WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human intervention.

reply to post by mw451


wtc7.net...
show me where the "chunk of tower that fell onto the top of the building is" located please

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by mw451

 

wtc7.net...
show me where the "chunk of tower that fell onto the top of the building is" located please

I see you like looking at the side of the building that wasn't hit.

I have nothing more to say here.

I brought up this thread in JREF - the conspiracy theory forum for debunkers - the debunker to truther ratio there is something like 15:1 (the last place a truther would want to be)

Anyways, I didn't do a particularly good job defending your hypothesis. (sorry)
Read what I brought up here

Anyways some of things debunkers mentioned:

Debunker #1:
re: horizontal cutting
It doesn't matter WHERE specifically these cuts are. I repeat; IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that this theory is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut through a steel column without instantly destroying the structural integrity of the building. There are glaring reasons why this theory doesn't begin to make sense:
1). Cutting a steel beam removes some of the material. Keep in mind that this "cutting" must be done with a cutting torch as there is no other viable and/or portable method of doing so.
2). To avoid having the column mend itself by the downward pressure on melted steel, the cutters would have to remove a large swath of material (by cutting circular or rectangular patterns across the section).
3).This would leave a minimum gap of 2 to 3 inches. So basically you have a floating column...that is meant to support a building...connected to nothing. Cutting "horizontally" means nothing.
4). How the hell do the daily workers, security, etc. in WTC7 not notice that people are torch cutting columns on floors 5-7?

Debunker #2:
It's totally idiotic. By cutting columns horizontally, the person in question apparently believes each column would gently come to rest on the stub that was just cut, and the structure would stay put until additional bracing is cut, and kicker charges fired (silently, one imagines) to start it in motion. This is not how large structures behave. First, those cuts are not particularly clean. Second, even if they were, you introduce displacement. Third, many of those columns were carrying moments, and they can't anymore if you cut them like this.

Real demolitioneers don't do this because they try to make the demolition as predictable as possible. This is of even greater importance in this fantasy scenario, because the claim is the columns were cut many hours before it was to collapse, and the whole time the structure was on fire... But horizontal cuts make the collapse unpredictable. If it remains standing in the first place once you begin.

Debunker #3
Re: Whether you can rule out CD
#1 reason: No physical or trace evidence of a CD was ever found at GZ.
--------------------------------

LaBTop, honestly you should start a thread on JREF if you want to defend your hypothesis - the debunkers are at least nice enough to invite people to present their ideas. I can't argue for you but if you think you are on to something then it should be brought to the debunkers to see if it holds up. You may have to argue in semantics against things like "No physical or trace evidence of a CD was ever found at GZ" which is really annoying to argue against seeing how explosives explode, nano-thermite and molten iron/steel hasn't technically been proven, and so much metal was transported to china. I am new to 9/11 conspiracy theory. If a bunch of truthers want to help you debate at JREF (should you choose to present your findings for mock peer review) then I would suggest we get the brightest minds from AboveTopSecret to help you debate your findings and general semantics that they would undoubtedly use.

As for their argument against the horizontal cutting, couldn't some material be filled in the floating space?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by mw451

 

wtc7.net...
show me where the "chunk of tower that fell onto the top of the building is" located please

I see you like looking at the side of the building that wasn't hit.

I have nothing more to say here.

the photo linked to in this quote shows the top of the building.
please magnify for me the substantial damage.

this photo below is from the south side of WTC 7 before collapse and after debris hit it.
please show me the substantial damage.
BTW this photo was released in conjunction with NIST report.

it is exhibit 399.

wtc7.net...

Originally posted by slugger9787

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by mw451

 

wtc7.net...
show me where the "chunk of tower that fell onto the top of the building is" located please

I see you like looking at the side of the building that wasn't hit.

I have nothing more to say here.

the photo linked to in this quote shows the top of the building.
please magnify for me the substantial damage.

this photo below is from the south side of WTC 7 before collapse and after debris hit it.
please show me the substantial damage.
BTW this photo was released in conjunction with NIST report.

it is exhibit 399.

wtc7.net...

edit on 23-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: wtc7.net...

Well, that clears things up. Now we are seeing the southwest corner from the western side of the building. Sorry, but that isn't where the main damage from the report is.

reply to post by Varemia


i will bite
where is the major area of damage?

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 as possible:

The theory:
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 conservative too.

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 consumed.

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:


Summary:
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.

