Gravy's new document: "half-baked theory"

[Zygar]

Ok, so let's sum this up.

Truthseeker claims Mark's paper is bogus.

Mark asks which part specifically does TS disagree with.

Truthseeker stalls, reads a couple pages, finds ONE thing and posts it.

Mark destroys TS's ONE complaint about said paper.

Truthseeker logs off.


Dylan Avery's Scorecard:: CTS : 1 , JREF: 0

I think this is thread 4 about this paper, and at least the dozenth time BS1234 has used the same "**** and run" tactic. I'm pretty sure Avery's scorecard for this paper looks more like CTS : 18 , JREF: 0

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

First, I called attention to the Silverstein misquote, Gravy fixed it, nice job.

Next, I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

Next, what is up witht the NY times article of November 29 2001?

This article originally claimed "Steel Members Partly Evaporated". Now it appears to have been cleansed and the orginial flushed down the memory hole. Perhaps one of you can get Barnett to see if he remembers the original article. He won't answer me.

You have to mention the eutectic reaction, where the melting point of steel is lowered from the sulfur, as discussed here -

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


Can the sulfur from the drywall really form a eutectic with the steel?

Were the steel members really partly evaporated? Or is that a CT fabrication?

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication. True, if we start the clock when the penthouse collapses, we can get much longer collapse times. But this begs the question. When the main roofline begins moving, it takes 6.5 seconds for it to hit the ground. Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.

These are some points I'd like like to see addressed.

 

[R.Mackey]

Next, I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

Why?

Jones's findings are not peer-reviewed, and his conclusions are wrong. We showed that already. Why do you insist that Gravy reference this non-work in his paper?

If Gravy references Jones, it's to show that Jones is guilty of bad science. That's the topic of a different paper. Jones's "findings" are totally irrelevant to understanding WTC 7, and that's what Gravy's paper is about.

Gravy is quite right not to include it. You could suggest he include it, but he doesn't have to. You jumping ahead and calling this non-omission "yellow journalism" is ridiculous.

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication. True, if we start the clock when the penthouse collapses, we can get much longer collapse times. But this begs the question. When the main roofline begins moving, it takes 6.5 seconds for it to hit the ground. Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.

No it's not.

Once you overload a structure, the load shifts. If the load is too much for a column, that means an even higher load shifts to the others, probably breaking them as well. And so on. This load shifting can take place at up to the speed of sound in materials, or approximately Mach 8. Ruddy fast.

To such an imprecise observer as MPEG-video from an unfavorable angle, further seen through the dim haze of preconceived notions, it can happen so fast as to be undetectable.

The penthouse collapse proves that other members failed before total collapse set in. Several seconds before. The structure gradually weakened until it hit a point of critical stability, and then the rest came down in a hurry.

If you don't like our answers, I suggest you talk to structural engineers. The ones in BYU's department would be fine, although I hear they don't support Jones's work either.

 

[LashL]

I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

Why should he? This paper is about WTC7 and Jones' alleged data is about WTC1 or WTC2. Moreover, Jones has changed his paper so many times without notating the changes (wholly unprofessional, don't you think?) that it is ridiculous to expect anyone to have to keep rereading it to see what his "new and improved" version at any given moment. In any event, it has nothing to do with WTC7, so your point is invalid as a criticism of Gravy's paper on WTC7.

Next, what is up witht the NY times article of November 29 2001?

You were asked to provide links to the two versions that you cited but you have, as yet, failed to do so.

You have to mention the eutectic reaction, where the melting point of steel is lowered from the sulfur, as discussed here -

There are no footnotes or sources cited in that link of yours. Where did the information come from? And what is unusual about the presence of sulphur?

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication.

That's because it is a fabrication, as is plain to anyone who eschews tin foil hats.

Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

Since the building did not, in fact, fall at "free fall", this assertion of yours is silly.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.

You have not demonstrated even the slightest bit of knowledge, education, or expertise to support anything that you have claimed on these boards since you arrived, and your assertions merely parrot conspiracy sites, without ever being able to back up any of your claims. Those with actual knowledge, education, and expertise have pointed out the fallacies in your assertions many times. Yet you still keep avoiding questions, running away from your own threads, and parroting things that you do not understand, and are, apparently, incapable of comprehending.

It does grow wearisome.

 

[Gravy]

Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

 

[Gravy]

That's because it is a fabrication, as is plain to anyone who eschews tin foil hats.

