I am not sure what all the “I and Pericynthion” talk is about. Pericynthion has only made 3 posts in this whole thread and disappears when his theory is questioned.

I agree, load re-distribution and fire may weaken a structure… but they do not make high rise steel framed buildings imitate a controlled demolition, collapsing totally and virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.

It is not slow-motion but spread over a period so as not to make the controlled demolition obvious. The only preposterous thing I see is that you believe fire can cause this collapse over a period of time but explosives/thermite cannot achieve the same thing.

You did not produce a list of points showing how the collapse differed from controlled demolition at all. You came up with one single good point of where it differs and that was the lack of audible explosions immediately prior to the collapse as seen with other controlled demolitions.

Now suppose for a moment you are in charge of creating a strategy to bring down a building without anyone knowing it is a controlled demolition. Are you going to make the setup identical to a conventional controlled demolition, complete with a string of explosions immediately prior to the collapse? Answer: No.

When you build a house, do you order to site only the exact number of bricks needed? When you have painted your walls, do you have paint leftover? When you carpet your floors, do you have any cut offs? When tiling your bathroom, do you have spare tiles? Could that perhaps be why every last explosive the Mossad agents were found in possession of was not in the buildings?

What would they have done if nothing had fallen on WTC 7? You already believe that the damage to WTC 7 wasn't enough to cause the collapse. Why the hell would they leave such a gaping flaw in their intricate plan?

MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.

No people what is NONSENSE is that believing that a 50 micron fine powder can be made from intact concrete in seconds without EXPLOSIVES!

the twinn towers collpases were so neat the debri came no where near bldg 7

I agree, load re-distribution and fire may weaken a structure… but they do not make high rise steel framed buildings imitate a controlled demolition, collapsing totally and virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.

d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

Next, I want you to watch this video, which clearly shows much more damage to WTC7 then most conspiracy theorists argue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Then, summarize the entire article I showed you.

First thing I'd like to point out is, how can you prove they fell at "freefall" speed? However, i can prove the contrary:

*SNIP*

Q24, if you can provide me with better mathematical calculations or prove errors in these calculations I would much appreciate it.

Silverstein would use the word “pull” because that is his jargon for “controlled demolition”. Once others on the inside job discovered what Silverstein had said, it is not surprising they made him cover his tracks. As I understand it, there were no, or very few fire fighters inside the building. Despite 11) suggesting “they” made the decision to “pull”, Silverstein does first say, “I said, you know, we have had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”

So, you called me a biased liar, yet you weren't able to provide a single calculation to show that your "blatantly true statement" was indeed correct

You don't understand why the supports are loaded unevenly.

Here is a good example I am sure you will recognise: -



Using the logic of your ‘bridge’ example, as it had lost approximately 1/3 of its structure across a section of the North face, WTC1 should have suffered an instant collapse. But the structural damage here did not cause a collapse or even any sagging of the columns above the impact hole, suggesting that the load distribution of the building through its core and remaining perimeter was working very well indeed. Why is it that your example works so differently from what we see above?

Real-world structures AREN'T rigid.

These pieces can easily bounce around

So, you believe that WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition, but admit that the actual collapse process doesn't look quite like a conventional building demolition. Do you have any real evidence for this new stealth demolition technique, or does it fall into the same category as the incredibly precise, all-weather, unmanned 767s you believe were used against WTC 1&2?

Do you really believe they finished wiring the buildings on the very morning of the attacks and left no time for the demolition team to clear the site with their van full of incriminating evidence?

I'd like to ask you one last question that's really been bothering me about WTC 7. Let's assume for the moment that you're right about all of the WTC buildings being destroyed by controlled demolition. What were the conspiracists planning to use as a cover for the collapse of WTC 7?

Q24, Pericynthion has already pointed out one example of how you contradict yourself in trying to explain how your slow/fast CD theory fits the evidence.

There is another contradiction in your proposed explosives, on the one hand they must be tertiary explosives to survive the fire, but on the other hand they must be thermate to explain the lack of reported explosions immediately before the collapse.

There is the additional difficulty with tertiary explosives that, while the actual tertiary main charges may survive the damage and fire, they still require a detonation system, and how is that going to survive?

Oh, and if you think high temperatures in the rubble pile are suspicious, how does the CD theory explain them?

You're still not paying attention, sonny boy. Q24 posted a link to a map showing where the debris went, and WTC7 is well within the range of the heavy stuff.

