WTC7

[skyeagle409]

Well Sky, that is debatable as to how difficult it might have been to rig the buildings. In the first place, the occupancy rate for the towers was a bit low by many accounts. Further, quite a few people have noted that there was almost always some sort of maintenance program going on. And if the bad guys were the gate keepers as to who and what came and went, it would be easy.

Yes, they did have many months.

You seem to thing that someone can place a set of explosives inside a steel-structured building in a few hours and it will collapse. That is not how it is done in the real world. I was watched the Discovery Channel on demolitions and one of the demolitions that was presented was the two bridge towers in Corpus Christi, TX, which is where I was living for the past few years. It took months of prepare the two towers for demolition and the program made it very clear as to why pre-weakening of a steel structure was required. The demolition experts would have faced a $100,000.00 a day fine if the towers fell into the channel and that fine would have been in effect each day the channel was blocked.

The demolition experts experimented with steel beam test subjects and it was made very clear why pre-weakening was required and one reason is, a steel structure will not collapse as planned manner if the structure is not pre-weakened. Just to plan, pre-weaken, and place the explosives on the two steel bridge towers took many weeks of preparation.

Recently, I posted a video where 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two. In the Discovery Channel segment, a test was conducted using demolition explosives and a vehicle, but in this case, the vehicle was pre-weakened and as a result, a few pounds of demolition explosives cut the vehicle in sections cleanly in two sections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_hRLKnZEg

And, it is clear why thermite was not used to bring down the bridge towers and in fact, the workers had to use tortures to pre-weaken the steel beams. In regards to the 9/11 attacks;

* No evidence of explosions in the videos

* No sound of bomb explosions heard.

* No bomb explosions detected on sensors

* No evidence of explosives found in the rubbles of the WTC buildings

= no explosives used.

Edited May 6, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yes, they did have many months.

Bomb explosives planted in the area where the aircraft impacted would have been detonated and yet, there are no secondaries. Furthermore, the collapse of the WTC towers began only at the impact points and if you are going to demolish multiple buildings, you conduct the demolitions at the same time. Additionally, demolition companies do not use thermite and anyone knowledgeable on the demolition process would not have used thermite to bring down the WTC.

How likely would it have been to plant explosives in the exact locations of the impacts?

[acidhead]

Bomb explosives planted in the area where the aircraft impacted would have been detonated and yet, there are no secondaries. Furthermore, the collapse of the WTC towers began only at the impact points and if you are going to demolish multiple buildings, you conduct the demolitions at the same time. Additionally, demolition companies do not use thermite and anyone knowledgeable on the demolition process would not have used thermite to bring down the WTC.

How likely would it have been to plant explosives in the exact locations of the impacts?

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

[booNyzarC]

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

Let me guess, you entertain the idea that they may have been remotely piloted?

[skyeagle409]

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

They were definitely hijacked and governments around the world had warned the United States in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks that terrorist were in the final stages of carrying out attacks using aircraft, which were similar to this incident where terrorist had planned to fly an Air France airliner into the Eiffel Tower.

BLUEPRINT FOR 9/11: THE HIJACKING OF AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 8969

It was a hijacking with a difference.

The hijackers had a far more sinister plan for Air France Flight 8969 - one that was to provide a blueprint for the al Qaeda attacks of 11 September, 2001.

Hijackers' goal

http://surviving-history.blogspot.com/2011/11/blueprint-for-911-hijacking-of-air.html

[Dis Pater]

Well Sky, that is debatable as to how difficult it might have been to rig the buildings. In the first place, the occupancy rate for the towers was a bit low by many accounts. Further, quite a few people have noted that there was almost always some sort of maintenance program going on. And if the bad guys were the gate keepers as to who and what came and went, it would be easy.

Yes, they did have many months.

Most major structures have some maintenance work going on at all times so it is not uncommon to have work constantly happening.The question is did this give someone the time and shield to plant explosives?-possibly.Is it likely to have happened?-i dont think so but you can never be too sure unfortunately.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Dis Pater

[Babe Ruth]

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

[Czero 101]

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

They were probably batteries.

There was a data centre for Fuji Bank at WTC 2. There was a large UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) system for their computers located on the 81st floor. UPS systems utilaze large batteries that are typically large, often black, rectangular battery-like objects similar to these:

These batteries are essentially the same as the lead / acid batteries in your car, and there could be upwards of a thousand batteries in a given system, depending on the unique raquirements for the individual installation.

