could cut through what is essentially an I-beam with a four inch thick flange.

What I'm asking is, very roughly, where would the nanothermite be placed on the girder, how much, and how would it be ignited? Then how much of the girder would be melted, and why would that make the building collapse.

I'm just asking for a plausible scenario.
 
Mick West said:
I'm just asking for a plausible scenario.
Click to expand...
And so are we.
Because from a layman's point of view, we're told by National Geographic/Mythbusters/probably other sources that thermite can't even cut steel (after we were told by NIST originally that fire melted it...whoops) when, as shown, an engineer with little knowledge of explosives is able to cut steel very easily in his back yard with store bought materials, and 1/100th the amount used in National Geographic's experiment. It's as though they deliberately set the experiment up to fail, or maybe they need to dust off their science books.

He was able to cut steel vertically and horizontally in manners that were fully consistent with all eyewitness accounts (sounds, bright flashes, 'pouring metal' which was debunked as NOT possibly being melted aluminum mixed with office items) and photographic evidence of the day.

It seems like thermite or thermate was the most plausible case for the collapses. Not fire. The debunkers who are at least smart enough to get passed the religious view that 'it must have been fire, NIST postulates that, it couldn't be any other way' begin to ask 'how? How could they set this up without being caught? Or WHO could set this up?' These are questions we may never know the answers to, and are a sort of diversion from the fact that thermite or thermate are more plausible than fire...but some can't let that go.

This is obvious when debunkers begin talking about the possibility of explosives...they say things like 'tons of explosives' or '...all those explosives' to adjectivize the amount of explosives that would have been used to suit their worldview. Moving the goalposts AND creating a straw man at the same time. 'Hey, look over here, there must have been tons of explosives.'
 
Grieves said:
The top of a building is the top of a building, and the planes did not impact the top of the building. The collapse did indeed begin, in both cases, in the rough vicinity of the fires,.....
Click to expand...

Actually, there is strong evidence that initiation could have been just below the impact point. Videos show with tower #1 that the first sign of movement was the antenna dropping. That was fixed on top of what was called the 'Top Hat Truss' - a very substantial structure indeed. That very important part of the building tied the core to the outer walls, and was responsible for redistributing loads . For just the centre of that structure to drop, without its own rigid perimeter moving, was significant. (Imagine a large table umberella where the centre pole suddenly drops through the table without the outer rim of the umberella moving !) If the core was compromised just below the fire zone that would affect the antenna first- as observed. Also, as the core dropped it would pull all the floor trusses down with it, and that would cause inward bowing of the outer columns - as observed - then causing the entire upper part to drop at the damaged zone.
 
Hitstirrer said:
Actually, there is strong evidence that initiation could have been just below the impact point. Videos show with tower #1 that the first sign of movement was the antenna dropping. That was fixed on top of what was called the 'Top Hat Truss' - a very substantial structure indeed. That very important part of the building tied the core to the outer walls, and was responsible for redistributing loads . For just the centre of that structure to drop, without its own rigid perimeter moving, was significant. (Imagine a large table umberella where the centre pole suddenly drops through the table without the outer rim of the umberella moving !) If the core was compromised just below the fire zone that would affect the antenna first- as observed. Also, as the core dropped it would pull all the floor trusses down with it, and that would cause inward bowing of the outer columns - as observed - then causing the entire upper part to drop at the damaged zone.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a topic for another thread.
 
SR1419 said:
"rough vicinity"?? - Try again- in both cases the visible collapse initiated exactly at the fire and impact zone. If the collapse started elsewhere it would have more than likely been visible.


Click to expand...

Clever insertion of the word 'visible', but that's you changing your meaning, and by no means refutes my point. The initiation of the collapse remains something entirely inexact. How it appears from the outside does not give us a clear picture of what initiated the collapse internally.
 
