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

So it's now been a week since my original post addressing LaBtop's theory. Between the original posting date and my post there is also a one week span. In this one week, slightly over 9 pages of posts were generated, most confirming belief in LaBtop's theory.

Since my post, there have been very few posts, none whatsoever addressing my attempt at a refutation or any of the original posts.

Why is this? Why has this thread suddenly become so quiet? Even if you don't agree with me you can at least try and find problems with my rebuttal. Are we really to assume that nobody has any problems with my response?

reply to post by exponent


rxponent, i understood you to sat that cutting a vertical column is difficult. especially because it needs to be displaced.
I did not read Labtop extensive description due to laziness, but I think he could have the times of day and sequenc incorrect, after all there wer no video records of events inside the building.

He took seismograph records and linked them to the collapse of WTC7.
This is as far as proof goes, for speculation about the sequence of and how cuts, displacements, and such were timed and made, is unfortunately all that i available to us at this point.

A cut can be made on a vertical column and that can be displaced later, pehaps that is why the penthouse failed first as it initiated displacement and offsetting of supoort columns.


Myself, the seven story main trusses would be he key to the entire building. Disable them and WTC 7 comes down.

reply to post by slugger9787


And the unpredictable fire in the building along with the damage was just coincidental and not influential at all, I guess? How is it that the malicious people in charge of the demolition got so lucky?

Originally posted by Varemia
And the unpredictable fire in the building along with the damage was just coincidental and not influential at all, I guess?

Coincidental? No, it was a good excuse. Not a great one, but good enough. Not influential in the collapse at all? Bingo. Even NIST said the debris damage was insignificant. As far as the fires alone being able to cause what happened to WTC7, all you have to do is resort to common sense. Much less steel has burned for much longer in much more involved fires in other steel skyscrapers, but they don't collapse like that. The Cardington tests in 2000 showed what happens. Expansion and deformation, that's it. No runaway self-destruction like a James Bond movie.

reply to post by bsbray11


Oh yeah! That's why when NIST did their computer models of the potential collapse of WTC 7, it didn't look similar to the actual collapse until they factored in the damage! It all makes sense now!

Seriously dude, it's like truthers aren't even trying. I would like to see one convincing piece of evidence that discredits the OS.

Fantastic thread, great compilation. Thank you for your work and time put into this, I as many others, truly appreciate it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Coincidental? No, it was a good excuse. Not a great one, but good enough. Not influential in the collapse at all? Bingo. Even NIST said the debris damage was insignificant. As far as the fires alone being able to cause what happened to WTC7, all you have to do is resort to common sense. Much less steel has burned for much longer in much more involved fires in other steel skyscrapers, but they don't collapse like that. The Cardington tests in 2000 showed what happens. Expansion and deformation, that's it. No runaway self-destruction like a James Bond movie.

The steel didn't burn bsbray, and the Cardington tests had no asymmetrical framing, and many joint buckles and seat issues were found. Stop playing dumb.

You going to admit you posted an incorrect picture with the caption purposefully cut off yet? I put quite a bit of efffort into that post and it seems to have chased LaBtop off ATS altogether and shut down any debate.

Quite sad that a single post can have such effects.

Originally posted by bsbray11
all you have to do is resort to common sense.

Well, quite.

Which might lead you to ask what they would have done had the building not caught fire at all. Or beens truck by debris.

reply to post by exponent

exponent : I searched ATS as LaBTop recommended, but found only a post reference, not any information on this device.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read those posts first, then all the referenced older ATS and outside thermobaric links inside them.
Crux of the thermobaric matter :
See Tom Bedlam's post in the above second one.
Then you will find my reference to shattering steel columns like it was glass in the many other linked-to threads.

This is a Wikipedia link, for what it's worth, with lots of listed references :
en.wikipedia.org...

There's not much hard information published on thermobaric weapons, they are clearly still top-secret all over the world, the latest toys of the military are not ground for public dispute.