Cz

Edited May 7, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

I don't thiink that you understand the demolition process. It takes many weeks, sometimes months just to prepare an average building for demolition, and it took months of planning and preparation just the demolish two steel towers in Corpus Christi and there was no way possible to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition over a weekend. When I was in Corpus Christi, there were occasions where our buiilding was shut down for maintenance, which allowed us some time off.

You can't just plant explosives in a steel-framed building and expect it to collapse straight down. Here are some examples of bombed out buildings in Iraq.

To bring down the WTC Towers would have taken many months of planning and preparation.

[W Tell]

There you go again claiming that my disagreeing with you means that I am misunderstanding something.

Tell you what. If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it. Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.

It's been obviouse what Q4 has been talking about for a while. Maybe this video will make it a clear.

Maybe you missed this part the first time around? Here, I'll add a little emphasis so that it is a little bit harder to miss...

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.

Cheers.

Edit typo.

He has shown his work. I would be interested in seeing yours. I once asked you to do a simple experament. Instead of trying it, you scoffed at it. Same as you're doing here.

Edited May 8, 2012 by W Tell

[W Tell]

I don't thiink that you understand the demolition process. It takes many weeks, sometimes months just to prepare an average building for demolition, and it took months of planning and preparation just the demolish two steel towers in Corpus Christi and there was no way possible to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition over a weekend. When I was in Corpus Christi, there were occasions where our buiilding was shut down for maintenance, which allowed us some time off.

You can't just plant explosives in a steel-framed building and expect it to collapse straight down. Here are some examples of bombed out buildings in Iraq.

To bring down the WTC Towers would have taken many months of planning and preparation.

Near as I can tell, you are the only one arguing that intentional demolishions can't happen quickly. It looks like everyone is agreeing with you. That they do take time. I'm in your corner when you say it takes time to set up a demolition like that.

Edited May 8, 2012 by W Tell

[booNyzarC]

It's been obviouse what Q4 has been talking about for a while. Maybe this video will make it a clear.

junk science[/urn]

This video doesn't clarify anything except for the fact that the truth movement has nothing truly scientific to offer the world. I feel genuine concern for the students of David Chandler.

He has shown his work. I would be interested in seeing yours. I once asked you to do a simple experament. Instead of trying it, you scoffed at it. Same as you're doing here.

His work? Were you paying attention when he claimed that the antenna was still supposedly attached to the roof when it poked out of the debris cloud in the first crappy video he showed us? Probably not huh? Maybe you should go back and review the line of discussion.

My work was showing that he was incorrect in that statement. Did you miss that part too? Probably huh?

It wasn't the whole antenna, just a broken piece of it, and it wasn't attached to anything.

So tell me slick, what exactly do you think I need to do in addition to that, and why?

[Dis Pater]

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

There is always going to be a possibility that someone did plant explosives but things like the electricity being off over a weekend could have occurred 20 times in a year before the attacks but nobody took any notice.After the attacks it gets noticed and becomes suspicious.I guess we'll never know definitively now as all the evidence has long gone,unfortunately.

[ChrLzs]

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And that account would be, where?

Back in my days doing IT, I installed and looked after many, many UPSes in offices. That would be an Uninterruptable Power Supply. It's a moderately large black box, generally parked away under the desk ('hidden', a conspiracist might even suggest..) and it ensures important computer systems don't lose power and therefore lose data. They are very commonly used on computers in large buildings to prevent data loss in the case of an outage due to a black-/brown-out or a simple circuit breaker trip.

Maybe it wasn't those - but who would know from such a brief, unspecific and unsupported comment.

Oh, right, it was Babe... Adding to the huge pile of convincing anecdotes!! (emphasis on 'pile'...)

Back to lurking.

[Babe Ruth]

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.

[Q24]

There you go again claiming that my disagreeing with you means that I am misunderstanding something.

Tell you what. If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it. Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.

Sorry, I know people don't like being told they don't understand but you are missing my point.

This is what Bazant's paper tells us at face value: -

____________Rigid_______Flexible___

1-6 stories . . . .collapse . . . . . no collapse

7+ stories . . . . collapse . . . . . .N/A

The result of a rigid block is indicated in the calculations.

The result of a flexible block is indicated in the addendum.

Bazant does not specify the result of a 7+ storey flexible block because, through his non-acceptance of continued damage to the upper block, there is no reason to do so, i.e. the upper block never becomes flexible in his theory but performs as an indestructible hammer throughout the 'crush down'.