Mick West said:
So how would it be done, on a WTC7 column?
Click to expand...
The answer is
Grieves said:
I don't understand the purpose of this question. You have video in this thread of a man rather effectively compromising steel beams using back-yard equipment, back-yard know-how, and his back-yard. It's true, he wasn't capable of reproducing the complete compromise of a to-scale beam... but we can't exactly hold that against him, given he was in his bloody back-yard, and doesn't have any outside funding/authority. A curious novice has cooked up devices and techniques with rudimentary technologies that can effectively demonstrate how it could be done. What more of an answer do you want? The exact tools and techniques that would have been used? Sorry, I've got nothing in that regard. I suppose that somehow settles it...?
Click to expand...

But on top of that the guy showed how to attach the thermite and the experiments that went wrong and what worked with beam/columns, standing up and laying down. It is obvious to anyone that it works and makes absolute idiots and charlatans out of Mythbusters/National Geographics etc.

And comparing cutting a 1" rebar with an angle grinder.
Mick West said:
I could demonstrate cutting through 1" rebar with my angle grinder. That does not mean I could cut through what is essentially an I-beam with a four inch thick flange.
Click to expand...

Of course you could, if you had a big enough blade and a powerful motor but why filibuster about that when it has been shown that thermite can easily cut the steel?
 
Hitstirrer said:
I have no idea. But Im beginning to understand your line of questioning. I suspect that normal thermite will have similar heat energy capability as nano. I have been told that candlewax can produce more heat energy per lb than thermite, and also that paper can. But that its to do with the speed that the energy can be released though isn't it ? You wouldnt try to weld a railway line to another using a candle.
As I understand it, the difference between thermite that can be made in a garage, and nanothermite is the speed of reaction and not the heat it can generate per lb. The componants are the same but it is the nano nature that provides far more surface area to react immediately than if larger particles are used in ordinary thermite. The surface area in minute particles per lb is far in excess of larger ground down grains. Its a bit like igniting one lb of blackpowder in a heap on a slab - and packing that same lb inside a strong and tightly secured container and igniting it. The same energy is generated - but the effect is somewhat different. I was once told that the difference between thermite and nano thermite is like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear device. Obviously an exaggeration but was said that way to emphasise that the two should not be compared together.
Click to expand...

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). 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'. ;) 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'?
Click to expand...
You'd better ask Hitstirrer. He's the guy enthusing as to nanothermite's speed of energy delivery. All the rest of us just want to know how a faster bang can be a quieter bang. Physics has "brainwashed" us against such a novel concept, I fear.

Nah. And yes, Alien Scientist's relative is as nuts as he his. Ask one of them a really searching question, if you can, and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron said:
The answer is


But on top of that the guy showed how to attach the thermite and the experiments that went wrong and what worked with beam/columns, standing up and laying down. It is obvious to anyone that it works and makes absolute idiots and charlatans out of Mythbusters/National Geographics etc.
Click to expand...

Mythbusters? What did they do? They have never addressed any 9/11 myths.

Nat Geo showed that regular thermite would not cut it, and they were right. Jonathan Cole used thermate. He's got a big bait and switch there. He talks about thermite, and then suddenly at 5:20 it's "the great Thermate Debate".

Cole cutting through 1/4" steel does not seem like it would scale to 5" steel. With 1/4" the thermate is right against the steel. So how would this work with 5" How do you get the burning thermate inside the cut you just made?

Think about it. How would it work?
 
gerrycan said:
Just for kicks, try this instead......