_BoneZ_ also found the photo back with the smoke emitting steel beams falling down :
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Any explanation from your side how that can happen? Saw his second photo?
Combined with the original US-media video evidence in my first link above, from David Chandler, the beam that changed momentum and direction, trailing also a long plume of smoke behind it, all the way to the ground?

Btw, the manner how WTC 7 was exactly demolished was not the crux of this thread.
It depended in my opinion on the three huge A-formed trusses demolition.
And I did not point to that western side of floor 7 as the initiation point, I pointed at the long column standing on top of the huge A-truss, near the stairs where Hess and Jennings got trapped in the morning after the huge explosion which threw them back up to the 7th floor stairwell.
That's the opposite easterly side.
One of those stood exactly under the eastern penthouse, which toppled into the roof first, during 8.3 seconds before WTC 7's global collapse started. In those last seconds the western penthouse toppled also into the roof. And that's the side you pointed at, with the single huge A-truss under its column leading to the roof area.

Please address the LDEO time-stamped WTC 7 seismic evidence, combined with the eastern penthouse dent forming Cianca photo, time-stamped by NIST.

That's the real crux of this thread.

To exponent, to give you a bit more substance on the thermobaric steel shattering effects, which you thought to have nailed to be impossible :

From the Prof. Jones Red Chips publication :
www.bentham.org...

Page 20/25 :
Ref.: [20] Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: www.p2pays.org...

A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time:
The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San
Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions
was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided a good representation of the breadth of
work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10 years old.… At this point in time, all of the
military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting
the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. [20].
The feature of “impulse management” may be significant.
It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

Read that last sentence? If you want to shatter a boxed-in steel beam such as exponent showed, like glass, you would be thinking of such an idea, ain't it so?

This or one of these referenced papers is probably also what ATS-member Tom Bedlam read and from which he concluded that :

Tom Bedlam :
However, just for fun, I found some research being done on drilling into box girders and flooding them with thermobarics a split second before you detonate them - guess what - it shatters steel box girders like glass.
What a weird thing to research.

It is worthwhile to read in your spare time the posts from him on this board, I assure you it's no lost time.

reply to post by exponent


Much too early for such a triumphant outburst, my dear Watson.

And could you show me the temperatures NIST used in its computing model you showed us? (NIST not ever published their source code, so we could play around with it too. Baddest form of scientific fraud that exist in the scientific world.).

Because I remember the only deformations they could come up with which even faintly looked like the real demolition of WTC 7, namely a smooth gliding down of all 3 visible outer walls, were accomplished by introducing crazy long and high temperatures effected on their steel beam/columns computer model.
And still it looked nothing like what we really saw, including the 2.3 seconds FREE FALL acceleration.

Originally posted by Come Clean
I still go back to basic fundamentals. There was no way to put those fires out in the towers so they brought them down. Now I think they brought down 7 for the same reason. It was on fire and no one was fighting it. So they brought it down.

No way could we have three towers burning like torches for weeks on end. So they brought them down.

Okay how did they know New York was going to be attacked then? You dont rig a building with explosives in a matter of hours. That takes planning, then it must be executed.

reply to post by LaBTop


Forgot to link to the second photo found by _BoneZ_ :



That looks eerily the same as that NYPD chopper photo above, don't you think?
The smoke emitting from the cut steel, while falling.

This is a former Wikipedia description of the effects of a thermobaric weapon, and especially the second, underpressure stage fits like a glove what some firefighters and witnesses described as what happened to them on 911 in the Towers, especially the firefighter who's helmet got sucked from his head, upwards on the stairs he was descending when an explosion higher up occurred is noteworthy.

Weapon effects
The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment. Unprotected personnel are injured or killed as well. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in "stiff" enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.

The overpressure within the detonation can reach 3 MPa (430 lbf/in²) and the temperature can be 2500 to 3000 °C. Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 3 km/s. Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air draw.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Oh yeah! That's why when NIST did their computer models of the potential collapse of WTC 7, it didn't look similar to the actual collapse until they factored in the damage! It all makes sense now!