I did that once and got a crazy sensation in my dental fillings.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

And because I think you are right, and that TS doesn't know what it really means, I shall provide a definition

Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.

source

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here TS, you want some sort of executive summary for what you're up against:

American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors (Figures 2-13 and 2-14), causing massive damage to the north face of the building within the
immediate area (Figure 2-15). At the central zone of impact corresponding to the airplane fuselage and
engines, at least five of the prefabricated, three-column sections that formed the exterior walls were broken
loose of the structure, and some were pushed inside the building envelope. Locally, floors supported by these
exterior wall sections appear to have partially collapsed, losing their support along the exterior wall. Away
from this central zone, in areas impacted by the outer wing structures, the exterior columns were fractured
by the force of the collision. Interpretation of photographic evidence suggests that from 31 to 36 columns on
the north building face were destroyed over portions of a four-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this
zone appear to have occurred over a horizontal length of wall of approximately 65 feet, while floors in other
portions of the building appear to have remained intact. Figure 2-16 shows the damage to the exterior
columns on the impacted face of WTC 1.
In addition to this damage at the building perimeter, a significant but undefined amount of damage also
occurred to framing at the central core. Interviews were conducted with persons who were present in offices on
the 91st floor of the building at the north face of the structure, three floors below the approximate zone of
impact. Their descriptions of the damage evident at this floor level immediately following the aircraft impact
suggest relatively slight damage at the exterior wall of the building, but progressively greater damage to the
south and east. They described extensive building debris in the eastern portion of the central core, preventing
their access to the easternmost exit stairway. This suggests the possibility of immediate partial collapse of
framing in the central core. These persons also described the presence of debris from collapsed partition walls
from upper floors in stairways located further to the west, suggesting the possibility of some structural damage
in the northwestern portion of the core framing as well. Figure 2-17 is a sketch made during an interview with
building occupants indicating portions of the 91st floor that could not be accessed due to accumulated debris.
It is known that some debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example,
life jackets and portions of seats from the aircraft were found on the roof of the Bankers Trust building,
located to the south of WTC 2. Part of the landing gear from this aircraft was found at the corner of West
and Rector Streets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-18). As this debris passed through
the building, it doubtless caused some level of damage to the structure across the floor plate, including,
potentially, interior framing, core columns, framing at the east, south, and west walls, and the floors
themselves. The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty. It is evident that,
despite this damage, the structure retained sufficient integrity and strength to remain globally stable for a
period of approximately 1 hour and 43 minutes.

The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,
around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed
out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented
energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The
modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in
these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100
°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe
systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these
systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed
that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have
quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.
Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective.

As fire spread and raised the temperature of structural members, the structure was further stressed and
weakened, until it eventually was unable to support its immense weight. Although the specific chain of
events that led to the eventual collapse will probably never be identified, the following effects of fire on structures may each have contributed to the collapse in some way. Appendix A presents a more detailed
discussion of the structural effects of fire.
• As floor framing and supported slabs above and in a fire area are heated, they expand. As a structure expands,
it can develop additional, potentially large, stresses in some elements. If the resulting stress state exceeds
the capacity of some members or their connections, this can initiate a series of failures (Figure 2-20).
• As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag
into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs
become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) and allow
supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some
floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to
overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors,
local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns,
permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to
buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically
stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that
involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral
support over several stories (Figure 2-22).
• As the temperature of column steel increases, the yield strength and modulus of elasticity degrade
and the critical buckling strength of the columns will decrease, potentially initiating buckling, even
if lateral support is maintained. This effect is most likely to have been significant in the failure of the
interior core columns.