What his comments on a 1-6 storey block demonstrate (or 3-6 as he put it, matters not), is the clear difference in behaviour between a flexible and a rigid block which, one would have thought, is common sense anyway. Although Bazant does not state it explicitly (because he doesn't have to - see above) the difference in a flexible and rigid block is always inherent no matter the mass/size.

Without being able to agree fundamental points like this it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion. A rigid/intact block is not "essentially" the same as a flexible/deteriorated block, you only look silly standing by that claim.

Maybe you missed this part the first time around? Here, I'll add a little emphasis so that it is a little bit harder to miss...

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.

As much as the previous claim makes you look silly, the enlarged red text you followed with only served to further that impression. I'm trying to have a discussion, I explain that the antenna break toward the end of the collapse does not affect anything and why it is necessary to provide a plausible alternative - to refute that the upper block rotation is the only option - but apparently you preferred to ignore all that.

If the best response you have is to attempt shutting down the discussion, because clearly you have nothing constructive to add to the issue, then perhaps it's time to take a break.

To summarise the discussion: -

Q24: here's how the antenna must have got there.

booNy: no it didn't.

Q24: why not?

booNy: because.

Q24: ok, how do you suggest it got there?

booNy: it just did, I don't need to explain.

Yes, I'm content to leave it there.

[Dis Pater]

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.

Babe,i am not saying you are wrong-I'm looking at it from a neutral angle.The only way i could see a controlled demolition is via pre-warning.The US government were warned that a terrorist act could happen.Maybe preparations were put in place to 'facilitate' the collapse?...that is just my thoughts and not fact.It does seem most plausible

[Babe Ruth]

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong. Not at all.

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known. I am always happy to read another's theory. That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

[The Narcisse]

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong. Not at all.

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known. I am always happy to read another's theory. That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

So you think that TONS of explosives were planted, and left in the Towers for YEARS in anticipation of 9/11?

[skyeagle409]

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong. Not at all.

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known. I am always happy to read another's theory. That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

You don't seem to understand that any explosives placed at the exact locations where the aircraft struck would have been detonated.

[skyeagle409]

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.

Take at look at those 9/11 Truth sites. How many of their claims have now be proven false?

[sickpuppy]

97 pages now..?

..i'm selling a golden gate bridge if anyone's interested?

[Q24]

You don't seem to understand that any explosives placed at the exact locations where the aircraft struck would have been detonated.

You definitely don't understand...

that the aircraft didn't have to impact the exact level of the charges.

that the aircraft didn't impact every column across that location.

that any columns impacted were already destroyed, not requiring the associated charge.

that thermite will not be ignited by a jet fuel fireball.

that thermite will not be ignited by the relatively low core temperatures.

And further that...

thermite would be ignited by remote detonation.

that the first ignition occured approximately 7 minutes prior collapse.

that this coincided with the bowing exterior as the core columns were cut.

and the visible thermite charge flow from WTC2 which had been displaced during the impact.

that each tower tilted in direction of elevator shafts which provided access to place the charges.

The towers and WTC7 were deliberately demolished - logic, observation and basic science indicate that in numerous ways.

There is neither logic, observation or evidence for fire induced collapses - it is driven only by a new breed of Lysenkoism.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

You definitely don't understand...

that the aircraft didn't have to impact the exact level of the charges.

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where the aircraft struck and nowhere else

that the aircraft didn't impact every column across that location.

Once again, the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where they were struck by the airliners. Question is, why would anyone carry tons of explosives up to those locations anyway!.

...that any columns impacted were already destroyed, not requiring the associated charge

They were destroyed upon impact so it was just a matter of time before the heat from the fires weaken what was left, and in addition, WTC 2 was the first to collapse even though it was struck last because it was supporting more overhead weight than WTC 1.

...that thermite will not be ignited by a jet fuel fireball

Thermite is not used by the demolition companies because it is not effective and thermite alone cannot demolish a building anymore than a hacksaw. It takes explosives to knock down a building after pre-weakening has been performed, and thermite is not considered not an explosive. Check it out.

Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition.

So once again, any explosives planted before the impacts would have been detonated.

There is neither logic, observation or evidence for fire induced collapses - it is driven only by a new breed of Lysenkoism.

What we have are evidence of fires in the WTC buildings, but no evidence of explosives.

Edited May 9, 2012 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

Sorry, I know people don't like being told they don't understand but you are missing my point.

This is what Bazant's paper tells us at face value: -

____________Rigid_______Flexible___

1-6 stories . . . .collapse . . . . . no collapse

7+ stories . . . . collapse . . . . . .N/A

The result of a rigid block is indicated in the calculations.