CTer: Hey BombDr, Iv found a way to destroy a burning building with explosives.
BD: OK, How much explosive would you need?
CTer: I don't know About 2 - 4 lbs of incendiaries every 6th or 8th floor per core column for pre-weakening cuts. and around some similar quantity, maybe less, of something a bit more concussive to actually drop it. So all in all about 1200lbs for the columns, we'll need to do a fair bit of weakening around staircases too, so let's say 2000lbs to be safe.
BD: How much detcord would you need?
CTer: I don't know.. None. Look here's a paper as an example of how we could do it, it's called "Microchip Ignition of Nanothermite Materials". We can use UHF and ICs to do this and these charges would be self consuming. There might be a bit of molten iron left over afterwards, but it's not like we need to hide anything, so we can just be totally open as to why it's there. It's not like we won't have to deny its existence or anything if people see it.
BD: How will you get it into the building covertly and strip off the facade, lay the charges, fix the ring main firing cables and defeat the RF Hazard?
CTer: I don't know What we will do is this. We will put the alarm on test, 8 hours a day for a week or so before the main event so that any hot work we do doesn't show up specific to any zone in the building and no-one has a record on or off site. There's plenty fire cupboards and the like for us to get access from and we can manufacture the material containers to bolt straight on to save time. It's not rocket science, and if we do it over a space of a few weeks, we need only lay 30 or so max per night, less in fact. Tell you what, after we have the alarm on test, we can use that as an excuse for access at strange hours.
BD: How will you insulate the explosives, which are flammable, from the fire for 6+ hours?
CTer: I don't know It's ok, these won't go off under 430C and the columns won't get to that temp, look, even NIST say that in some random report I happen to have read. Even if a few go off and people report explosions going off, it's not like we have anything to hide is it. We can just be honest and tell them that some charges exploded a bit early. Just so long as there aren't any people near the main stairwells around floor 5 or 6 early on, cos we really need to hit that hard, if we don't, the centre of gravity in the building will shift as it descends and it will tip too much. So we need to make sure nobody gets blown back upstairs and stuck in the building. Especially that lawyer Hess and the other guy, what's his name..... Jennings. They're always wandering about that area around about 10AM, possible slightly later.
BD: How will you initiate the charges and make sure that not a single scrap of firing cable, detcord, uninitiated electric detonators, cutting charge copper residue and undetonated charges are ever found?
CTer: I don't know Do you have some kind of goldfishlike memory or something, we talked about this not 5 minutes ago. We use self consuming charges and UHF to initiate via ICs. No detcord, the ICs will melt once initiation has happened, no copper and if any don't go off, we just need to make sure that no-one tests the dust for residue, Oh, one thing though, the dust might contain tiny pear shaped iron rich residues because of surface tension and the concussive nature of this whole thing. They could get carried all over in the dust, so we need to call USGS to make sure they don't go publishing their finding 5.8% of the dust is made up of them or anything daft like that ok. You can do that, cos you have a great memory.
BD: How will you make it a silent detonation?
CTer: I don't know... There might be a bit of noise involved, but we can clear the building area, and if anyone reports hearing explosions we can just say they must be imagining it and ignore their testimony if it doesn't suit us. It's pretty quiet really so it won't be a problem. In fact, I got one of my pals to make this video for you to reassure you re the noise. In the scheme of things it's not that loud. Maybe if we had 2 massive diversions maybe 300ft or so away, it's not like anybody will notice. Anyhow the video is here watch it around the 8-9 minute mark, it should be enough to reassure you.
BD: I don't f*****g know either... Let's get it on.....
Click to expand...

Seems pretty self explanatory to me and extremely well and patiently put.

I see there was a detailed scientific debunking by comparing some dogs and breeders but apart from that savaging, there seems to be nothing much to challenge this theory offered by debunkers.

Cairenn said:
Sort of like asking an AKC all breed judge what breed of dog is walking down the street and when they say it is a Spinoni Italiani, you decide to ask a dog walker instead and they tell you that is is mixed breed pointing/terrier cross. And you decide that they have it right. Even when the owner of the dog provides you with the dog's papers and registration and a DNA test.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Plausibility usually revolves around accessability too. In the case of WTC7 most people will agree that as the penthouse was seen to move first then column 79 had to be involved, which is why all the focus is there. But do many people know that column 79 was on one side of the very high loading bay in that building. Access to that column in that location was very easy indeed. A small ladder might be needed, but hey ...............
 
Hitstirrer said:
Plausibility usually revolves around accessability too. In the case of WTC7 most people will agree that as the penthouse was seen to move first then column 79 had to be involved, which is why all the focus is there. But do many people know that column 79 was on one side of the very high loading bay in that building. Access to that column in that location was very easy indeed. A small ladder might be needed, but hey ...............
Click to expand...
But how exactly would they use the ladder and what if someone was to see the ladder and take a picture? Also you are aware that the ladder could fall and anyone using it would be breaking health and safety protocols.

If a dog was to bump into it, it could even fall on the dog... No people are not crazy enough to carry out anything so daring or underhand... it is simply too difficult.
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron said:
Seems pretty self explanatory to me and extremely well and patiently put.

