WTC 7 Collapse - New Video Released

[mrbusdriver]

I'm curious how these thermite charges would work in the large core columns. The CD theory, with the streaming, bright glowing molten material streaming from an outer corner of WTC2, presumes a very large amount of heat, applied over a goodly amount of time. Consider this:

The thermite charges are set off. They melt through the large core beams with great heat output.. Enough white hot material is ejected to flow down the beam, across many, many feet of floor surface (Carpet? Wood? Steel?), then create a still white hot cascade of material for a long distance down the side of the tower exterior. The tower, despite it's severed columns, does not collapse at this point.

How much material would be melted to create this large event, considering the travel distance of the material (and ensuing cooling), and the large amount apparently being released from the building corner? Additionally, how would this material be kept white hot during the intervening time and distance traveled?

There is only one documented example of this peculiar "cascade". Why not more?

I don't see this sequence of events as plausible, or maybe I'm missing something.

Also, for Q24, I believe the photo on the right is a steel cutting torch, not thermite.

[Q24]

The thermite charges are set off. They melt through the large core beams with great heat output.. Enough white hot material is ejected to flow down the beam, across many, many feet of floor surface (Carpet? Wood? Steel?), then create a still white hot cascade of material for a long distance down the side of the tower exterior. The tower, despite it's severed columns, does not collapse at this point.

How much material would be melted to create this large event, considering the travel distance of the material (and ensuing cooling), and the large amount apparently being released from the building corner? Additionally, how would this material be kept white hot during the intervening time and distance traveled?

If you look at the second post on this page, where the airliner impact angle graphic is, I suggested plausible reason for the charge’s end location. The question you raise is though relevant to the ‘official’ theory - how could a fire situation heat and sustain metal to these extreme temperatures? Well, as you suggest, it couldn’t.

There is only one documented example of this peculiar "cascade". Why not more?

Perhaps it is as simple as the fact that only one charge was displaced to the perimeter of the building where it was visible.

Also, for Q24, I believe the photo on the right is a steel cutting torch, not thermite.

The original source I took the photo from some time ago said it was a demonstration of thermite welding. I cannot now though find anything to support this so have changed the photo to one I am certain is thermite.

[Papagiorgio]

If that entire 40% estimate were taken from the core then the structure will fail and collapse in the centre, taking the perimeters with it.

Look, how many charges do you think would be needed to initiate a collapse? Heck I’m going to say they used one for each core column if that makes you happy. That’s 47 columns x 8 levels = 376 charges, which at 24 per shift/day would still only take 16 days per Tower to setup. Now we are all happy.

Two for each core column. Since the columns were rectangular tubes if you had one on each side of each core column you would be better able to burn through. Keep in mind the large hollow space inside each tube. You would have thermite spraying erratically inside the tube if you used one charge. 893 charges-2/core column on 11 levels. That I could buy.

[mrbusdriver]

The offical theory did not require temperatures of white hot, simply hot enough to degrade the steel's strength...not even "red hot", certainly not melting temps.

The "displaced" thermite charge. Blown from the original beam securement to a far corner of the building, through the chaos of the impact. Would it have wires attached, or have a self contained power source and ignition timing mechanism? If this was an errant charge going off, what set it off? Not the fires, as these don't ignite thermite, per your argument. Could the pre assembled charge really operate with a timer/radio receiver after all that impact meyhem?

Finally, I am dubious of the 600mph 707 impact claim...I suspect it was PR fluff. The Vmo (never exceed) speed for the 707 was 375 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) at sea level. 600mph equals 522 KIAS. I question the designer's knowledge of aircraft performance and capabilities, and really think they pulled an "at altitude" speed out of their behinds ...kinda like the "unsinkable Titanic". Also, the vast majority of airliners cannot cruise at 600mph ground speed, even at altitude. I don't believe these speeds were well researched at all. The engines on the 767 are significantly more massive than those of the 707 as well, creating far more damage as they drove through the core structure.

[Q24]

Two for each core column. Since the columns were rectangular tubes if you had one on each side of each core column you would be better able to burn through. Keep in mind the large hollow space inside each tube. You would have thermite spraying erratically inside the tube if you used one charge. 893 charges-2/core column on 11 levels. That I could buy.

Coming from someone who believes the ‘official’ story, that is ridiculous. My earlier advice not to let your argument come across as hypocritical seems to have passed you by.

