It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large—particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This image is rare for I have not seen it. It show the core columns of the 47 story Building 7 that was part of the WTC complex.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This image is rare for I have not seen it. It show the core columns of the 47 story Building 7 that was part of the WTC complex.
Ya mean the columns on top? The reddish ones?
Those would be exterior columns. One face of the ext columns were faced in red granite.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
I think he was referring to the columns visible on the bottom-left-middle area of the photo. I am just guessing though.
Originally posted by thedman
If was "controlled demolition" why no sounds of explosions? Hokey Smokes Bullwinkle - must have been using silent explosives!
Demolition does not necessarily imply that explosives were used. Thermite does not work by the force of explosion by through extreme heat that cuts the core columns. Which then coincidentally or not fall into a neat pile just the one shown above. If not taken down by thermite it looks remarkably similar to a building that had been brought down with it.
If coincidences only weighed one ounce each 9/11 would still have TONS of coincidences that ocurred ONLY on that on particular day.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Asktheanimals
I could be wrong but as far as I've been able to confirm the only reason that thermite was put forward as a possible explanation is to satisfy the distinct lack of destructive explosions (IE it's quiet enough). The main problem is that thermite is used primarily for constructive purposes (welding) because it produces molten iron and it's very unpredictable in terms of speed so co-ordinating thermite induced failures on a large scale just isn't feasible as the first induced failures would re-weld themselves before the last ones completed. Also thermite does not act sideways so cutting vertical columns with it is going to be a challenge.
Do you have any example of large buildings being demolished with thermite to supply some sort of precedent?
Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Pilgrum
What could make molten metal flow, months after?
Originally posted by Sean48
Actually , Thermite is being talked about because it was found in trace
amounts in the dust and debris.
A byproduct of Thermite is it is a quiet "burn', and it wont reweld, it turns the metal to liquid, like the pools found in the bottom of the debris pile.