But how much, and is it possible with quiet explosives pushing? Even if it's an inch, you still get vast increase friction.
And again, how long is the force applied for. Explosions are pretty quick. What keeps the column moving all the way?
The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
- Thread starter Cairenn
- Start date
- Status
But how much, and is it possible with quiet explosives pushing? Even if it's an inch, you still get vast increase friction.
And again, how long is the force applied for. Explosions are pretty quick. What keeps the column moving all the way?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The low explosives I suggest could have been used would not be completely quiet, just enough to be not heard outside the building.
Moving the column interface out of alignment takes a certain amount of energy which is force x distance. The explosive generates an impulse on the column, which is a curve of acceleration vs. time and the area under that curve is the energy transferred during the impulse.
The explosive would have to be sized to provide the energy required. I don't think it would be that large.
Artillery shells are thrown extremely long distances with low explosives. Gunpowder is a low explosive and nano-thermite is being looked at for propulsion.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I think it is plausible that the explosive force acting over the full arm of the two-story section would be enough to lift the column by cam action and may even reduce the force required by cutting down the contact area and frictional forces. I would have to do the calculations but instinctively it sounds possible.Wouldn't the ends of the columns need to be clear of each other before the explosion ends?
And isn't there a lot more than simple friction if you are rotating the columns? The ends will become wedged against each other, requiring vastly more force to move.
If the above wasn't viable the charges could have been placed on the same side avoiding the rotation interference issue you bring up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Troop4truH
New Member
Hello, Metabunk. This will be my first post on the site and I couldn't resist commenting on the absurdity of the premise of the of this post. Let me start by first saying that it never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which 9/11 debunkers go to deny the overwhelming inconsistencies with the official tale, and the lengths to which ppl go in general to shield their largely state programmed worldview. To be completely open and to lay all preconceived and contrived notions aside is not an easy task for most folks, if certainly not all.
As to the topic of this discussion, and the post to which I'm replying, I'm afraid the only word that comes to mind would be 'absurd'. Cairenn, for you to imply that just because we don't know the exact persons, dates, planting methods, etc. involved precludes the possibility of bombs being planted in those buildings is so silly I can't believe you actually posted it as a topic of discussion. Really? Isn't that sort of like saying that if we didn't know where the "hijackers" came from, or knew their names, or even knew what they looked like or how they were capable of flying jet airliners that would somehow preclude the possibility of planes actually being crashed into the buildings? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Of course it is because we have multiple sources of evidence pointing to planes crashing into buildings, just as there is also plenty of evidence that all three buildings in NYC were brought down via detonation of some form or the other. I certainly understand and appreciate cynicism and skepticism, but why do those two things always seem to be applied so vigorously against dissenters, but lacking in presence of power and position? A better question would be what about the governments story IS believable, backed up, and verified with the same standard of proof that is applied to those who dare to challenge conventional wisdom regarding the 9/11 social engineering psyop?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I say that you have to have evidence of the ABILITY to do something before you can use that a theory. That is what I am challenging in my statement.
Controlled demolition is not something that anyone one with a knowledge of explosives can do. I requires specialized knowledge and the use of blueprints. Then it requires that there be access to many areas.
What the you have is not evidence. It is barely theories.
Controlled demolition is not something that anyone one with a knowledge of explosives can do. I requires specialized knowledge and the use of blueprints. Then it requires that there be access to many areas.
What the you have is not evidence. It is barely theories.
Jazzy
Closed Account
How very amusing.
To be quietly cut by rubber knives.
To be gently bruised by catapulted marshmallows.
To be softly blown up by expanding thistledown.
To be ambiguously berated by a soft kiss.
To be pushed down by non-inflammable gentle magic silent push-down-stuff.
Gerraway.
To be quietly cut by rubber knives.
To be gently bruised by catapulted marshmallows.
To be softly blown up by expanding thistledown.
To be ambiguously berated by a soft kiss.
To be pushed down by non-inflammable gentle magic silent push-down-stuff.
Gerraway.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Which six hours of preceding fire had apparently failed to do - even though we've been through all the expansion of steel due to being heated BEFORE. Hope obviously springs eternal in your breast, eh? You have to be human, then...
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Are you seriously telling me that you have contributed to these kinds of threads over time and not been informed of the 'knowledge' and access' answers to such questions ?
If indeed CD of some kind was involved, and if indeed there was some sort of inside involvement, then I would take it as read that expertise would have been available.
Access is a more difficult problem to explain. But in fact there is much anecdotal evidence that access to the towers was not only easily possible but was documented. But this thread is focussed only on WTC7.