Oh, and correction: Yes, there were in fact firefighters in the building. Firefighters fight fires you know...I think its kind of obvious that they would be around a burning building, don't you? Unless you can prove to me that there weren't any...

Correction: Yes They Would. Why? Well think of the entire purpose of their mission here: They are called TERRORISTS because they wish to create terror and unrest within a nation. Now, supposing they had decided to bring down the towers through ONLY CD, and then leave without the world knowing ANYTHING about who they were, their mission would NOT have been accomplished at all. The WTC is not some strategic location that needed to be destroyed for tactical purposes. The WTC was a sign of US economical power, and the WTC were some of the tallest buildings in the world. They wanted to humiliate the US. Think of how much more terrifying it would be to have huge planes crash into the building, and then declare your hostility to all of America, then to simply destroy the buildings and be done with it. They are TERRORISTS. Look up the definition of the word "terrorist"

Thermite burns at 2,500^oC. This explains 727^oC temperatures in the rubble pile of WTC7, 5 days after the collapse, far better than the approximately 500^oC office fires.

You are still not paying attention swanny boy. I posted a link to a map showing where the debris went, and WTC7 was on the periphery of the light debris field.

FEMA debris field
Inner circles indicate approximate radius of exterior steel columns and other heavy debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminium cladding and other lighter debris.

Oh and this would be a good opportunity to point out the Bankers Trust building again. That is the high rise, steel framed building you see on the edge of the heavy debris field with two exterior columns buried in it, flyingswan, the one that then caught fire recently and did not collapse.

Just giving my opinion on the Bankers Trust Buildingwithout any knowledge of the building's structure, I would say that there appears to be severe structural damage and I would not have been surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse.

There was no contradiction, as I explained above.

why cant we all agree that a physics prof has already determined the truth concerning the wtc demolition and any or all debate should revolve around his thorough anaysis or the rebuttals there of?
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
the list of scholars and intellects from every field calling for the re-investigation of 9/11 cannot be denied any longer-- you people denying the facts that the wtc was demolished are flat earthers and cannot stand up to the table of integrity and honor --answer the call of prof steven jones to refute his analysis or get out of the way and STFU!
EDUCATE YOURSELF

why cant we all agree that a physics prof has already determined the truth concerning the wtc demolition and any or all debate should revolve around his thorough anaysis or the rebuttals there of?
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
the list of scholars and intellects from every field calling for the re-investigation of 9/11 cannot be denied any longer-- you people denying the facts that the wtc was demolished are flat earthers and cannot stand up to the table of integrity and honor --answer the call of prof steven jones to refute his analysis or get out of the way and STFU!
EDUCATE YOURSELF

No, it doesn't. Thermite burns quickly, it would not last a couple minutes let alone 5 days. The only explanation for the heat in the rubble pile is the very obvious fact that the rubble contained thousands of tons of combustable materials and was still on fire.

Look at that map again. There are several positions where heavy debris fell outside the inner circle, some even beyond the outer circle, and well beyond the range to WTC7.

You keep mentioning the Bankers Trust building and seem to think that you have caught me making an incorrect prediction. I did not say that it would have collapsed, my exact words were:

You say it was a like a conventional CD, starting at the bottom, but also starting at the top.

You say the CD charges could survive the damage and fire and not make loud bangs, but cannot give any examples of a system that would do this.

You say it was a CD that spread many explosions over several hours, but this is unlike any previous CD.

You say the penthouse collapse was a separate CD, but cannot give any reason why this should be necessary.

You say you understand structures, but think "Real-world structures AREN'T rigid" is somehow wrong.

You do not believe my account of how a combination of damage and fire can lead to a structural collapse, but refuse to ask anyone qualified to give an answer whether I am right or not.

...er, the report that started this thread off mentions firefighters making a hole in a wall to get the guy out of the building, so is the guy a reliable witness or not?

Why should a physics professor know any more about structural engineering than a structural engineer knows about nuclear fusion?

There are glaring flaws with the idea that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.
Many of these points will be examined in detail below.

The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from the north tower collapse. Firemen described a gaping hole in the south face. We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demo-litions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational ex-planation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solo-mon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the min-ute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes lat-er, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything signifi-cant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5xap

Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive infor-mation that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don’t want anyone to get their hands on, I always wire my building with explosives, set it on fire, and blow it up. In addition, keep in mind that information was recovered from many computer hard drives found in the WTC rubble. http://tinyurl.com/nmgmc Investigators were keen to have this information, to trace any transac-tions that may have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report details, these transactions turned out to not have suspicious origins. http://tinyurl.com/k659n pg. 145-152
Fires raged uncontrolled on many floors for hours. Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to ex-tinguish the blazes.

