Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Well duh... I know the routine... but I am not buying THEIR explanation. I don't need to repeat myself.
The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
- Thread starter Cairenn
- Start date
- Status
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Mick I will say it again you need to know the movements and the structure before plausibility of CD can be considered. In m y so called theory which you removed (again) it is about the movements and it suggests that CD is a plausible scenario if it was done at even a single truss TT1 for example. I don't see evidence of CD... but it would be plausible and not require 81 columns blown over 8 floors.
econ41
Senior Member
It is possible to construct reasoned on topic arguments without discussing or seeking to support your alternate scheme of initiation.
I suggest that there are three aspects that need to be considered in assessing "plausibility":
A) Technical. Can a plausible technical scheme of CD be developed which would merge into the actual observed events whilst being the primary cause of collapse. I suggest not - reasons later.
B) Logistic - security. Could it be implemented without discovery. I also suggest not.
C) Some "highly improbables" - which link to the above two.
Let's put "C)" on the table first. I will focus on a single example for brevity. The most viable technical scheme to cause the actual observed collapse - IMO - is "explosively cut Col 79" The highly improbable aspect is that who without benefit of hindsight would have identified the Col 79 vulnerability and relied on it to guarantee collapse?
J Orling's alternate point of attack via the transfer trusses is another possible candidate for "plausible". AND probably a more obvious point of attack than Col 79.
I'll leave "B)" the security from discovery aspect for now.
Now it is in "A)" where I suggest that J Orling's comments about motion fit legitimately into this thread. But it is independent of, does not depend on, the Transfer Truss initiation hypothesis.
So called "Early Motion" of the façade has been identified minutes before the rapid collapse. And as noted many times on this topic under discussion elsewhere "early motion is incompatible with any 'event >> immediate collapse' scenario." We do not have either delayed effect explosives OR delayed effect gravity.
So the rapid fall of the façade was not triggered by explosive cutting - provided we accept the analyses which show the early movement.
And - if we consider explosive cutting of interior columns as the primary cause - how do we account for the same delays "early motion..global collapse"? Two stages of explosive use deliberately preplanned to confuse debunkers of CTs years later? Highly improbable IMO.'
And, whilst that does not demolish (
) the full range of claims for CD - it puts a big hole in most of them.
trevor
Active Member
im pretty sure you need a "claim" to start an argument or debate.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
So called "Early Motion" of the façade has been identified minutes before the rapid collapse. And as noted many times on this topic under discussion elsewhere "early motion is incompatible with any 'event >> immediate collapse' scenario." We do not have either delayed effect explosives OR delayed effect gravity.
So the rapid fall of the façade was not triggered by explosive cutting - provided we accept the analyses which show the early movement.
And - if we consider explosive cutting of interior columns as the primary cause - how do we account for the same delays "early motion..global collapse"? Two stages of explosive use deliberately preplanned to confuse debunkers of CTs years later? Highly improbable IMO.'
And, whilst that does not demolish (
Early movements do not rule out CD. A cascading systems failure will show nodes of the system beginning to fail in advance of total system collapse. You could make an analogy to disease in the human body. You introduce an infection (or poison) which attacks one organ / system... say the he liver... as it degrades you see systems of liver failure. Liver failure stresses the kidneys, then the vascular system... and you have an increasingly runway set of system failures which lead to total failure and death. Not all disease works like this. But some do.
Same applies to the cascading failure which COULD be *natural*... mechanical responses to the initial failure from WHATEVER the cause. Pre movements only tell us that there is a cascading system failure underway AND I would argue almost a PROOF of it because they will begin with *minor* chnages in the static condition and those changes of state increase rapidly to the moment of total system failure.
The pre release movement tell us that the structure is being "undone" coming apart, nodes not functioning at 100%. The release tells us a failure has occued such as the drop of the EPH... and the total failure was when the entire building could no longer support itself. The curtain wall movement is a tell tale that there was noting below IT (all we can see since we can't see inside). It's deformity (IB) tells us that the insides of the building connected to the curtain wall frame had exerted a force on it... breaking its integrity. The force was exerted in a southerly direction (laterally) centered at or beginning at region south of column 48 ( this is where column 73 is in the core which supports TT1.