Originally posted by slugger9787
this photo below is from the south side of WTC 7 before collapse and after debris hit it.
please show me the substantial damage.
BTW this photo was released in conjunction with NIST report.

it is exhibit 399.

wtc7.net...

Perhaps you have not read the full report. here is the significant damage:

It truly is beautiful to see such a fantastically researched and explained post like exponent's being completely ignored. [/sarcasm]

Seriously? Where all the truthers who have so adamantly claimed evidence for the theories they make? I contend that the reason this post has gotten no response is that either:
A. Nobody spent the time to read all the way through (yet I recall many truther posts criticizing OS supporters for not reading their posts all the way)
B. No one can find any logical refutations for the post.

Hopefully this is not an off-topic post. It just really is a little sad that no one seems to have given the evidence presented by exponent enough thought to warrant a post.

He explains all the points that were made in the OP and debunks them with the extended evidence that is not contoured to look like a CD. There is clearly the NIST's far more accurate simulation of the collapse with the damage taken into account. Now come on, am I the only person who thinks this was an important post?

reply to post by LaBTop


Lots of work for?.....except that there is no evidence of any demolition... The claims of "scientists found thermite" have been shown to be a hoax alongside every other claim...

There have been claims of "mini-nukes" being used, scalar weapons, aliens did it, and soon we will be hearing stories on how Elvis was behind the plot too...

This event happened 9 years ago and still without any real evidence at all people make false claims which other uninformed people believe just because they want to believe...

Originally posted by Varemia
It truly is beautiful to see such a fantastically researched and explained post like exponent's being completely ignored. [/sarcasm]

Agreed. I don't want to bump this thread without good reason but it's been a few days since I made that post now and absolutely nobody is attempting to refine Labtop's theory to make it workable. Despite this, posts without specific information have been getting lots of replies.

Come on people, isn't this the point of the truth movement? To find out what is possible and what isn't?

Originally posted by Come Clean

5. Funny, your question 3 seems to contradict your question 5. You claim the fires were almost out but also claim no one could plant charges because the buildings were on fire. Which one is it? Were the fires almost out or not? But let's explore this further.

Who put the fires almost out? The fires were dozens of stories up. They had hoses that long? The sprinkler system was out. So tell me, these fires put themselves almost out as you claim? The heat was so intense they couldn't even get near the top floors. People were jumping out of the building. They basically helped get people out. They did no firefighting on that day.

So many fireman were running around all it would take is for someone to put on a fireman's suit and plant thermite charges.

Matter of fact, where is the "how do we put out the WTC Towers if they ever caught fire above 80 floors" disaster plan? I would like to read for myself what OFFICIALS claim to be the best way to put out WTC Tower fires.

Question 5 is supposed to make you think about your statement which was question 3.

If you claim your theory is that they took the buildings down because they could not stop the fire - then why were there reports from fire fighters on the scene stating the fires where almost out before the buildings fell.

What would be the point then?! Get it now?

Also what person in their right mind is going to run thermite bombs into an unstable building? That is a suicide mission - anything could happen. There was furniture knocked over water on the floor very easy to slip and fall with a very dangerous package. Further more, don't you think someone would have noticed all that suspicious activity?

Why would you debunk both the official theory and the most common conspiracy theory.....? I don't understand the thought process behind that one. Maybe you could help me out there.

There is evidence stacked on evidence that the official story has holes in it. There is only one conclusion that can be made by common sense here. They do not want to admit to the holes in the story because it is a cover up. If it is not a cover up then why not re-visit the evidence and take a closer look.

They wont! Why do you think the remains of the building were shipped to another country within days of the event. Do all you debunkers out there think we are all making this stuff up!? The information is recorded in media history. You just have to do the research and connect the dots.

I have come to the conclusion that if you debunk the theory either you are 1. uneducated because it only takes high school physics to prove something is not right with the official story. 2. You have not done enough research and should not debating. And last but not least - 3. because you are part of the cover up and someone is paying/employing you to annoy truthers on websites like ATS.

reply to post by nottheonlyone


Or 4. Am doing just as much, possibly better research than many here and cannot find the holes and anti-physics activities of the towers' collapses.

Really now, nothing is cut and dry. I'll change my mind when I see the evidence, and so far the best evidence for a conspiracy theory has been the statement by the fellow who was up on the 7th or 8th floor of the WTC 7, but there isn't anything that I can use in his testimony to set up a time frame for the "explosion" or any definite explanation from others about why it happened. All I get is "See! See! Explosives brought down everything!" When the evidence is hardly verifiable as to when and why things happened.

reply to post by Varemia


just go find he post by Good Old Dave.
his explaination will suffice for you.
it is complete with time lines.