I see there was a detailed scientific debunking by comparing some dogs and breeders but apart from that savaging, there seems to be nothing much to challenge this theory offered by debunkers.
Click to expand...

This bit is one problem:

"About 2 - 4 lbs of incendiaries every 6th or 8th floor per core column for pre-weakening cuts. and around some similar quantity, maybe less, of something a bit more concussive to actually drop it."​

4 pounds of explosive to cut the columns? And this is supposedly demonstrated as plausible by Cole's video?

Let's get into this. How would the four pounds be arranged on the column, and what would it do?

Remember these columns have flanges up to five inches thick.
 
Hitstirrer said:
Plausibility usually revolves around accessability too. In the case of WTC7 most people will agree that as the penthouse was seen to move first then column 79 had to be involved, which is why all the focus is there. But do many people know that column 79 was on one side of the very high loading bay in that building. Access to that column in that location was very easy indeed. A small ladder might be needed, but hey ...............
Click to expand...

We can leave access out of it for now. Let's just see if it's possible to do near-silently.
 
Oxymoron said:
But how exactly would they use the ladder and what if someone was to see the ladder and take a picture? Also you are aware that the ladder could fall and anyone using it would be breaking health and safety protocols.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Of course I hadn't considered that. I will amend my statement.

Access to that column in that location was very easy indeed. A certified scaffold system might be needed, erected by experts and signed off daily. Work permits obtained allowing use of highly volatile chemicals, and method statements submitted in advance showing how the explosives would be fitted using correct PPE at all times. But hey...................
 
Mick West said:
This bit is one problem:

"About 2 - 4 lbs of incendiaries every 6th or 8th floor per core column for pre-weakening cuts. and around some similar quantity, maybe less, of something a bit more concussive to actually drop it."​

4 pounds of explosive to cut the columns? And this is supposedly demonstrated as plausible by Cole's video?
Click to expand...

Indubitably so IMO.



Let's get into this. How would the four pounds be arranged on the column, and what would it do?
Click to expand...
It would cut through the steel exactly the same as it did in the video

Remember these columns have flanges up to five inches thick.
Click to expand...
What difference does the design shape of the steel make. It is still steel and the 'shape', makes it even easier to secure the thermite. When you say the flanges are 5" thick, what exactly are you referring to... I think they are a lot thicker than 5".

BTW, Mythbusters busted... I am sure you have seen it before... their pathetic attempt to show that even 1000lbs thermite cannot cut through steel sheeting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grieves said:
Clever insertion of the word 'visible', but that's you changing your meaning, and by no means refutes my point. The initiation of the collapse remains something entirely inexact. How it appears from the outside does not give us a clear picture of what initiated the collapse internally.
Click to expand...

Thats funny....because earlier you said "The collapse did indeed begin, in both cases, in the rough vicinity of the fires" - So, either you know where collapse initiated or you don't- which is it?

The fact remains- the only evidence we have for initiation is visible...and that was exactly at the points of impact.

We do know, however, that internally there was structural damage from 100 ton aircraft impacting into the buildings at 400+ mph and resulting in major fires....which are certainly plausible causes of collapse.

Alas, for other causes...since there is no evidence of any other causes- we can only fantasize. Suggesting the perpetrators were able to direct planes to the exact appropriate spot in the buildings and thus be able to foresee the damage that would result from the impacts such as to protect any pre-planted explosives so that it looked like collapse initiated exactly at the impact sites is not the least bit plausible.

but being as this thread is about WTC7- I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still awaiting a reason why a faster explosion energy release is somehow a quieter one. :mad:

I mean, it isn't fair to have to deal with loud, strong, energetic damage being dealt silently to a poor structure which had already suffered for hours by being immersed in deceptive smoke. Must we suffer too? :cool:
 
Oxymoron said:
What difference does the design shape of the steel make. It is still steel and the 'shape', makes it even easier to secure the thermite. When you say the flanges are 5" thick, what exactly are you referring to... I think they are a lot thicker than 5".
Click to expand...

Thickness, not width.