The result of a flexible block is indicated in the addendum.

Bazant does not specify the result of a 7+ storey flexible block because, through his non-acceptance of continued damage to the upper block, there is no reason to do so, i.e. the upper block never becomes flexible in his theory but performs as an indestructible hammer throughout the 'crush down'.

What his comments on a 1-6 storey block demonstrate (or 3-6 as he put it, matters not), is the clear difference in behaviour between a flexible and a rigid block which, one would have thought, is common sense anyway. Although Bazant does not state it explicitly (because he doesn't have to - see above) the difference in a flexible and rigid block is always inherent no matter the mass/size.

Without being able to agree fundamental points like this it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion. A rigid/intact block is not "essentially" the same as a flexible/deteriorated block, you only look silly standing by that claim.

You are misrepresenting Bazant and his position yet again. It really is getting tiring Q24.

Bazant is saying that for a sizable upper block the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions makes it act "essentially as a rigid body." The exact number he mentions when making this statement is 20 stories, but clearly it applies to fewer stories than that or he would not apply this model to the collapse of WTC 1. When that number of stories is significantly reduced to, say 3 (or 3 to 6 in the original draft of the paper) the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions allow the upper block "to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate."

He also points out the importance of the load capacity -vs- actual load in the upper floors to illustrate that they would have more residual resistance capacity to potentially arrest the lower amount of mass in a collapsing 3 to 6 stories as opposed to 12 to 20 stories.

You can try to misinterpret him all you want, it won't change what he has said and what he intended to mean. Perhaps you should take the issue up directly with him if you are truly convinced that you're interpreting what he intended to convey.

As much as the previous claim makes you look silly, the enlarged red text you followed with only served to further that impression. I'm trying to have a discussion, I explain that the antenna break toward the end of the collapse does not affect anything and why it is necessary to provide a plausible alternative - to refute that the upper block rotation is the only option - but apparently you preferred to ignore all that.

If the best response you have is to attempt shutting down the discussion, because clearly you have nothing constructive to add to the issue, then perhaps it's time to take a break.

What discussion? You made some claims and I repeatedly told you that you hadn't substantiated that claim. Did you forget those claims?

Here, let's look at the many iterations of your claims.

You will note that it is well off-centre of the starting position.

The antenna cannot have broken free

, because it would then be required to perform a hop and a jump out from the tower to reach that end position.

Yet the green line is fit to continuation of the upper block tilt.

The conclusion is, that not only was the antenna still attached to the roof, but the upper block actually continued it's rotation – it was falling sideways and well off-centre of the core. In fact, at the midpoint of collapse, the upper block was nearly

outside

of the tower footprint!

And then here:

And not forgetting debris that falls outside of the building footprint. This takes on even more significance since

I demonstrated

in

post #1246

that the WTC1 upper block fell almost entirely outside of the building footprint.

And then here:

The antena

had

to be connected to the roof with the continued rotation of the upper block carrying it to the horizontal position.

It is the only way it could get there

.

The circle and blue vertical line inserted below show where contined rotation of the upper block would place the roofline: -

The roofline is right where the antena base is.

The above circle and blue line are not precise depictions of where I think the roofline rotated because obviously the upper block was in downward motion at the same time as the rotation, i.e. it would be an elongated oval rather than the perfect circle (now I'm wondering why I didn't just draw that - doh, never mind). It is only meant to show where the continued rotation through the drop would place the antena - right where it was observed in the video footage.

How else can the base of the antena move outside the building footprint, so far from its starting centre-line?

The upper block tilted right off - it was no longer driving the collapse!

Need I go on?

The whole time I just kept reiterating that you hadn't established this claim. And then what did I share with you?

By the way... is this the fully intact antenna that you are proposing is still attached to the roof?

Source

Edit to add animated GIF comparison from page 2 of the above link...

I dunno... I can't be sure... but it does look like a pretty good match to me...

Are you still of the opinion that the only possible explanation is that the entire upper block fell outside of the building's footprint?

Original image...

It wasn't the whole antenna at all. It wasn't even the tip of the antenna. It was just a chunk of the antenna and it wasn't attached to the roof or anything else... Golly...

To summarise the discussion: -

Q24: here's how the antenna must have got there.

booNy: no it didn't.

Q24: why not?

booNy: because.

Q24: ok, how do you suggest it got there?

booNy: it just did, I don't need to explain.

Yes, I'm content to leave it there.

Are you sure you don't want to revise your summary?

Edited May 9, 2012 by booNyzarC