Seriously dude, it's like truthers aren't even trying. I would like to see one convincing piece of evidence that discredits the OS.

Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been just as fantastic. So many unique events.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been just as fantastic. So many unique events.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

What is your freakin obsession with alien autopsies and tinfoil hats?! Get those retarded comments out of these conversations.

I don't know about the source code. All I know is that after watching the WTC 7 begin its collapse in slow motion, I looked at the physical details and came to a conclusion about what had happened based on what I saw. I determined a collapse sequence within the building, though I am still a little fuzzy about what happened during the collapse at the base. The damage that was reported and utilized in NIST's report seems to help explain that. Literally a few weeks after I had determined in my mind what happened based off what I saw (when I very first began I did believe it was demolition. My ideas changed as I looked closer, mainly after seeing the REAL beginning to the collapse), I saw a video about NIST's conclusions and their models showed exactly what I had thought occurred.

Now, it is entirely possible that a single demo charge could have been used and even planted quickly to take out the column that appears to have led to the whole building's collapse. However, the fires and damage to the building make me hesitant to find merit in that idea.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been just as fantastic. So many unique events.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

What is your freakin obsession with alien autopsies and tinfoil hats?! Get those retarded comments out of these conversations.

I don't know about the source code. All I know is that after watching the WTC 7 begin its collapse in slow motion, I looked at the physical details and came to a conclusion about what had happened based on what I saw. I determined a collapse sequence within the building, though I am still a little fuzzy about what happened during the collapse at the base. The damage that was reported and utilized in NIST's report seems to help explain that. Literally a few weeks after I had determined in my mind what happened based off what I saw (when I very first began I did believe it was demolition. My ideas changed as I looked closer, mainly after seeing the REAL beginning to the collapse), I saw a video about NIST's conclusions and their models showed exactly what I had thought occurred.

Now, it is entirely possible that a single demo charge could have been used and even planted quickly to take out the column that appears to have led to the whole building's collapse. However, the fires and damage to the building make me hesitant to find merit in that idea.

Cool down man. You are forgetting yourself. Why is this all so important to you? Is posting here your job? Why do you constantly feel the need to butt in? Is it unrational to you, to doubt that fires did what usually demolition experts do with ample time to plan, not to mention all the other fantastic coincidences and tales? If you have a problem with the NIST report not being accepted, take it to firefighters for truth and all the people with expertise outside the NIST umbrella, who have not been convinced. Untill you do that, I rather not side with those fantastic claims since doing so would put me on the fringe of society and make me look as silly as a guy wearing a tinfoil hat screaming alien invasion.

reply to post by Cassius666


I'm not saying it's unreasonable to doubt things, but it is unreasonable to ignore evidence that is readily available. I'm not ****ing being paid to be here for christ's sake! It ticks me off SOOO much when you guys resort to that tactic because people don't agree with your notions.

Man 1: I believe in flying saucers
Man 2: Why?
Man 1: Because, there is questionable evidence that they don't exist
Man 2: Um, what? I haven't seen the evidence that they exist, just blurred photos and bad videos that could easily be planes
Man 1: Are you being payed to argue against me? You must be a government agent. *sets man 2 on ignore and poors his cool-aid*

"V" baby, do you want some cheese with that whine?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to doubt things, but it is unreasonable to ignore evidence that is readily available. I'm not ****ing being paid to be here for christ's sake! It ticks me off SOOO much when you guys resort to that tactic because people don't agree with your notions.

Man 1: I believe in flying saucers
Man 2: Why?
Man 1: Because, there is questionable evidence that they don't exist
Man 2: Um, what? I haven't seen the evidence that they exist, just blurred photos and bad videos that could easily be planes
Man 1: Are you being payed to argue against me? You must be a government agent. *sets man 2 on ignore and poors his cool-aid*

Well you would be the one believing in flying saucers. We are trying to look for rational explanations to the fantastic tales and never before never again events of september 11.