The people who stand by the fabricated tale that the damage from falling debris caused the building to collapse, I invite you to take a stroll down memory lane to the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. Remember the giant gaping hole where there used to be a third of the structure after the bomb went off? Yet the remaining building did not collapse. Yeah, the bomb took out a large part of the building, but why didn't the REST of it go down after such severe damage? It was missing a substantial portion of its structure - no collapse. It did what buildings are designed to do --- not fall down.

Now you want me to believe that some small fires and damage to the facade can make an entire building fall down all at once?

Seriously?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by nottheonlyone

 

Or 4. Am doing just as much, possibly better research than many here and cannot find the holes and anti-physics activities of the towers' collapses.

Really now, nothing is cut and dry. I'll change my mind when I see the evidence, and so far the best evidence for a conspiracy theory has been the statement by the fellow who was up on the 7th or 8th floor of the WTC 7, but there isn't anything that I can use in his testimony to set up a time frame for the "explosion" or any definite explanation from others about why it happened. All I get is "See! See! Explosives brought down everything!" When the evidence is hardly verifiable as to when and why things happened.

Varemia, I would suggest to you that there is one certain time that we can deduce from Barry Jennings story. We know that he and Michael Hess were able to get to the OEM on the 23rd floor by elevator. We also know that they couldn't get back down by elevator because the power was out. Con-ED said that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9.59 am." This was at the time of the South Tower collapse. So I think it is beyond dispute that Jennings and Hess were in the OEM at 9.59.

We don't know how long they were in the OEM after 0959 but they had to check out the elevators and then Jennings said Hess " found the stairwell". They had evidently never used the stairs before which I suppose isn't surprising with the OEM 23 floors up. Anyway it had to be some minutes after 0959 that they set off down the stairs.They walk down 17 floors and the building is rocked, they are trapped. I suggest that this fits very well time-wise with the collapse of the North Tower which we know happened at 1028 and showered WTC 7 with debris.

I am reinforced in this view by virtue of the fact that Jennings and Hess only refer to the one dramatic incident. I don't see how you could be in WTC 7 at 1028 that morning and be unaware of the collapse of the North Tower. So, if a demolition charge went off, which seems ludicrous 7 hours before collapse, they ought to have referred to two dramatic incidents.

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
I have come to the conclusion that if you debunk the theory either you are 1. uneducated because it only takes high school physics to prove something is not right with the official story. 2. You have not done enough research and should not debating. And last but not least - 3. because you are part of the cover up and someone is paying/employing you to annoy truthers on websites like ATS.

So, which one am I? I have more than high school physics, I have done more research than the majority of truthers, and I am unfortunately not being paid a dime to post here.

How do you explain this then? Your false trichotomy doesn't change the reality, which is that the 'official story' provides by far the most complete and accurate theory and requires no extra entities.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
The people who stand by the fabricated tale that the damage from falling debris caused the building to collapse, I invite you to take a stroll down memory lane to the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. Remember the giant gaping hole where there used to be a third of the structure after the bomb went off? Yet the remaining building did not collapse. Yeah, the bomb took out a large part of the building, but why didn't the REST of it go down after such severe damage? It was missing a substantial portion of its structure - no collapse. It did what buildings are designed to do --- not fall down.

Now you want me to believe that some small fires and damage to the facade can make an entire building fall down all at once?

Seriously?

I believe a "That wasn't a similar design to the WTC 7 building" is necessary. I mean, every time I bring up the top-down collapse models of high-rise buildings I get told to hit the road with that information because they aren't the same design as the towers, and now I see someone else doing the same thing on the opposite side with no reservation?

Remember to give yourself the same criticism that you give to others, or else you end up being a potential hypocrite. (I am using you somewhat in general at this point, because it is multiple people that have done this kind of argument and yet ignore my own.)

And again, not small fires, and not just damage to the face. Firefighters reported a sizable chunk taken out of the building.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Oklahoma City was done by a micro nuke.
hindsight is 20-20

nine story building with damage like that.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Oklahoma City was done by a micro nuke.
hindsight is 20-20

nine story building with damage like that.

Jesus... Please prove it? These seemingly unfounded assertions are just getting tiresome to read. Really man, do us a favor and back your statements up with at least a vague in-text citation for your information.