Imagine there's a steel wall in front of you. It's 1/4" thick. Quite substantial, but you can probably burn through it with a "thermitic box cutter".

Now imagine the same wall, except now it's five inches thick. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
 
Mick West said:
Thickness, not width.

Imagine there's a steel wall in front of you. It's 1/4" thick. Quite substantial, but you can probably burn through it with a "thermitic box cutter".

Now imagine the same wall, except now it's five inches thick. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
Not if the column splices were attacked. They occurred every two stories on the columns in WTC 7 at a height of about three feet above the slab on odd numbered floors. They were strong in bending, because of their distance from the bending axis, but they were not very thick being made with plates of 5/8" and 1" thick. Do you know what the splices looked like on column 79? I have attached the drawing.

Of course, the splices did not support the compressive load and once removed the column would need a small kick to move it off center. Once that is done to one core column eccentric loading would do the trick on others once their splices were eliminated.
 

Attachments

  • 1091.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 640
Last edited:
SR1419 said:
Thats funny....because earlier you said "The collapse did indeed begin, in both cases, in the rough vicinity of the fires" - So, either you know where collapse initiated or you don't- which is it?

The fact remains- the only evidence we have for initiation is visible...and that was exactly at the points of impact.

We do know, however, that internally there was structural damage from 100 ton aircraft impacting into the buildings at 400+ mph and resulting in major fires....which are certainly plausible causes of collapse.

Alas, for other causes...since there is no evidence of any other causes- we can only fantasize. Suggesting the perpetrators were able to direct planes to the exact appropriate spot in the buildings and thus be able to foresee the damage that would result from the impacts such as to protect any pre-planted explosives so that it looked like collapse initiated exactly at the impact sites is not the least bit plausible.

but being as this thread is about WTC7- I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...
NIST says the collapse of the North Tower initiated just above the impact damage on the 98th floor and this short slow motion video shows they are probably right on that .

The aircraft impact occurred between the 95th and 96th floors with the nose pitched downward at a 10 degree angle. Why would the building have a symmetric collapse initiation at the 98th floor? Could it be that one would then avoid the concern of displaced charges in the impact zone. What is also interesting is that the first floors to collapse after the 98th are the 99th through the 101st. It looks to me like that was developing momentum to make sure one would get through the areas where charges could have been displaced. However, there wouldn't be too much to worry about as not many core columns were hit hard since the wings could not make it to the core and these type of demolitions are done by taking the core down and pulling the exterior inward and causing buckling of it.

By the way, to tie in with my earlier post concerning the possibility of an attack on WTC 7 core column splices, the 98th floor was a floor where the twin tower core columns had splices.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Not if the column splices were attacked. They occurred every two stories on the columns in WTC 7 at a height of about three feet above the slab on odd numbered floors. They were strong in bending, because of their distance from the bending axis, but they were not very thick being made with plates of 5/8" and 1" thick. Do you know what the splices looked like on column 79? I have attached the drawing.

Of course, the splices did not support the compressive load and once removed the column would need a small kick to move it off center. Once that is done to one core column eccentric loading would do the trick on others once their splices were eliminated.
Click to expand...

A small kick? Like what exactly?
 
Mick West said:
A small kick? Like what exactly?
Click to expand...
Without the splice to prevent overturn, a burn using thermite to cause the mating surface at the column splice to be uneven would work.

If the splices at the bottom and top of a two story column section were eliminated it wouldn't take a very big charge to cause it to become eccentric and move out of the way due to the load on it. That would start the process.

In fact, I think a couple of lbs. of nano-thermite has enough explosive kick to do the job if the splices are eliminated first.

I think something like this was done over eight stories to all of the core columns in WTC 7 and the perimeter was pulled inward by the falling core.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
Z.W. Wolf
Claim - The Brother of Nick Davies (AKA Phuket Word) Speaks
Replies
5
Views
1K
Mendel
Mendel
Marc Powell
Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted
3 4 5
Replies
195
Views
29K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
3 4 5
Replies
188
Views
55K
econ41
econ41
T
Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met
7 8 9
Replies
353
Views
57K
Jeffrey Orling
Jeffrey Orling

Latest posts

Back
Top