So, this thread has received quite a lot of attention recently, and I have finally gotten around to reading it.
Surprisingly, this seems to be what people have been asking for for some time, a reasonable enough attempt at defining a coherent hypothesis for the
demolition of one of the WTC buildings. I am extremely happy that such a thing has been attempted, and while I intend to show that it's not feasible
in its current form, the fact that it exists is reassuring.
To start with, I'll summarise the theory as I best understand it, so that you know what exactly I am arguing against, and I can try and be as clear
WTC7 was demolished by:
- Cutting columns slowly throughout the day between the bottom of floor 5 and the top of floor 7 including columns #61,62,73,74,76,77 with the
"two columns" on top of trusses #1 and #2 (there were 4 columns here, #73,#74,#76,#77) being cut 'early'.
- Cutting similar columns at a higher level, floors 14-17
- Destroying some high level 'trusses' fractionally before collapse onset
- Cut one or more high level columns at the south western side
- Cut and displace 7-10 floor high sections of at least columns mentioned in #1.
The mechanism behind this destruction is harder to understand. I searched ATS as Labtop recommended, but found only a post reference, not any
information on this device.
This is the first and biggest problem with this theory. The device as far as I can tell does not exist and does not work on physical principles. I
will describe what I think it is, and why it won't work:
The device is described as a shaped charge where the destruction is intended to occur in a horizontal plane surrounding the device. It uses ignited
thermite as the cutting medium, and a thermobaric explosive as the propellant. Unfortunately, none of this is feasible and some of the properties
described are impossible.
The basic principle, that is using a cutting medium to slice through columns propelled by explosives is perfectly valid. In fact, this is precisely
how existing shaped charge cutters work. Thermite however is an extremely poor
cutting medium for the following reasons. A shaped charge works
by propelling a lump of extremely ductile metal in two vectors, resulting in collision of high speed metal producing an ideally flat jet. This jet
impacts the steel after formation and cuts it through shear fracture and general plastic deformation.
Copper is chosen for use as the cutting medium for several reasons. It's cheap, it's workable without specialist equipment, and it is ductile. This
means that when the explosive propellant is detonated, the copper can be smoothly deformed into a jet, without fracturing and dispersing into smaller
particles. This is why thermite would be an extremely poor cutting medium. In its normal form it is a powder mix, which obviously has no measurable
ductility in the sense that a copper sheet does. There are other forms of thermite, but it seems from the description that this is ignited and burning
at the time of the explosion. This would potentially be even worse as a liquid would flow under gravity and make the required geometric arrangement
for focusing the medium into a jet potentially impossible. The heat content of the thermite also would not make a positive difference, as heating
steel makes it less likely to fracture under impact which is the key to effective cutting, as it uses a lot less energy than plastic deformation.
Secondly the propellant also does not make sense, a thermobaric explosion would be extremely poorly suited to the process of making a clean cut. A
thermobaric explosive is in ways very similar to a BLEVE explosion, they use a cloud of fuel vapour to produce a shockwave of lower amplitude and
longer duration than high explosives. This is very useful if taking down a structure, but it is the higher amplitude that is important in shaped
charge cutting. The point of such explosives is that they expel a huge amount of energy relative to their volume, propelling the copper at extreme
speeds. Thermobaric weapons could not do this as they rely upon oxygen from the volume of air they enclose for combustion. The smaller the volume, the
less overall energy is released, regardless of the fuel density.
Thirdly, the proposed 'low frequency signature' is a physical impossibility. For a start, Labtop refers to supersonic speeds, which require as a
matter of course shockwaves. Even if these shockwaves are very short duration, the fact that they are produced by a compounding expansion and
compression of the air requires a high amplitude, which over a short period produces an extremely loud 'clap'. Further to this problem is the fact
that a thermobaric explosive requires a conventional explosive to spread the fuel to be burned, which also would produce an unmistakable shockwave.
Given these numerous problems with the proposed 'cutter charges', I will consider a normal controlled demolition charge in place. These are highly
effective, well tested and used because of their efficacy. I would gladly consider this theory from the thermite explosive perspective if I knew of or
had ever heard of such a device. Without a practical example though, any capabilities are simply speculation, and as I intend to show, this
speculation may be required to overcome some serious problems.