You believe diffuse flames flickering around the cores creating air temperatures of allegedly 100^oC-1,000^oC could fail the entire structure… but 2,500^oC thermite reactions ejected directly onto every core column could not.

You believe, after the initial failure, gravity alone ‘crushed’ the entire lower intact structure… but for controlled demolition it would require 10 further levels of charges to bring about the entire collapse.

Can’t you see the double-standards in what you are saying?

Also the core columns were mostly ‘I’ cross sections rather than tubes.

[mrbusdriver]

The original source I took the photo from some time ago said it was a demonstration of thermite welding. I cannot now though find anything to support this so have changed the photo to one I am certain is thermite.

OK, looks like a different pic than before (the cutting torch demo). Got it.

[Q24]

The offical theory did not require temperatures of white hot, simply hot enough to degrade the steel's strength...not even "red hot", certainly not melting temps.

So they say, which is why the molten metal flow from WTC2 is such a big problem for the ‘official’ story.

The "displaced" thermite charge. Blown from the original beam securement to a far corner of the building, through the chaos of the impact. Would it have wires attached, or have a self contained power source and ignition timing mechanism? If this was an errant charge going off, what set it off? Not the fires, as these don't ignite thermite, per your argument. Could the pre assembled charge really operate with a timer/radio receiver after all that impact meyhem?

I have been suggesting prefabricated independent charges with a remote/radio detonation system. I would expect the charges at the impact level to be set off at intervals and it seems the receiver did still work on this one. The fact the molten flow became visible only in the minutes prior to collapse would support this.

[merril]

NIST's idea is as good as any other reasonable estimate. And, they do not attempt to reinvent history-

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

[merril]

Make believe time is over.

No demolition device was in the building, much less survived this-

Link

Q24- It is time to stop sympathising with the various Islamic fronts. Either that, or you sink into the class of rejects, like Alex Jones, or those Loose Change dropouts.

And, you don't want to do that. Not after 7 years of pointless arguments.

[merril]

The 81st floor of WTC 2 was hit by the explosive impact from the plane. It was from that floor that the stream of material fell.

BTW, the "two experiments" I referred to were the hijackings themselves. They were close enough in similarity, as to produce identical results. It's that simple, and that complex.

As for evidence of truss displacement acting upon perimeter columns- that has already been established with video and photographic evidence, several times on this forum.

Edited November 21, 2008 by merril

[Papagiorgio]

Coming from someone who believes the ‘official’ story, that is ridiculous. My earlier advice not to let your argument come across as hypocritical seems to have passed you by.

I never claimed to believe the "official" story, I just don't find your story as is believable. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You believe diffuse flames flickering around the cores creating air temperatures of allegedly 100^oC-1,000^oC could fail the entire structure… but 2,500^oC thermite reactions ejected directly onto every core column could not.

No, you are misleading again. Thermite reactions injected into every core column could bring the buildings down, I never said it wouldn't. It would just take more charges than you would like.

You believe, after the initial failure, gravity alone ‘crushed’ the entire lower intact structure… but for controlled demolition it would require 10 further levels of charges to bring about the entire collapse.

Yes gravity would do that work. As far as a controlled demolition I posted earlier how many charges were used to bring down buildings 1/4 the size of the Twin Towers. So if the impact and fires did not do significant damage as YOU claim, then it would require more charges than you claim in your theory.

Can’t you see the double-standards in what you are saying?

I don't see the double standard. I believe the impact and fires did do significant damage to the buildings, you don't. So going with your theory you need more charges. Going with my theory you need less charges.

Also the core columns were mostly ‘I’ cross sections rather than tubes.

Whether they were tubes or I beams you still have alot of open space from one side of the column to the other. Hence 2 charges per column to ensure they sever.

So going with your theory- no significant damage from impact and fire, and the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using remote thermite charges. You need more charges. As I previously posted 893 charges on 11 levels (significantly less than is required in conventional demo), 2 per core column. I could buy that, and it would not take significantly longer because your putting 2 per column.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Papagiorgio

[Q24]

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

I have given the reasons NIST’s theory for the molten metal flow is non-viable, here again: -

1. No thick/dark smoke expected from debris
2. No flame expected from debris
3. No silver colour at all to indicate aluminium or lead
4. No dark/light patches/spots indicative of a mixture
5. Experiments to replicate molten metal/debris mix have proven unsuccessful

Even most ‘official’ conspiracy theorists now forsake NIST’s nonsensical debris mix theory.