So reading the movements and knowing the structure we SHOULD be able to get an idea of the sequence of ... location of node failures... NOT THE CAUSE.
Ergo I would argo that a proper READ of the movements indicate that a CD involving 81 columns over 8 floors did NOT take place... BUT this does not rule out a DIFFERENT CD as being plausible.
The issue then becomes is it FEASIBLE to do?
BombDr
Senior Member.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
It seems hard to imagine, but if a single point failure can begin the unwinding of the structure why rule it out as not feasible? Feasible is not the topic of the tread. Although I don't find the column 79 initiation location compelling... why couldn't this be the location of some place device to accomplish what NIST claims office fires did?
It also appears that there is no evidence of bombs...such as loud percussive explosions. But as we know, for example, from the Miamus River Bridge collapse.. a huge structure can fail from corrosion of a single pin! No explosion... no ship slamming into the bridge pylon etc.
Is a silent form or CD plausible or feasible?
econ41
Senior Member
Which is similar to what I (thought I) said.
Ah the perils of being too brief and too subtle.
The hints about delayed action should have given the clue.
If you get early motion anywhere in a structural frame AND it is caused by explosive cutting BUT the main collapse occurs minutes later - you are dealing with one very sophisticated CD OR multi stage use of explosives. Probably has to be both. Better brains than me at engineering may be able to do it BUT I cannot conceive of a successful CD plan which starts motion at minute scale and builds into a cascading global collapse failure over a time-frame of many minutes.
Unless it is a two stage scheme as I already identified - tongue in cheek - as intended to fool debunkers years later.
Certainly the two identified as plausible single element failing CD schemes - either Col 79 OR transfer truss cutting - would result in near instant failure. No slow build up over many minutes.
.
BombDr
Senior Member.
Feasible, plausible, practical etc - what would be the point?
I suppose if I only had to remove a single column there are various methods I could do that, but why would this be necessary?
You start off with the concept of the conspiracy in the first place, in which the conspirators plan to kill thousands of their fellow citizens for reasons unknown - the first layer of improbability.
Then they conclude in their planning that the planes hitting some iconic buildings in NYC, guaranteeing worldwide coverage and no doubt causing the buildings to be condemned even if they do not collapse is simply not enough: They MUST collapse, again for reasons not fully clear - the second layer of improbability.
Then to solve this problem they decide that they will place a device of some sort inside a building that was not hit by a plane, and one which they could not readily predict would even be affected by either the planes or the neighbouring building collapse. To achieve this they develop an elaborate plan involving a silent demolition charge (unlikely) and position it inside a building without it being seen, adding an immeasurable likelihood of being discovered and the plot foiled, for an action which is irrelevant to the outcome of the event - third layer of improbability.
As a thought experiment, lets ignore all this improbable line of enquiry. If you simply want to cut a column with explosives (Id like the dimensions) that for arguments sake with 'burn' at 8000,m/s (they vary, Im just giving an example) keeping it quiet is impossible, or you give yourself a new problem of soundproofing, which I don't think even the Alex Jones' of this world are claiming.
In sum, Im sticking with implausible.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Which is similar to what I (thought I) said.
Ah the perils of being too brief and too subtle.
The hints about delayed action should have given the clue.
I part with you on this. I suspect that because the structures have reserve capacity there would likely not be a single point failure leading to an instant total collapse. The bridge pin case may be very special.. I am not sure. What happens when one cable in a suspension bridge snaps?
If you get early motion anywhere in a structural frame AND it is caused by explosive cutting BUT the main collapse occurs minutes later - you are dealing with one very sophisticated CD OR multi stage use of explosives. Probably has to be both. Better brains than me at engineering may be able to do it BUT I cannot conceive of a successful CD plan which starts motion at minute scale and builds into a cascading global collapse failure over a time-frame of many minutes.