WTC7 is not so easily explained. It was a very tightly controlled building due to its sensitive occupancy. But then again, if you have a conspiratorial view then that itself would make access actually easier.
Jazzy
Closed Account
How could there be "inside involvement" with a building which was accidentally struck (and might just as easily have been missed) by another? Jesus.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Have you read, and understood, the thread title ?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Yes, my dear (for without you it would be less enjoyable). And I'm responding in my usual style.
It is VERY implausible.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Let's see ---
a team of 50 or more controlled demolition experts would have been needed. One can't say that a military could have provided them because that is not something that the military has expertise in. They hire companies to do it for them on military bases.
No buildings near that tall have ever been demoed this way. So one would have needed some top experts to design the plan.
There would have to have been access to support columns, not just to plant explosives, but CUT them also.
There would have to have been a way to protect the explosives from the fire.
I suggest that one piece of anecdotal evidence that might lead some 'believability' to a CD would be a huge rise in suicides or deaths in workers from the the CD companies, since 9/11. Unless somehow, only psychopaths were hired for the job.
a team of 50 or more controlled demolition experts would have been needed. One can't say that a military could have provided them because that is not something that the military has expertise in. They hire companies to do it for them on military bases.
No buildings near that tall have ever been demoed this way. So one would have needed some top experts to design the plan.
There would have to have been access to support columns, not just to plant explosives, but CUT them also.
There would have to have been a way to protect the explosives from the fire.
I suggest that one piece of anecdotal evidence that might lead some 'believability' to a CD would be a huge rise in suicides or deaths in workers from the the CD companies, since 9/11. Unless somehow, only psychopaths were hired for the job.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Alternatively a single girder at a connection with a single column on a single floor could fall from its seat to cause the global collapse of WTC7 in a few seconds.
Thats the official explanation.
Troop4truH
New Member
I will first get to the point of my contention with this post which I suspect will result in calls far and wide for me to support my claim with evidence, although you have no evidence to support the asinine logic of your topic, none suggesting any specific information that precludes something like access, motive, capability, all the components that go into whether or not any group/entity had the ability and opportunity to have planted charges in the building. I would contend that there are multiple sources of audio/video evidence as well as eyewitness testimony and when one couples this with the very controlled manner in which WTC 7 came down, not forgetting of course that WTC 7 was the third building to do so in this manner on that day, it makes a very compelling argument of the involvement and plausibility of the use of explosives. As for the second part of your statement, you simply stated that knowledge of explosives and the structure of the building would have required to do the job. No kidding, you don't say?
I realize at this point I have yet to discuss specific points of evidence, but I'm stating my overall conclusion on the amalgamation of evidence I have personally come across. One question I would like answered by demolition debunkers is this;
If explosives were not present in WTC 7, 1, and 2, then how can one account for the common method of their demise? Is one really to believe that WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes carrying large amounts of kerosine which was supposed to have weakened the steel and led to a vertical pancake collapse while at the same time believing that some chunks of concrete, steel and other debris along with relatively small internal fires led to the same pancake collapse of WTC 7, sans the impact of planes and the heat of kerosine? This is the theory that needs to be supported with evidence. How is it that we have the same response in 3 separate buildings with different stimuli for WTC 7 vs WTC 1 & 2???
How presumptuous of you to presume what I "have."
Cairenn
Senior Member.
WTC 7 was damaged by the fall of the WTC 1 & 2. The fires there were not 'relatively small' .
Again you have ZERO evidence to support your 'claim'. Most structural engineers that have looked at the report on it agrees with it. It is supported by evidence, including the simple one that in spite of the 'common wisdom' the buildings did not collapse like a CD would have caused. Sort of or similar is not evidence. A Lab-Irish Setter cross will often look like a Flat Coated retriever, but that doesn't make it one
Again you have ZERO evidence to support your 'claim'. Most structural engineers that have looked at the report on it agrees with it. It is supported by evidence, including the simple one that in spite of the 'common wisdom' the buildings did not collapse like a CD would have caused. Sort of or similar is not evidence. A Lab-Irish Setter cross will often look like a Flat Coated retriever, but that doesn't make it one
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
They were all structures that were compromised and gravity exerted its relentless logic upon them?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Actually, 'most' structural engineers who take time to study the evidence provided to them don't agree with the report. There are numerous entrance and exit polls at presentations where the evidence is shown in a series of visual aid/videos and talks. The conversion rate is in the upper 80% range. Thats why there are now 2,100 fully qualified, degreed, Architects and Engineers who are demanding a new independent investigation. The vast majority of engineers in the world have not seen that evidence and never considered the possibility of the official story being wrong. Many in fact do not even know that three towers came down that day in Manhattan. As such they cannot be used as evidence that they agree with the report because they would be basing that on incomplete data.