As for evidence of truss displacement acting upon perimeter columns- that has already been established with video and photographic evidence, several times on this forum.

No it has not. There is no video or photographic evidence showing that fires caused sagging of the floor trusses. The only evidence of displaced trusses is in the path of the impacts. As a section of the perimeter columns bowed there may be reason to suggest the floor trusses were pulling-in, but deflected core columns can explain this equally as well as sagging trusses. Alternatively, if the cores became further damaged and transferred loads to the perimeter, the bowing may have been caused by compressive forces. The problem for the ‘official’ theory appears to be that the cores were not supposed to be that damaged at that point in time (when the bowing started), so they had to go with the unsupported sagging truss pull-in theory.

Q24- It is time to stop sympathising with the various Islamic fronts.

I can categorically state that the only Islamists I sympathise with are the normal families, women and children who have had their lives destroyed by needless war. I sympathise every bit as much with US and coalition troops and other personnel who have suffered the same.

I have never said there are not terrorists in Al-Qaeda or that the group were not involved in some capacity in the 9/11 event. The question I ask is who/what exactly are Al-Qaeda?

We know that via Pakistan’s ISI the CIA were funding the Mujahideen, from whence Al-Qaeda came, by $630m per year by 1987. Other groups supplying funding included the British MI6. After this level of support had been committed, it would be unreasonable to expect that the CIA cut all links with the Mujahideen/Al Qaeda after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. Indeed, due to the exposure of Operation Gladio in 1990, we know that the CIA/NATO were very proficient in setting up clandestine "stay-behind" army/terrorist organisations after their withdrawal.

Fast-forward to 1999 and we have the operation, known only as “The Plan”, in which CIA agents were sent to infiltrate Al Qaeda and recruit agents close to Osama Bin Laden. The head of the operation, Cofer Black, wanted men who could blend into the region's Muslim populations. By Black’s own words that this was the “largest collection and disruption activity in the history of mankind”, it suggests that “The Plan” was successful. It was during this period, from 1999 on, that 15 of the 9/11 ‘hijackers’ were found to have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda.

Further to the above, I have detailed many times how some of the ‘hijackers’ lived with an FBI informant and others right outside the gates of the NSA, America’s most powerful spy agency. Also, how FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers” and how other members of the FBI were told to “back off” Bin Laden related cases. FBI agent Coleen Rowley wrote to FBI director Robert Mueller describing how her superior appeared to be “consistently, almost deliberately thwarting” their efforts to attain a search warrant prior to 9/11 in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Senator Chuck Grassley later wrote, “If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him ... to a major financier of the hijacking plot”.

Speaking of the financier of the 9/11 event - that man was Omar Sheikh, who a senior-level U.S. government official reported had wired $100,000 to the lead ‘hijacker’ Mohammed Atta. Where this gets interesting is that former Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, wrote that Sheikh was originally recruited by the British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying in London. Even more than that, is the fact that the FBI had reason to believe the order for Omar Sheikh to wire the funds came from the head of Pakistan’s ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed. The final revelation came from the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, when she said in an interview that Omar Sheikh was the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden.

How does all of the above tie together? Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA/MI6 via Pakistan’s ISI. Contacts were maintained within the group throughout the 90’s and were utilised to infiltrate the CIA recruits who would become known as the ‘hijackers’. Omar Sheikh, an Al-Qaeda/ISI/MI6 double agent was a central figure in organising the plot and CIA recruits, killing Osama Bin Laden shortly after 9/11. That is all to say this was a multi-national intelligence services (we can add Israel’s Mossad for separate reasons in addition to those discussed) false flag operation.

So you see merril, it appears to me that you are the one sympathising with the villains behind the 9/11 attacks.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Q24

[Q24]

I don't see the double standard. I believe the impact and fires did do significant damage to the buildings, you don't. So going with your theory you need more charges. Going with my theory you need less charges.

So going with your theory- no significant damage from impact and fire, and the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using remote thermite charges. You need more charges. As I previously posted 893 charges on 11 levels (significantly less than is required in conventional demo), 2 per core column.