Unless it is a two stage scheme as I already identified - tongue in cheek - as intended to fool debunkers years later.
Certainly the two identified as plausible single element failing CD schemes - either Col 79 OR transfer truss cutting - would result in near instant failure. No slow build up over many minutes.
.
econ41
Senior Member
(you messed up the quoting Jeffrey.)
Sure you part with me. I'm discussing WTC7. Specifically.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
These are valid arguments and there are more... but it gets at the over arching "purpose" of the people who carried out 9/11. The truthers assume that the intent was to destroy the world trade center and would the pentagon... Shanksville was staged to provide a hero scenario ...yadda yadda.
I would step back and assert that US policies gave birth to groups who used all manner of "terrorist" tactics to struggle. In fact the US trained these groups to fight to dislodge the soviets from Afghanistan. These guys may have thought they would get to run the place... but Uncle Sam apparently simply seems to have used them to give them a foothold in a region of strategic interest (energy). So you have a force of pissed off armed and trained "terrorist" who now range around and try to rid the lives and region of the interlopers... including the West.. the CIA, the energy corps and so on.
These guys have engaged in insurgencies and terrorist attacks against the west for a few decades... Khobar towers, Nairobi, USS Cole and against Israel... They hatched the Bojinka plot which was thwarted... they got involved in the 93 wtc bombing. (let's leave entrapment out of this for the time being). Pissed off non state actors were looking and finding means to strike back... the so called "blowback" that Sibel Edmonds et al think is a myth (because intel et al benefit from it so they create it not are a victim of it).
The more sensible frame is some crazy suicide terrorists surprised the US and its trillion dollar defense system... and slammed jets into iconic symbols and actual pillars of the empire... and messed them up nicely. I doubt that they knew the outcome... that the buildings would come down. The truthers can't seem to figure out if loaded planes could deliver fatal blows to the twins so probably the terrorists didn't know either. Messing those buildings and them looming over the skyline... uninhabitable would have been a far WORSE outcome for the US or a BETTER outcome for the terrorists... standing there as looming reminders.... The completely demolished buildings were cleaned up and erased as quickly as possible... and the total collapse actually facilitated this.
The inside job thinkers could have done the same... no sensible reason to completely destroy the WTC assuming they wanted to leverage the horror for some big wars etc.
So the overarching CD scenario is IMPLAUSIBLE but the mechanics of demolition could be plausible if someone wanted to destroy those buildings... and it clearly wanted to destroy some SEC files or collect insurance.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Hang on Ozzie...
Since none of the building collapsed in an instant as in X happened and then the towers dropped. This is demonstrably tru for the twins... plane hits.. time passes ... things are happening (seen and unseen)... building release.. humpty dumpty phase.
7WTC seems to be the victim of a longer initiation process... maybe. We are told it was fire that undermined the structure. Perhaps.. Yes likely. It too shows signs of loss of capacity... It's like someone who is standing and carrying a weight in one hand and lifting one foot from the floor... watch their body move as they try and succeed in re establishing their balance. If the weight carried was at the limit such that they need two legs to stand upright... lifting one results in the person falling over... one leg etc cannot carry the load.
Pre release movement means the building's structural capacity is being whittled away and it is "trying" to maintain its balance... redistributing loads to remain standing.
The key of course is how to whittle away sufficient capacity for the process to continue, progress and cascade to total failure.
BombDr
Senior Member.
May I steal that phrase please?
BombDr
Senior Member.
We are drifting off topic, but this is an oversimplification. Some people appear to have drawn family trees from the Mujahideen to the Taliban, from the Free Syrian Army to ISIS - This is incorrect, Whilst it is true that some people were in the Mujahideen went on to the Taliban, they were completely different groups with opposing ideals in some cases.