ColtCabana
Senior Member
And are those taking the polls actually structural engineers? AE911Truth's numbers are still less then 1% of 1% of all licensed architects and engineers in the nation. Can any of them offer an answer as to why FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro set up a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC7 because of the structural damage to it?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Just explained that strawman argument about %'s.
But, yes, they are all checked out under due diligence before being accepted in that 1,100 other credentialed list. Anything else and some anal debunker would have pounced on an unqualified name and trumpeted it around all forums. Hasn't happened. Why would you want an Architect or Engineer who is demanding a new investigation to explain to you why an FDNY officer took decisions that day ? Seems like an odd request to me.
You could ask Nigro of course. He would probably say that he was told that by someone else, and acted accordingly and prudently. There is much evidence that loads of people were told that WTC7 was to come down that day, well beforehand. Even the interviewer in that famous 'Harley shirt guy' YouTube clip said that, on air in the early afternoon. And then Helen Stanley of the BBC, and CNN, managed to announce that it HAD fallen down 20 minutes before it did so. Then we have a report of a guy hearing a 'count-down' on a police radio followed by a massive explosion and down it came. Perhaps they had all been told at the same time as Nigro. Who knows ?
ColtCabana
Senior Member
A note from Nigro:
As far as the "countdown", here is a video from RKOwens regarding the matter.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
That has to be the most inept debunk vid ever. Its admitted that one reporting guy clammed up. Didn't recant. Just took fright and clammed up. And the weak attempts to clutch on tiny narrative changes from the other guy, when the actual message is clear is quite pathetic.
Nigro could be correct. But if I was ranking officer there that day I would be claiming things like that too. Great career move.
But how many are actual certified active structural engineers, not food, electrical, or software engineers?
Ron J
Active Member
"Is one really to believe that WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes carrying large amounts of kerosine which was supposed to have weakened the steel"
No one who has determined that fire caused the collapse, has claimed large amounts of kerosine weakened the steel.
Large amounts of kerosine, which were ignited by sparks from the crash, started wide ranging fire in each of the Towers. The combustible contents already residing in the buildings caught fire as a result, resulting in floor to ceiling flames that were seen pouring out windows in the Towers. The heat was intense and did negatively affect the structural steel and its ability to support the structure above the fire zone.
Ron J
Active Member
It isn't a tiny narrative change. A look is not the same as spoken words.
Why would a Red Cross worker have anything to do with keeping people behind a line? Why would they have a radio and be holding their hand over the speaker, so they couldn't hear dispatches over it? Why would a Red Cross worker have a radio which was on a frequency other than that used by the Red Cross, to communicate between their workers? If people were supposed to be behind a line, why would they have been in any danger from the demolition of WTC7 and need to run for their lives? The purpose of a do not cross line would be protect people from danger.
Run for your lives- so where are all the corroborating witnesses, considering he said there was a crowd?
Someone should have come forward to confirm what he said.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
In any disaster, there is misinformation reported. Look at the West fertilizer explosion, some of the first reports had a hundred folks killed. I see the same thing in the reporting on tornadoes.
There is so much importance put on getting the story out first, that sometimes mistakes are made. Often the reporter is not looking at the same picture we are seeing.
The best example I have seen of that was from the weather news several years ago. The weatherman switched to a tower cam to look at a lowering of clouds on the north side of Ft Worth, in the northern suburbs. Instead of seeing a cloud lowering, the tower cam had a ringside look at a tornado that had just formed. The poor weatherman went on talking about the clouds and totally missed the news that all the viewers could see. I sort of felt sorry for Troy.
There is so much importance put on getting the story out first, that sometimes mistakes are made. Often the reporter is not looking at the same picture we are seeing.
The best example I have seen of that was from the weather news several years ago. The weatherman switched to a tower cam to look at a lowering of clouds on the north side of Ft Worth, in the northern suburbs. Instead of seeing a cloud lowering, the tower cam had a ringside look at a tornado that had just formed. The poor weatherman went on talking about the clouds and totally missed the news that all the viewers could see. I sort of felt sorry for Troy.
Jason
Senior Member
I've sifted through the 8 pages in this topic and couldn't find an answer to what I was looking for. This is purely hypothetical, and I'm in no way implying explosives were used on 9-11. Could the towers, based on what we witness on 9-11 have fallen in the same manner if we were to use explosives on just one floor. The theory is the plane impacted several floors causing an explosion and knocking off the fire proofing. Jet fueled spewed out and pooled creating office fires that weekend the steel which ended in total collapse due to the pancaking effect of the mass loads falling from above. So my question is, if someone were to have used explosives, on just one floor, would the same result have happened. Since both towers came down, not just one of them, it's more plausible then, Right?