Even in the case of the ‘official’ story, the impacts and fires only caused significant damage at the collapse initiation levels. If you then believe the upper falling blocks ‘crushed’ the lower intact structure through gravity and its mass alone, you have no basis to be claiming a controlled demolition would require 11 levels, or even any further levels, of demolition charges further down to achieve the same result. You are using double-standards in evaluating the two theories. Either the structures did require assistance from demolition charges to bring about the full collapse or they didn’t – you can’t switch between the two depending which side you are arguing.

[*Quinn*]

How does all of the above tie together? Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA/MI6 via Pakistan’s ISI. Contacts were maintained within the group throughout the 90’s and were utilised to infiltrate the CIA recruits who would become known as the ‘hijackers’. Omar Sheikh, an Al-Qaeda/ISI/MI6 double agent was a central figure in organising the plot and CIA recruits, killing Osama Bin Laden shortly after 9/11. That is all to say this was a multi-national intelligence services (we can add Israel’s Mossad for separate reasons in addition to those discussed) false flag operation.

So you see merril, it appears to me that you are the one sympathising with the villains behind the 9/11 attacks.

C'mon Q, you know merril and others don't want to be bothered with little details like that explaining how much more is really behind the 9/11 attacks. It's all just one big crazy coincidence that those connections happen to be in place. We should all overlook such trivial manners and go on with our lives without questioning anything that happens around us - don't you know that by now...

Seriously though, thanks for the research and time you put into countering the arguments made against you regarding the events of 9/11 and those leading up to it, along with the aftermath that still effects us now.

The connections you bring up are the type of things that would be figured out had the events of 9/11 been properly investigated instead of a finger being pointed at someone who is then automatically assumed guilty.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Left Field

[Papagiorgio]

Even in the case of the ‘official’ story, the impacts and fires only caused significant damage at the collapse initiation levels. If you then believe the upper falling blocks ‘crushed’ the lower intact structure through gravity and its mass alone, you have no basis to be claiming a controlled demolition would require 11 levels, or even any further levels, of demolition charges further down to achieve the same result. You are using double-standards in evaluating the two theories. Either the structures did require assistance from demolition charges to bring about the full collapse or they didn’t – you can’t switch between the two depending which side you are arguing.

I'm not arguing two sided, I'm arguing the merit of your theory. Based on your theory you need more charges. Buildings 1/4 the size of the Twin Towers require about 4000 conventional demo charges. So one of the Twin Towers would require four times that amount. Now if we assume they use more than enough charges when imploding a building, which they probably do, the minimum would be less than 4 times. So lets say three times as many charges which is 12000 conventional demo charges. Since your theory is using non conventional demo charges I reduced that number significantly. Around 900 non conventional thermite charges, for each of the Twin Towers and half that for WTC7. So a grand total for all three buildings is around 2300 non conventional thermite demo charges.

Can you fit this into your theory? If yes, I would find your controlled demo theory to be the most plausible I have yet to hear.

[flyingswan]

firstly i want to say this pic could have been taken from anywhere(?) but for now we'll assume it's from G-zero.

Where's the smoke from the smoldering ruins?

The fires lasted a few weeks, the clear-up effort went on for much longer, so part of the clear-up was during the fires, part was after the fires ended.

Granted his cut looks neat & tidy but when your out cutting thousands of tons of steel wreckage i don't think an oxy cutter's going to sit there grouping each cut to perfection unless you got time to burn if ya follow?

Not really. How good the cut looks is going to vary enormously. The angles are going to vary too - each cut is an individual task that depends on what the shape of the damaged metal is, where the crane can get in to support it, where the cut piece is going to move to.

The pictures below show many examples of diagonal cutting in the material saved by NIST:

Pretty hard to tell from this pic (love a 'clear' closeup of those two on the left tho)

but look at the one closest to the cam (for what its worth) That's an oxy cut??

What exaclly are we supposed to determine from this?

But having said that; G-Zero was flattened to a pan cake pulvarized some have stated. Apart from a slight kink in the top beam, that bottom one looks remarkably straight?

As I said, with a large workforce and a non-standard task, there's going to be a lot of variation. Pieces for analysis are likely to be the less damaged ones, as damage can separate the part with the identification marks, so the investigators wouldn't know where on the building the piece came from. The bits in the picture look like outer wall columns, anyway, so could have fallen clear of the main collapse.

I assume your trying to prove the amount of slag deposit left behind from the cut here(?)

