WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
They'd need to be matched up to the blueprints that have been available for a while.

BTW, this statement is false. There are no "blueprints" that "have been available for a while". There are leaked architechural drawings. Notice I said "leaked". How can we match them up to blueprints that:

1. Have to be "leaked" into the public domain.

2. Are only the Architechural drawings and NOT the structural drawings.

3. And did I mention that they were "leaked"?

Originally posted by Griff

BTW, this statement is false. There are no "blueprints" that "have been available for a while". There are leaked architechural drawings. Notice I said "leaked". How can we match them up to blueprints that:

Right. I'm not a structural engineer, so they're all hieroglyphics to me.

My bad.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Don't sweat it. I'd love to get ahold of the structural documents though. Maybe then I could write a paper. But as of now, I feel it's pointless because without the documents, we are all pretty much just guessing. At least with the finer details of things.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
Take a look at this picture:

This picture was taken shortly after the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Can you see the 45 degree angle cut on the steel column, and do you see the sulfidised residue around that straight cut. Now we must take that information and by necessity draw some very important and inevitable conclusions. These conclusions are binding, you don't get to agree with each successive point and then refute the eventuality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. That would be like saying ok, I see the straight cut, but now I'm going to tell you I want to pretend it's not there.

Is there any way to prove WHEN this picture was taken?

By a time stamp, or by the person who took the picture?

I ask because the History Channel claims it was cut days after 9/11 during the clean up effort.

This is a very important issue because obviously that column was cut.

Originally posted by Markshark4

This is a very important issue because obviously that column was cut.

Correct.

It was cut, during cleanup, with an oxy-acetylene torch.

No device has ever been shown that could cut a column like that using thermxte.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No device has ever been shown that could cut a column like that using thermxte.

I have to agree. Yet.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...
A link to more pictures of the columns we discussed 1 and 2 pages ago. It shows more views, and it does indeed look like a salvage cut at the end we didn't see before.
Also, if you go back to the main page, he gives some pretty convincing debunking for the famous angle cut column.

Not sure if it has been posted already, but I thought this was interesting when I read it

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.

WTC STUDY

[edit on 5-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by _Del_
Not sure if it has been posted already, but I thought this was interesting when I read it

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.

WTC STUDY

[edit on 5-5-2008 by _Del_]

I'll attempt to break down Mr. Blanchard's "analysis" and see where he may be off a little.

First, I'll start with the statement that you quoted. I'll give you LabTop's analysis of the graphs.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's plenty of links to follow in that thread to his work. I will mention that no one has been able to refute his analysis yet.

Now, back to Mr. Blanchard:

every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first

Really Mr. Blanchard?



So, the first error (lie) comes within the second paragraph.

There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points

I beg to differ with this rational. If the core was severed at any point below the impact zones, the failure on the outside would still be at the impact zones. I guess Mr. Blanchard has never watched "The Weakest Link".

as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

I guess they haven't heard of C-4?

C-4 is incredibly stable, and can only be detonated by combined incredible heat and pressure or an electric jolt.

en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)

Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Some "expert" huh? Or is he lying?

I can go through more if people would like, but in their first section, I have found 3 false statements by this man. Should we really listen to what the man has to say about it?

Especially considering his company has a vested interest in the WTC site?

What gets me about the thermite theory for that angle-cut column is that it was in an area of unaffected building prior to the collapse. The intact floors in that area would be providing horizontal stabilisation so the only possible movement after cutting through a single column is in the vertical direction IE down. If I estimate the core to be supporting 60% of the building's 500000T mass and that column to be holding up 1/47 of that 60%, would it be possible to cut clean through it before it dropped remembering that thermite is far from instantaneous?

Wouldn't all the columns in that area need to be cut simultaneously and even then there's the horizontal bracing including the floors themselves controlling the degree of motion. All cuts need to be precisely timed so that no columns could drop the required 1cm or so and reweld themselves.

It just seems 'undoable' to me with the variety of thicknesses needing their cuts to be finished at exactly the same instant .

who knows what angle that beam is suppose to be laying at to begin with .. just because it happens to be standing up .. doesnt mean it belongs there.. that beam could of come from any where in that building.. and a callapse like that could twist a small beam like that into a pretzel. Im sure if you were one of the clean up crew.. you would of seen all kinds of fantastic phenomenon after a callapse like that.. for example .. a complete computer falling 80 stories.. in the middle of the rubble.. without a scratch on it..and in perfect running order. or a battery powered wall clock.. still ticking..and it perfect condition..just crazy stuff like that.. happens all the time..

reply to post by Pilgrum


You bring up good points. That's why I believe that if thermite was used, they would have severed the horizontal bracing to the core, causing it to buckle.