So what size explosives would've been needed to create enough structural damage to a floor to knock off the fire proofing and create an office fire that could cause total collapse. What's always intrigued me about the towers is most people talk about controlled demolition when taking down a building, but we saw for the first time in 3 seperate cases where a destroying and weakening a few floors actually caused total collapse. So can a big enough bomb cause the same outcome? And if so, isn't it cheaper and less time consuming for demolition companies to use this method in the future instead of wiring and cutting the entire bldg.
So what size explosives would've been needed to create enough structural damage to a floor to knock off the fire proofing and create an office fire that could cause total collapse. What's always intrigued me about the towers is most people talk about controlled demolition when taking down a building, but we saw for the first time in 3 seperate cases where a destroying and weakening a few floors actually caused total collapse. So can a big enough bomb cause the same outcome? And if so, isn't it cheaper and less time consuming for demolition companies to use this method in the future instead of wiring and cutting the entire bldg.
Gary Cook
Active Member
That may be true but I still dont get how that resulted in the total collapse of the buildings. Just because floors above collapsed doesnt mean the lower ones will. Apart from the plane in the building of course the mass hasnt change. They seem to me to be describing the impact from some of the floora collapsing subsequently collapsing the floors below but from what I read its does seem likely. I would imagine that would entail slow bending of the joints etc untill each floor collapsed. Although I am no expert and can not remember the NIST reports verbatim.
Also we do not know what sort of exotic explosive technology's they have in their R&D. For all we know they could have some weird ray gun.
Representative Press
Member
Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert, didn't think that made sense because he didn't think explosives could survive the fires. And also, no we would not have seen "the same result" "if someone were to have used explosives, on just one floor" because well before the collapses we see signs of fire-induced collapses which make no sense in the context off setting of explosives. With the towers, which you asked about, we can see inward bowing of the exterior columns well before the total structural failure:
so that has nothing to do with explosives set off in a "controlled demolition" targeting one floor. And also with WTC7, there were fires and signs of fire-induced collapse such as the structural integrity being negatively impacted well before it collapsed. 9/11 "truthers" have suppressed the signs of fire-induced collapse almost entirely from their claims and proclamations.
You might want to look around, as this is old ground.
MikeC
Closed Account
If the weight of the floors above the collapse point is sufficient, then yes it does.
It doesn't really matter how you weaken the building - explosives, verinage hydraulics, or crashing an aircraft into them - it is "simply" a matter of physics - the structure can support a given static or dynamic (moving) load - if the load is greater then you get collapse.
And a moving load has more force than the same mass that is not moving - try resting a small weight gently on an egg...and then try dropping it from 10 feet - same weight, but movement means greater force.
The top floors of the building, once they started moving, constituted more load than the structure could support - therefore collapse was the only thing that was ever going to happen.
Representative Press
Member
And NIST even calculated how many floors would be sufficient and they determined the towers could not have supported more than six floors collapsing:
"This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly." http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
Jason
Senior Member
So why do companies spend so much money on using demolition companies. If it's simple physics involved, and the buildings had no where else to fall but straight down, could demolition companies in the future just wire one floor with explosives and be done...
Jason
Senior Member
I agree, I'm not saying 911 was caused by explosives, Im merely trying to understand if explosives on one floor could've yielded the same results. And if they could, and it's a matter of simple physics, why don't demo companies just wire one floor with explosives instead of wiring the entire bldg and cutting the beams for up to 6 months in preperation.
Jason
Senior Member
That's exactly what happened Mike. Each successive floor below couldn't support the loads from above once the top portion of the tower started to fall. I get that, and honestly its the only plausible explanation. But, we could've also yielded the same results by using explosives, if we took out the columns responsible for holding the up the bldg above it. By doing so, the top of the bldg would begin to fall (gravity) and we would have the same process repeat itself until we hit the foundation. So why do demo companies employ so much tactics ahead of a demo. If most bldg's are 95% air, have no other direction to fall by straight down as did WTC 1,2,and 7. Isn't it safe to assume, taking out one floor at the right place could always yield similar results to a demolition.
Representative Press
Member
Both the Twin Towers and WTC7 caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings (they didn't fall "straight down"), that's not something a demo company would want to do.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
Jason,
Research Verinage Demolition in youtube. Amazing: demolition companies collapsing only one floor (no explosives) and bringing down buildings.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=verinage+demolition
Jason
Senior Member
Thanks for finding that, so it can be done. Great find.
Verinage has been mentioned many times here. Search for "Verinage" for examples.
- Status
Similar threads