The building was visibly bulging and was making groaning noises: when a steel-framed building does that it’s in very serious trouble. Reports of the damage from firefighters inside and outside of the building are consistent.

Demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse from nearby neither saw nor heard anything indicating an explosive demolition.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse. See below.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explo-sive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse.

Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been de-tected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anom-aly was recorded by any monitoring instrument. –Brent Blanch-ard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris through a building and then setting it on fire for seven hours. Precision explo-sives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment.

No, regular fires burning beneath the debris pile could not sustain 727^oC temperatures on 9/11 itself, nevermind 5 days later and with all the water that had been poured on them. The only explanation for such hot spots in the rubble pile is the very obvious fact that there was an alternative heat source in the WTC debris, raising the steel to extremely high temperatures.

There are no exterior column ‘x’ marks in WTC7. The building was on the periphery of the light debris field. You can guess exterior columns may have struck WTC7 but that is not what FEMA’s figure shows.

You “would not have been surprised”, suggests that to some degree you would expect it. Then the Bankers Trust building did severely catch fire with not the slightest hint of any sort of collapse. The building demonstrated that it would not collapse due to fire, so to have expected it to collapse shows a clear misunderstanding of how damage/fires affect high rise steel framed structures.

On the subject of the Bankers Trust building again though, the building is a clear parallel to WTC7. Both were steel framed high rise buildings, both were damaged by the Twin Towers’ falling debris (I would suggest the Bankers Trust building to a greater degree as FEMA shows it was closer to the heavy debris field and took two direct hits from steel columns) and both caught fire. Why is it WTC7 was reduced to a rubble pile a few storeys high and the Bankers Trust building did not exhibit even the slightest sign of any sort of collapse?

In my opinion, the best points he made were the fact that the building was in fact severely damaged, and that the building was bulging, creaking, and making groaning noises, which pointed to the fact that it was very likely to collapse. Also, how the seismographs never picked up traces of anything that resembled explosives or demolition activity.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

I did not say it started at the bottom and started at the top… but that is an interesting idea.

I explained in this post how high temperature ignition explosives/reactions and a chemical or electrical detonator would achieve this.

Great, a point I can agree with at last. Of course this was not identical to a conventional controlled demolition. As I mentioned, this controlled demolition would have been quickly exposed had it been entirely conventional with no subtle disguises. The fact that it was unconventional does not change the fact WTC7 demonstrated most of the physical characteristics of a controlled demolition: sudden, virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse.

We went through a number of pages where I gave reasons why a separate damage event likely occurred immediately below the penthouse. Namely that it is difficult to believe the penthouse and structure below, tunnelled a path down through every floor, tearing free of all horizontal supports and adjacent columns as it went whilst not instantly affecting the main structure. Also, if a section of the building can act in this way, collapsing independently of the main structure, this contradicts your explanation of why the remaining building came down symmetrically as once piece.

You could very vaguely argue that due to the flexibility of steel and expansion points, “structures AREN’T rigid”, but as a statement on its own this is very misleading.

Why would anybody believe an explanation based almost entirely on supposition, that contains impossibilities breaking all known rules and defies everything we would expect from what has been witnessed before.

here is reality

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down?

On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down? On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

We had a hotel fire in the UK recently, only a four-storey building with about 60 rooms, but it was three days before the rubble could be disturbed to look for bodies because it continued to smolder. What is unusual about hot spots in a rubble pile?

The argument was that no debris could have gone that far.

No, "would not have been surprised" means that I thought there was a possibility that it would collapse. If I thought it would definitely collapse I would have said so.

I have since found more pictures of the Bankers Trust damage, and it seems considerably smaller in extent that the damage to WTC7 described by the witnesses.

You denied this simply because it did not fit your CD hypothesis. Saying "I don't believe it" is only a valid argument if you have the expertise to back your belief.

If you think a building cannot partially collapse, why isn't every damaged building either still standing or a heap of rubble?

It wasn't a statement on it's own until you isolated it. It was part of Pericynthion's explanation of load redistribution.

On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

From "HowStuffWorks: How Building Implosions Work" http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm



Even though the collapse initiation of a CD may begin down low, charges are still placed up high.

