9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[Pericynthion]

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.

Oh, I'm still here, and I agree with everything flyingswan's been saying. I haven't posted recently because I haven't had anything to add that hasn't already been covered very well by other posters. You're still making statements that imply you know exactly how the WTC 7 structure would respond to damage and fire, but you have yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of simple statics problems. When I disagreed that adding extra legs to my original 4-legged table problem would necessarily result in a better load distribution (I claimed it would depend on the specifics of the setup), you responded with:

I believe you know very well that I was referring to an adaptation of your own ‘table theory’, simply adding more supports to make it slightly more realistic. Therefore, it was not a blanket statement and you know the design of the ‘table’ (you designed it yourself

)! That you have disagreed with the blatantly true statements I made, ie a 16 legged rather than 4 legged structure would provide better load distribution, less tilt/pull effect and would not collapse from damage to a few legs, shows how biased you are and lowers your credibility on this subject.

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. In an attempt to show you why more supports isn't always going to help, I set up another simple problem for which I could calculate an answer:

Your reponse:

Well anybody can see this is

not

a weak ass table… though it

is

a weak ass bridge

No, seriously…

I could start off asking how exactly the 31 unit figure taken from columns 1 and 5 was produced. I could argue that to achieve such fluctuating load distributions we would have to assume a non-rigid building. But those points are irrelevant because there is a

terrible

glaring error in your work – the whole rest of the building is missing!

The mistake you are making is to take a small section of a building (a single wall in this case) and then treat it as a whole structure in itself. What are the other 3 walls and internal structure on many levels doing whilst your own wall is flopping about the place? Obviously I do not expect you to be able to carry out your figure work on a building the size of WTC7 but at least a degree of relevance to a real building would be appreciated. What you are effectively doing in the diagram above is wiping out over 14% of an isolated section of structure in one go whereas damage to a single column of a whole building such as WTC7 would equate closer to 1-2% of its entirety.

You don't understand why the supports are loaded unevenly. You don't understand that in my original problem statement, the line "let's assume the horizontal beam is a simple linear-elastic beam," means that yes indeed, this part of the structure is NOT rigid. That was the whole point of the problem. Real-world structures AREN'T rigid. Go look up "Young's modulus" or "modulus of elasticity." And yet, after all this, you expect me to provide you with an even more complex analysis. Sorry, but no. I don't see much point in continuing to discuss the details of the WTC 7 collapse process until you can demonstrate that you at least understand some of the basic physiscs at work here.

As for your other arguments, here you say that the collapse of WTC 7 looks just like a controlled demolition:

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.

But here you say it doesn't:

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.

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?

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?

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? The conspiracy plan you've outlined in your various posts here is so full of unnecessary complexities that I'm beginning to wonder if the biggest coverup of all is that Mr. Reuben Goldberg is still alive and well and working for the evil government.

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? The Twin Towers were hit by airliners, so there was a good excuse for them to collapse. WTC 7, though, wasn't directly attacked by anything. Were the conspiracy planners just hoping that some chunks of debris from the Twin Towers would hit the building? They certainly couldn't have predicted ahead of time exactly what was going to happen, especially given the location of building 7. 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?

[criticalthinker]

This is what concrete looks like failing in COMPRESSION:

http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html

IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html

The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!

The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.

Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?

Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two smooth hard surfaces, and providing such area is expensive!

The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.

Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!

You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.

THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html

Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?

But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?

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.

By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!

To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!

The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of science, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws of science, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack wich killed thousands of US citizens!

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

[Sunofone]

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?

why would we argue semantics of a fruitless theory? the fact is the collapses were caught on video and no where is there debri caught damaging bldg 7-- if there really was a gaping hole that took up a third of the bldg(even though no photographical evidence exists that confirms this) dont you think destruction of that magnitude would have been visible on the collapse videos?? the twinn towers collpases were so neat the debri came no where near bldg 7-- after the collapses of the main towers bldg 7 was hidden in a conspicuous pyroclastic wave of dust and smoke that bellowed from the demolition yet it is clear as day as to the actual damage sustained up to the point where it is hidden from view-- there is none-- how can you shills sit there and ignore major bits of evidence like the firefighter video that contains a huge blast and a nervous firefighter exclaiming "SEVEN is EXPLODING"

also just a few more days until barry jennings testifies in the new loose change documentary-- what are you gonna say when the head of security goes on the record saying there was an explosion is bldg 7 that was probably supposed to take his life that killed multiple people in bldg 7 before the collapse and which has been covered up?

[flyingswan]

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?

[flyingswan]

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!