Cutting columns #61,62,73,74,76,77 at floor 7
This is essentially point number one in the demolition method. The biggest problem here is that floor 7 was not unoccupied as seems to have been
implied. Several of these columns terminate at the floor level of floor 7 as they connect to the large transfer trusses. For this reason, unless the
transfer trusses are to be failed (which is not mentioned) then significant work must be carried out in open office areas. This is floor 7 of WTC 7
with the 6 mentioned columns marked:
As you can see, some of the columns (#76,77,74) are in accessible positions with minimal oversight as they are in mechanical spaces not accessible to
normal tenants. However, #61,62,73 are all in normal office corridors, not somewhere that a box is likely to simply appear without questions being
asked if Labtop's mechanism can be shown to work. With a normal controlled demolition however, there are more problems. This is an axial view of the
typical column at this level:
This is quite a complex column, as it has been reinforced by welding in additional plates. This presents a large problem for typical controlled
demolitions. Because of the limited penetration power of these explosives, typically either the column flanges or web are cut away to allow proper
charge offset and penetration.
With this type of column however that would be quite difficult, the added web plates and the flanges would need to be cut away, taking quite a lot of
work and being impossible to perform covertly in an office environment. This to my eyes completely rules out any column sabotage where the access
would be through a working office environment. Furthermore the charges must be offset somewhat from the columns, so they could not be hidden within
wallboard partitions. It may have been possible to hide them above the drop ceiling, but even then you would not be able to cut out the required
sections without a huge fire potential, and an awful lot of work that could not be covert.
There is also the issue that by removing the supporting steel from these columns, they could easily become overloaded and fail, killing or severely
injuring the people responsible for cutting them and leaving unmistakeable evidence of a plot to take down the building. Would this really be
acceptable in a covert scenario? Knowing one incorrect cut might kill your workers and expose your plot?
Cutting columns early
I feel that this point is impossible unless there is a plausible mechanism to cut columns without:
a) Breaking windows
b) Producing 130dB at 1km
c) Extremely visible prep work
Any cutting would have to be synchronised with other loud noises to be disguised, as a silent high explosive does not exist.
Cutting columns horizontally so they remain standing
This is just silly, any explosively formed penetrator will damage in a conical or wedge shape, there is no way to cut a perfectly horizontal slice out
of a thick steel column that I am aware of, and considering the impossibility of the proposed mechanism I don't think this needs more addressing.
Displace 7-10 floor sections
This is where I think a lot of the work is disguised. There seems to be an assumption that if you cut the columns at the bottom and the top, you can
displace them. This is not reality though, as all of the columns listed were connected extensively to floor beams through the rest of the building.
Cutting a 7 floor section of this loose would require at least 30 devices per column to fully sever the beams at each level. This is being
Furthermore, this does not actually remove the mass of those stories, it simply removes the energy requirements for fracturing and buckling columns. I
am told all the time though that the rate of descent indicates no
resistance, and while I disagree with that, if you believe it then you must
recognise that the momentum transfer to accelerate these floors consumes energy, energy that according to some truthers is not available to be
Other minor points
- Destroying some high level 'trusses' fractionally before collapse onset
There were no high level trusses, beam flooring was used
- Cut high level columns at south western side
This serves no practical demolition purpose, it is just being used to explain air ejections at that corner. These ejections are better explained by
the volume of the building reducing and airflow being generated by the pressure difference
I think this is a relatively complete reply addressing the points I saw directly. Other than this one minor one:
Originally posted by bsbray11
And here is the closest they could come to reproducing WTC7's collapse with their computer simulations, based on their working theory:
Bsbray, do you ever do your own research? This is not
the closest they could come at all and without cutting off the description which is right
underneath it, you would have known this:
Their actual final result was this, which was significantly closer:
In conclusion, this is a good attempt at the beginnings of a hypothesis for the demolition of WTC7. However, it would fail to produce similar results
in the collapse, and misses out several important factors. It also uses an unproven demolition mechanism with vague details which appear at odds to
the stated capabilities.
I definitely do not suggest abandoning this theory, but the first thing that has to be done is revise the 'thermite shaped charge' hypothesis.
Without any convincing evidence that such a device even exists, never mind its capabilities, the whole theory relies upon pure speculation.