There's no comparison, or there shouldn't be between cutting 1 ft thick solid steel ('under controlled almost lab like demo conditions') & 30/35mm gauge structural steel columns/beams in a disaster zone.

The ''so called slag'' in the very top pic looks like charred plastic & or vinyl/nylon etc etc material of some kind melted & stuck both on the 'inner & outer' surfaces of that beam imo.

I can't really see that the difference in the amount of slag is inconsistent with the different thicknesses of the cuts.

[flyingswan]

As I asked AlexG without response - can you provide a single piece of incontrovertible evidence for a ‘natural’ collapse?

I think you fail to understand the concept of burden of proof. If the collapse can be explained without involving controlled demolition, then it is up to the supporters of controlled demolition to find a "smoking gun" piece of evidence that undermines that explanation. If you can't, your theory fails by default.

The flat points in the seismic data were either caused by chance or due to a specific event; there are no other options. We have been over it here: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2224210

You didn't understand the probability argument then, and you obviously still don't. You looked at a given piece of evidence and asked what the probability of finding two "flat points" was. If the small detail in the seismic data was basically random variations, the probability is 19%. This does not mean that there is an 81% chance that your controlled demolition theory is correct.

Here is an exactly parallel situation: You see a coin tossed three times in a row, and it comes up heads each time. You think this suspicious and ask what the probability of this happening by chance is, and the answer is 12.5%. This does not mean that there is 87.5% chance that your "two-headed coin" theory is correct.

The "81%" in the seismic case is merely the probability that a random variation will produce either one or no flat spots, just as the "87.5%" in the coin case is the chance that a normal coin will produce 0, 1 or 2 heads in three tosses. You are attaching meaning to these numbers that they do not have. If the event had been in the "81%" range, you would have found nothing suspicious, and therefore you would not have started asking for probabilities.

We have been over your ‘battery-bomb’ theory here: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2175468

We have been over the charge volume here: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2270813

We have been over the NIST contributors here: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2397965

We have been over the high-level reason NIST failed to prove their case here: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2515032

What makes you think that, should anyone go back and look over those posts, they would agree with you rather than me?

Edited November 22, 2008 by flyingswan

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

No the NIST report does not discribe the collapse seen in the video IMO. The NIST report is shaddy.

That's because NIST was appointed and operated by government employees.

[War Eagle]

the pic in question:

pics from the link you /el provided:

The pictures below show many examples of diagonal cutting in the material saved by NIST:

Pretty hard to tell from this pic (love a 'clear' closeup of those two on the left tho)

but look at the one closest to the cam (for what its worth) That's an oxy cut??

Demonstrations:

The fires lasted a few weeks, the clear-up effort went on for much longer, so part of the clear-up was during the fires, part was after the fires ended.

Not really. How good the cut looks is going to vary enormously. The angles are going to vary too - each cut is an individual task that depends on what the shape of the damaged metal is, where the crane can get in to support it, where the cut piece is going to move to.

As I said, with a large workforce and a non-standard task, there's going to be a lot of variation.

Then why do most if not all cuts look consistent, either at 45s, some straight out 90s? You'd think something this big photo's & video footage would have been rife for a complete & thorough investigation later on

I gotta say tho lol! going by some of them cuts, a grinder with metal cutting blade couldn't have done a better job.

Pieces for analysis are likely to be the less damaged ones, as damage can separate the part with the identification marks, so the investigators wouldn't know where on the building the piece came from. The bits in the picture look like outer wall columns, anyway, so could have fallen clear of the main collapse.

It's possible...wish there was a way to verify it tho...

The website in question 'tries hard' to provide proof that the unusual collapse that appears consistent with a demolition(?) is nothing more that a conspiracy theory. Yet it comes up with nothing more than lame staged pics, no close ups, i'm talking real close ups, for the public to really x-check & decide for itself, and with the only half decent close up of some dude in his shiny clean white/green overalls & matching boots, using a 6-7ft blow-torch extension with super heavy duty industrial nozzle, which had they used on G-Zero would had have made a mess & a half of the cutting. But in the pic above (which incidentally also looks kinda staged...'smile, say cheese') is less than half the size. Say #15(?) type brass oxy/acetylene nozzle (still industrial grade i'm sure) with say 3-4 ft safety extension bar would have been more than ample, anything else would have been sheer waste, any contractor$ would agree i'd say.

imo, the website is almost an insult to the public's intelligence in trying to explain away the consistencies in the cut beams/columns.