Have you got a source for your claim that all the floor concrete was changed to fine dust, because I'm sure I've seen pictures of the debris pile with large lumps of concrete present. Also, have you got any source that gives any data on how much explosive would be required to pulverise all the concrete? Have you got any source that explains how all the concrete in the collapsing buildings could be damaged in compression only, no tension or shear failures? Have you got any source that says what proportion of the dust was concrete as opposed to, say, plasterboard walls?

[flyingswan]

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

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.

[The-Doctor]

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.

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

Now, if you would look at any film of the towers collapsing: How long does it take to fall? About ten seconds maybe? How do you know? Wasn't it covered in smoke?

Or, you could look at these pictures: (bottom of page)

Now, as you'll see in each picture of the collapse, the columns are far closer to reaching the ground then the building itself. They are also falling faster than the debris cloud, which is also falling faster than the building.

Also look at the graph from a paper by Dr. Frank Greening. It is an estimate since we cant really see the end of the building behind the debris cloud, but it is very close to accurate nonetheless. The buildings finished collapsing way over free fall time.

Excerpt from debunking9/11:

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.

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

Edited September 3, 2007 by The-Doctor

[Q24]

I have previously looked through the article you posted The-Doctor, and have just re-read it to refresh my memory. Here is what I think of the 12 points: -

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".

Although only an estimate by the fire fighter, I can agree to that – the building façade was damaged… unsurprising as nearly every building on the WTC complex was damaged. If there was any evidence of WTC1 light debris breaking past the façade, through the floors, into the core of WTC7 and retaining enough energy to smash its way through steel columns, we would have something meaningful. Though there is no such evidence and the likelihood of this happening, with WTC7 being only caught on the edge of the light debris field, is very low.

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".

It does not indicate which area of WTC7 they are looking at. If South-West corner, see 4) below. If another area, after explosives had weakened the structure of WTC7, it is quite possible it “didn’t look right.”

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

See answer 2) above.

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

There is photographic evidence showing bulges, twisted metal and debris at the lower levels of the South-West corner. This seems irrelevant as everyone working on the ‘official story’ agrees that the collapse initiated on the East side of the building.

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

There was fire visible in locations on all sides of WTC7 therefore I do not see the relevance.

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

To me this highlights a separate damage event occurring before the collapse at the top of WTC7 where the penthouse was located. The idea, as the ‘official story’ suggests, of the penthouse structure independently plummeting through the rest of the building, again at near freefall speed, due to damage some 30 storeys below, is highly improbable.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

Is this article trying to debunk the inside job or support it? Controlled demolitions cause structures to collapse from the bottom. There is not another high rise steel framed building in history that has collapsed ‘from the bottom’ as WTC7 did, except for controlled demolitions.

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.

Again, I do not see the relevance here – nobody is disputing there were fires in WTC7.

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.

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.”

Next, I want you to watch this video, which clearly shows much more damage to WTC7 then most conspiracy theorists argue:

The video shows the same damage that everyone already knows about. I have seen FAR worse fires and damage in high rise buildings that did not collapse. Watch this clip of the

and you will see what I mean.

Then, summarize the entire article I showed you.

Not too demanding are you The-Doctor I have said all I need to say above but to summarize the article – mostly truthful, much irrelevance, a lot of bias, ‘debunks’ absolutely nothing.

[Q24]

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.

That was all in regard to the Twin Towers. To prove WTC7 fell at virtually freefall speed all you need is a stopwatch and the formula, distance = 16.08 x seconds². I make the collapse to be within 1 second of freefall speed, if not closer. I do not think the fact WTC7 fell at virtually freefall is in serious dispute.

[The-Doctor]

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.”

He meant "pull" the firefighters from the building. I'm sure you know that Silverstein is not an expert in controlled demolitions, therefore he would not know that "pull" would be the type of term used in a controlled demolition. 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...

[Q24]

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

Being biased, as you are, does not necessarily label you a liar. Perhaps you just have difficulty looking at situations objectively. Do you really need a calculation for an idea so simple? Removing 1 out of 4 ‘table legs’ = 25% of structure. Removing 1 out of 16 ‘table legs’ = 6.25% of structure. Then having 15 legs remaining, spread evenly, gives better load distribution than 3 legs on the corners of the table. It is simply making the ‘structure’ more like a building than your original design.

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

I understand the theory very well thank you. I do not think you yourself know where the figures in your model really come from though. I will ask again - how exactly was the 31 unit figure taken from columns 1 and 5 produced? Your models seem to be more based on how a thin, flat sheet of metal would perform under stress than the steelwork of a building. Also I am still waiting for an answer on this: -

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.

Oh that is so good I am putting it right up there with flyingswan’s: -

These pieces can easily bounce around

Have you pair ever thought of taking up a career in comedy? You could be the next Chuckle Brothers or Laurel and Hardy.

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?