Would fit the floors pulling in on the outer columns, no?

Would also make it look more like a natural collapse. Buckled columns and sheared bracing. No?



[edit on 5/7/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by philjwolf


1. It is a box column.

2. Only box columns were used as verticle supports.

3. I can agree it would be possible. Never say never.

4. Nothing fell 80 stories. Everything fell 1 story at a time. Somehow, there was no support to hinder it?

reply to post by Griff

I think we're getting a realistic idea of just how many devices of any kind, perfectly timed, it would take to dissociate the core from the outer walls allowing it to move independently while, at the same time, severing enough of the core so it could slip off the column stubs below. The only place I'm reasonably sure something along those lines happened is in the zone impacted by the planes.

Originally posted by Griff

4. Nothing fell 80 stories. Everything fell 1 story at a time. Somehow, there was no support to hinder it?

OMG, I almost skipped replying to this but I just can't stand it.

Freefall speed is demonstrated accurately by the exterior columns falling ahead of the collapse wave.

Exterior columns can clearly be seen hitting the ground when the collapse wave is still around the 30-40th floor. Therefore the collapse wave was CONSIDERABLY hindered by the building.

C'mon Griff, you're making my brother and all other engineers look bad when you write something like this........

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Exterior columns can clearly be seen hitting the ground when the collapse wave is still around the 30-40th floor. Therefore the collapse wave was CONSIDERABLY hindered by the building.

Now hold on there Mr. Butz.

When you say the building "hindered" the collapse "considerably," you imply something that would have to be determined by moments of inertia and things of that nature, not just an arbitrary comparison of how fast free-falling material fell, versus the speed of the collapses' vertical progressions. Just because it was slower than free-fall, doesn't mean it occurred at a slow enough rate for gravity to have provided all the energy to make it happen in the amount of time that it did.

Just because a feather accelerates through solid granite at only 7 m/s^2 doesn't mean therefore the feather's weight is what drove it through the granite, simply because it was still slower than free-fall through air. That is not reasoning, because it makes absolutely no logical sense. But to differentiate between this case and the Twin Towers, their "collapse waves" did not even accelerate, but maintained regular intervals between floors popping out until they were obscured.

And when you say,

C'mon Griff, you're making my brother and all other engineers look bad when you write something like this........

you're really just showing people like me why people like Griff have more credibility than you in the first place, probably because of his education that you're knocking.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


And you believe that those couple seconds are enough to include the resistance?

I don't. And until I can verify it with actual construction drawings, I won't. Why are the drawings hidden?

And any other engineer who thinks they "know it all" is a pompous blowhard IMO when it comes to this if they haven't seen the documents either. Sorry, but, that's how I feel.

We had to recently calculate if a brick wall could be added in one of my project buildings. Guess what we had to look at to figure out if the beams would hold?



[edit on 5/8/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by bsbray11


When you say the building "hindered" the collapse "considerably," you imply something that would have to be determined by moments of inertia and things of that nature, not just an arbitrary comparison of how fast free-falling material fell, versus the speed of the collapses' vertical progressions. Just because it was slower than free-fall, doesn't mean it occurred at a slow enough rate for gravity to have provided all the energy to make it happen in the amount of time that it did.

Funny that now you state your case about how the physics don't work out ( I'm paraphrasing ) when as Griff points out that the correct plans aren't available to make sure, either way.

Don't cast the first stone or construct yet another strawman, when all I objected to was Griff's statement that the collapse went UNHINDERED.

Cuz even in his statement above, he admits that it WAS hindered, just not as much as he would think.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Don't cast the first stone or construct yet another strawman, when all I objected to was Griff's statement that the collapse went UNHINDERED.

Cuz even in his statement above, he admits that it WAS hindered, just not as much as he would think.

This is why we as engineers do not use words of absolute in our reports. My bad for stating an absolute word like unhindered. How about we change it to "barely hindered"?

Originally posted by Griff


This is why we as engineers do not use words of absolute in our reports. My bad for stating an absolute word like unhindered. How about we change it to "barely hindered"?

Sounds good to me.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think about the total collapse. I've read papers from both side of the fence and maybe it's best to do as you stated. Nothing can be stated for sure without the proper plans.