I can't really see that the difference in the amount of slag is inconsistent with the different thicknesses of the cuts.

Your kidding me right swan??...That solid block alone looks like it would weigh 4-5 ton! Where on G-Zero was anything like that found, come on!

Why didn't they provide an exact (replica/clone cutting demo, from the wtc itself even) of 'hollowed' beams/columns, ya know, to give it that more realistic authentic look?

I know i said that was it in my last post, but, hmm...erm, that's pretty much it.

[el midgetron]

It is time to stop sympathising with the various Islamic fronts. Either that, or you sink into the class of rejects, like Alex Jones, or those Loose Change dropouts.

Neither Alex Jones or the Loose Change "dropouts" sympathise with terrorists. Its the mentality that "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" which really sinks people into a class of rejects.

[FurthurBB]

please stop derailing the original question of the thread!

i've asked numerous times in this thread to comment on the video and how it compares to the NIST report

start another thread on your theory that american's would have supported 2 wars in the after math of the attacks regardless if the WTC building ALL were demolished

ill be glad to offer an opinion in another thread..

No, I agree that the attacks had to be very dramatic, like Pearl Harbor, to get people behind a never ending war on an idea. IMO

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm not arguing two sided, I'm arguing the merit of your theory. Based on your theory you need more charges. Buildings 1/4 the size of the Twin Towers require about 4000 conventional demo charges. So one of the Twin Towers would require four times that amount. Now if we assume they use more than enough charges when imploding a building, which they probably do, the minimum would be less than 4 times. So lets say three times as many charges which is 12000 conventional demo charges. Since your theory is using non conventional demo charges I reduced that number significantly. Around 900 non conventional thermite charges, for each of the Twin Towers and half that for WTC7. So a grand total for all three buildings is around 2300 non conventional thermite demo charges.

Can you fit this into your theory? If yes, I would find your controlled demo theory to be the most plausible I have yet to hear.

you are claiming it would take so many charges to bring the building down yet you still believe one airplane caused the entire collapse. i don't see where you get that reasoning.

[FurthurBB]

Sheeple vs. Lunatics:

ROUND 1

Lol, more like round 1,123,352,635,256,121 to infinity and beyond.

My personal views on 9/11, I don't know. That's all I'll say for now.

Me either, and that is the governments fault. If there would have been a better investigation, much less of these conspiracy theories would exist. None of the engineer theories are good in my mind because they took a result and went looking for a cause and that is bad science, just like "creation science." Though, neither are any of the conspiracy theories either for a lot the same reason. I think in the end the official story is most likely close to what actually happened, but there exists an imbalance between the crime and the criminals. Automatically the human minds wants to balance things out and add weight to the criminals, thus conspiracy theories are born.

[FurthurBB]

1: The demo points in any building are not immediatly accessible for demo charges. It would still require a long time to "wire" a building for a controlled demolition even if the charges were wireless. I would say at best 6 months to wire the 3 buildings supposedly brought down by controlled demo. That's assuming several hundred people, and your hypothetical demo charge making it easier.

2: It's the drama that makes these discussions fun!

3: Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's viable. Hasn't someone patented a time machine?

4: How do you define "just enough". Why would the aim not be maximum destruction? The higher the body count = higher american outrage = more the government could have gotten away with. Asbestos removal would not require the buildings to be demolished and rebuilt. Although it would be expensive to remove the asbestos in buildings that size.

Well, if indeed there was a conspiracy with our government officials involved, then you would have to have "just enough" damage, because more would be a sign that our system is greatly flawed and would leave the government in a difficult possition. Without trust, there could be no war on terror, if that was the design of the alleged conspiracy.

[Papagiorgio]

you are claiming it would take so many charges to bring the building down yet you still believe one airplane caused the entire collapse. i don't see where you get that reasoning.

900 charges isn't really that many. When demo companies implode buildings they use alot of conventional charges. As I said before buildings 1/4 the size of the Twin Towers used around 4000 charges. So if they were to do one of the Twin Towers they would use around 16000 conventional charges. Going of off Q24's theory of non conventional thermite charges I reduced the number drastically.

I never said I believed one airplane caused the entire collapse. I'm saying if it only required 200 charges to implode one off the towers then one airplane would be able to cause the collapse. I think it would take more charges. Closer to 900 per tower.