I have always said that the building was not a conventional controlled demolition. The method of placing demolition charges, the type of charges themselves and the sequence of detonation would all be unconventional. Everything else about the building collapse was conventional and the evidence for this is the sudden onset of a virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse to the main structure.

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?

It is very plausible that during the early hours, the Mossad agents made one last check of the controlled demolition setup. They then waited, within viewing distance of the Twin Towers to witness their months, maybe years, of planning come to fruition.

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?

Good question which bothered me for a long time also. As WTC7 was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition, we must suppose they had a cover for the building collapse and no, they could not assume debris from WTC1 would provide that. I believe the only possible conclusion is that WTC7 should have been destroyed during the panic, confusion and dust cloud of WTC1’s fall. Something though went wrong, perhaps due to radio signal interference from the Towers’ debris or maybe even from the fact of the debris striking WTC7, this plan failed and the controlled demolition of the building was delayed until afternoon. Strange how fires raged ‘out of control’ in WTC7 and yet not in any of the other buildings closer to the Towers is it not? Strange is it not how the one confirmed death in the collapse of WTC7 was a secret service agent who had not left the building?

[Q24]

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 was no contradiction, as I explained above.

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.

Perhaps there is a form of thermite that can be classed as a tertiary explosive. The mixture is usually aluminium and iron oxide which itself is difficult enough to ignite. Maybe using an alternative to aluminium in a thermite reaction would raise the ignition temperature further still. Taken from Wikipedia: -

“Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.”

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?

It is possible the detonation system was electrical or chemical. This would cause them to be destroyed by any fire rather than set off. As the fire was on limited areas of limited floors in the building, the large majority of the explosives would remain untouched.

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

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.

I see you still refuse to answer the very straightforward question of what you believe the Mossad agents were doing.

[Q24]

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.

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.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Q24

[Q24]

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...

• "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," - Popular Mechanics... how ironic.

• "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA Report

[The-Doctor]

Q24, you also never sufficiently explained to me how you know the U.S. government was involved...exactly why you think it was an "inside job." You told me earlier that the terrorist organizations were simply not capable of planning and executing this event. You also never responded to what I said here:

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"

If the U.S. government was really involved then why crash a plane into a building if they could just thermate the building and demolish it? You'll reference the Northwoods operation and state that the planes were to create a terror effect that would be used as a propaganda tool for the government's foreign policies. So explain to me this, if the U.S. wants to make a terror effect than why wouldn't the TERRORISTS?

Oh yeah, and prove to me that terrorists aren't capable of pulling this off!

EDIT: Q24, I'm going to put this post on another thread "What are your feelings on half the 9/11 hijackers" I think it would be more relevant there, so if you could respond to this post there, thank you

Edited September 4, 2007 by The-Doctor

[phunk]

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.

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.

[flyingswan]

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.

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:

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.

[flyingswan]

There was no contradiction, as I explained above.

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.

[flyingswan]

• "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," - Popular Mechanics... how ironic.
• "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA Report

...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?

[Sunofone]

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 ****!

EDUCATE YOURSELF

[The-Doctor]

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 ****!

EDUCATE YOURSELF

I respect Professor Stephen Jones' investigation and his hypothesis. I am still in the process of reading all of it. It is true that there is very much unexplained about the events on 9/11. However, while these points show to a different way of demolishing the buildings, it does not explain how it was all an "inside job." There is no evidence whatsoever that points to this, even if the official investigation had errors and perhaps complete mistakes. Accusation without investigation is against reason and even morality. Our investigation is by no means complete.

[flyingswan]

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 ****!

EDUCATE YOURSELF

Why should a physics professor know any more about structural engineering than a structural engineer knows about nuclear fusion? For instance, here is an opinion of Jones theories (quote "very unreliable") from a member of his own university:

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/AR...9/443801bdadd6e

His paper is basically the same sort of stuff seen on all the conspiracy websites, and the things he finds anomalous are just evidence of his lack of familiarity with engineering fundamentals.

[Q24]

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.

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.

Check the excellent essay danemburke has written here on UM: -

Turning a Blind Eye:, NIST and Extreme Temperatures

Edited September 6, 2007 by Q24

[Q24]

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.

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 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:

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.

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?

[Q24]

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

I did not say it started at the bottom and started at the top… but that is an interesting idea. I mean, it did not particularly matter how or in what order WTC7 collapsed so long as it was completely demolished at the end – the official fairytale would still claim it was caused by fire and people with sense would still claim it was not possible.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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. Steel framed high rise buildings are extremely strong, with the components being bolted together into a grid and over designed to cope with more stress than would ever be necessary. Ask yourself – is a structure as WTC7 more rigid or more floppy (being the opposite of rigid)?

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.

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. And I explained here that your request is unrealistic.