Do you know the size of the columns? I could do a demolition calculation, though it might be rough and ready as I am not at work... But, for the sake of argument, obviously the building could be destroyed with a controlled demolition, a silent and undetectable one is more tricky...
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Well yea politics, religion and the tribal culture of the ME is very complex and nuanced. Obviously I offered a gross simplification... Nuff said.
I think, a guess, that a silent CD is possible with 7wtc. I doubt it took place but the nature of field assembled massive transfer structures with diagonal members connected with bolts and welds which are certainly adequate but much easier to fail than the massive sections they join leads me to conclude that they could be silently destroyed.
Of course... if you are a terrorist or an insider posing as a terrorist why go silent when you can go loud... bombs = terrorist in the public's mind and wasn't that the point? ..... to blow the public's mind?
The plot thickens because the truther *thinking* sees it all as a massive PR slight of hand.... a big bad magic trick to pin the tail on the terrorist donkey who is not there! Enter Hollywood script writers...
1. Fake hijacking multiple plans
2. Use fake planes to slam into iconic targets
3. Have one taken down by heroic passengers... Good guys fight against all odds and have a victory!
4. Hijacking multiple planes won't cut it so we need to completely destroy this massive structures
5. blow up an relatively unoccupied section of the pentagon making it an act of war in no uncertain terms
6. haul away all the incriminating evidence
7. make sure the officials pin the tail on the made up terrorist donkey
I suppose having real bombs take the towers out would have been an investigation which would open up multiple cans of worms... so the insiders needed to make the collapses look natural of course and the truthers know that that is just impossible... buildings can fall.
BombDr
Senior Member.
Is it not equally plausible that if there were four Shanksvilles, or four jets simply crashing into the ground, it would have had the exact same unifying effect and clamour for war that the NWO/CIA were looking for?
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Absolutely! One hijacked plane full of innocent people taken to the death by a hijacker would get the people's back up and clamoring for war.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Utter nonsense. Lemme get this....you are claiming all seven of those in the above list are true?
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
hahaha... that was the truth BS...Whacker
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
This is an open thread for discussing the plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
So, in summary:
- Demolishing WTC7 with explosives is very plausible given all analysis and scenarios on this thread
- Secretly demolishing WTC7 on 9/11 - VERY unlikely given all motive/means analysis and scenarios on this thread
So, in summary:
- Demolishing WTC7 with explosives is very plausible given all analysis and scenarios on this thread
- Secretly demolishing WTC7 on 9/11 - VERY unlikely given all motive/means analysis and scenarios on this thread
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Demolishing a building with a controlled demolition? Sure why not? Could a demo match the movements observed? Sure why not?
The thread is about the plausibility of it being doing on 9/11. Meaning doing in a way that was not detectable. Nobody noticed the explosives being installed, there was no sounds from them, they somehow survived all the fires, and they left no obvious evidence.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Perhaps the CD wasn't bombs? Perhaps they were high tech incendiaries?
Which have similar plausibility problems.
I think this thread has about run its course.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Which gets us to the dozens of columns blown to effect free fall, did not happen. As you stated earlier.
It does run into other issues though, begged questions. Foremost would be "Why?". What does the supposed demolition accomplish besides the physical removal of a relatively unknown structure? Why this one and not WTC3,4,5 or 6?
Who did the demolition and was it preplanned or done ad hoc on 9/11?
This fits the plausibility question because there has to Be a motive and actions performed that both fit the observables( or more to the point, non-observed events), and the risk associated with such a plan.
BombDr
Senior Member.
I agree there is little to add, unless someone finds a super-secret-thermite-exploder-gadget-widget stuck between a couple of buildings, there is little chance of new physical evidence coming to light. Of course one of the many conspirators could get an attack of guilt and confess all...
Seeing as 700 fragments of human remains were found during the dismantling of Deutsche Bank building, but no fragments of explosive, incendiaries, demolition paraphernalia etc, what other unprovable conspiracy is there to discuss?
- Status
Similar threads