This follows the same general pattern of WTC 7, as FEMA notes in Chapter 5.6.2 of the WTC-BPS report: "The collapse [of WTC 7] then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up".

They "fit very well"...sounds like you have some prior examples of this occuring? I'd like to see them.

How do you suppose the puffs came to be concentrated on that one corner, one directly on top of the other? If we suppose the windows blew out due to a piston effect, why would it be so ordered?

One more point on the squibs: Is it likely air compression will be great enough to blow out windows when supposedly we had a giant open vent right through WTC7 made by the penthouse?

As with the WTC debris, did hot spots in the UK fire cause molten metal to flow through the debris, exceeding temperatures that could have been reached by the fire itself?

My argument is that you create evidence of heavy debris where there is none and ignore evidence showing only light debris.

Yes and as the Bankers Trust building did not collapse after a severe fire, it seems there was not a possibility.

The witness to WTC7 described a 20 storey hole across ¹/₃ of the building. The damage to the Bankers Trust appears to be a 19 storey hole across ²/₇ of the building. How is the extent of damage to the Bankers Trust building ‘considerably smaller’?

I denied the penthouse collapse was due to damage around the 10th floor as it is unreasonable that the penthouse and structure below tunnelled its way through the rest of the building with no external effect. Even if your theory of the penthouse collapse was correct it does not conflict with a controlled demolition - if fires could cause it, explosives sure could as well.
Of course a building can partially collapse – just not in the way you describe the penthouse collapse. This is why the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse of WTC7 due to irregular damage is so peculiar.

It was a statement with no explanation, but good - you agree that as a statement on its own it is misleading. I notice Pericynthion has not answered any questions I asked about his theory.

Nothing like WTC7 in that diagram - the high charges are the last to go, while the puffs are among the first events on WTC7, and the charges are placed all around the building on one horizontal level to break it up, while the WTC7 puffs are a vertical line at one corner that does not subsequently appear to break up any differently from the rest of the building where no puffs occured.

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down?

This is the description of the final collapse.

The puffs coincide with my postulated internal collapse that occurs a few seconds earlier, marked by the penthouse falling and the seismic evidence.

No, I don't recall seeing any videos of buildings collapsing apart from WTC. CD videos don't count because the windows are removed previously. However, similar effects are visible on the towers, also at places where no other immediate break-up occurs.

Because some part of the interior structure was collapsing and compressing the rooms in that corner one after the other.

My plans got delayed...
I put up the picture in response to this:
It sounded to me like you thought "CD charges in that location" were inconsistent with the collapse beginning at the lower part of the tower. This diagram shows they are not out of place.

The diagram only displays timing in a relative way. The gap between the first, second, and third sets of charges could be milliseconds. You say "the puffs are among the first events of WTC7"...so what? Explosions are usually among the first events of demolitions, right? Go ahead and review the video footage here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

The building begins downward motion before the puffs are seen. This is consistent with both the CD and compression theories, so I don't get what your point is about timing.
The vertical puffs do seem odd, although not inconcievable. It would be interesting to look at the building blueprints and determine what those supposed demolition charges would likely have been destroying

I thought it was all one long collapse
How so? I'm not following...

Then what you meant by it "fits very well" is that it fits well with your personal idea of what a collapse should look like, not necessarily with what has been objectively determined. I have not seen any evidence that compression during a building collapse could account for these observations. One should always reserve some skepticism for theories that have no experimental/observational evidence backing them up.

The puffs appear to progress from the bottom to the top. If some part of the interior structure was collapsing it would fall downward, affecting the upper floors before the lower floors, not the other way around.

EDIT: In case you weren't following the thread, you've been personally invited to chime in here - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=104800

I would say that there appears to be severe structural damage and I would not have been surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse.

Was the Bankers Trust fire left to develop on its own for several hours?

Was it as widespread through the building as the WTC7 one?

The images I referred to show that only one of the eight main columns on that face of the Bankers Trust building was damaged.

From his last post, I don't think Pericynthion is going to reply to you until you show some signs of understanding the structural basics that he mentioned.

Q24 Posted Today, 06:56 PM
Fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse

Regarding the Bankers Trust building, we start off with: -
In addition, you tell us throughout this thread how a single initially damaged column can lead to a progressive collapse from fire and that high temperatures are not vital to that collapse. Then we have excuse....
... after excuse....
... after excuse....
Fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse
Pericynthion’s structural basics in regard to real buildings are questionable at best, evinced by his lack of ability to answer the straightforward questions I put to him.

One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.