United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors. The zone of impact extended from near the southeast corner of the building across much of the building
face (Figures 2-24 and 2-25). The aircraft caused massive damage to the south face of the building in the
zone of impact (Figures 2-26 and 2-27). At the central zone of impact corresponding to the airplane fuselage
and engines, six of the prefabricated, three-column sections that formed the exterior walls were broken loose
from the structure, with some of the elements apparently pushed inside the building envelope. Locally, as
was the case in WTC 1, floors supported by these exterior wall sections appear to have partially collapsed.
Away from this central zone, in the areas impacted by the outer wing structures, the exterior steel columns were fractured by the impact. Photographic evidence suggests that from 27 to 32 columns along the south
building face were destroyed over a five-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this zone appears to have
occurred over a horizontal length of approximately 70 feet, while floors in other portions of the building
appeared to remain intact. It is probable that the columns in the southeast corner of the core also experienced
some damage because they would have been in the direct travel path of the fuselage and port engine (Figure 2-25).
It is known that debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, a
landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 was found to have crashed through the roof of a building
located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church
Streets. The extent to which debris scattered throughout the impact floors is also evidenced by photographs
of the fireballs that occurred as the aircraft struck the building (Figure 2-28). Figure 2-29 shows a portion of
the fuselage of the aircraft, lying on the roof of WTC 5.
As described for WTC 1, this debris doubtless caused some level of damage to the structure across the
floor plates, including interior framing; core columns at the southeast corner of the core; framing at the north,
east, and west walls; and the floor plates themselves. Figure 2-30, showing the eastern side of the north face
of the WTC 2 partially hidden behind WTC 1, suggests that damage to the exterior walls was not severe
except at the zone of impact. The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty. It is
evident that the structure retained sufficient integrity and strength to remain globally stable for a period of
approximately 56 minutes.
There are some important differences between the impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 and the impact
into WTC 1. First, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying much faster, with an estimated speed of 590 mph,
while American Airlines Flight 11 was flying at approximately 470 mph. The additional speed would have given the aircraft a greater ability to destroy portions of the structure. The zone of aircraft impact was skewed
toward the southeast corner of WTC 2, while the zone of impact on WTC 1 was approximately centered on
the building’s north face. The orientation of the core in WTC 2 was such that the aircraft debris would only
have to travel 35 feet across the floor before it began to impact and damage elements of the core structure.
Finally, the zone of impact in WTC 2 was nearly 20 stories lower than that in WTC 1, so columns in this
area were carrying substantially larger loads. It is possible, therefore, that structural damage to WTC 2 was
more severe than that to WTC 1, partly explaining why WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
��An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
��Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up tothe east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors)resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined,
and lethal.The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world
by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and
our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political
pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction
between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its
lexicon.
We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders,
civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat
could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or
defeat it.We learned of fault lines within our government—between foreign
and domestic intelligence, and between and within agencies.We learned of
the pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront
different dangers.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan, thanks for the summary, it was Gravy who requested it to be told what his theory was, but yes, this is useful to me.

 

[Horatius]

Once you overload a structure, the load shifts. If the load is too much for a column, that means an even higher load shifts to the others, probably breaking them as well. And so on. This load shifting can take place at up to the speed of sound in materials, or approximately Mach 8. Ruddy fast.

To such an imprecise observer as MPEG-video from an unfavorable angle, further seen through the dim haze of preconceived notions, it can happen so fast as to be undetectable.

The penthouse collapse proves that other members failed before total collapse set in. Several seconds before. The structure gradually weakened until it hit a point of critical stability, and then the rest came down in a hurry.

Just as another example of what a collapse looks like, consider the Tacoma Narrows Bridge:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8848571026603178234&q=tacoma+narrows

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3932185696812733207&q=tacoma+narrows

Just like Mackey said, once the load became too high, the structure failed along the whole length quite quickly.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

1) Yourself

2) Get over

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:

That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as
Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east
penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides
and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building.
Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actu-
ally get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven,
and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side
becauseit was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss
of support from below –first the east penthouse, then the center,
then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors
not moving “relative to one another.”

I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

 

[Gravy]

Arkan, thanks for the summary, it was Gravy who requested it to be told what his theory was, but yes, this is useful to me.

That's funny, TS, I thought you said you'd read the NIST report.

Why do you lie?

By the way, my question was rhetorical. I never put forth my own theory about WTC 7, which you would know if you had read my paper.

 

[Ducky]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:



I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

Are you going to offer any evidence of the falsehoods of your strawman list of Gravy's assertions?

 

[Gravy]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:

I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

Wanna bet? Here's the section of my paper that TS is referring to (pages 80-81, photos not shown here):


The video Loose Change quick-cuts between WTC 7 collapsing and a building being demolished. This building is the Beirut Hilton. Play the original video with your computer’s sound on and find out why the creators of Loose Change don’t want you to hear the audio: http://tinyurl.com/oufj3

Watch and listen to another demolition, Schuylkill Falls Towers: http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
And another: Landmark Tower demolition http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
And another: Southwark Towers, Philadelphia: http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

In each case we hear the initiation charges, then the larger primary charges. Keep in mind that the buildings above underwent extensive structural weakening before their demolition. Absent such weakening, using explosives to bring down the WTC buildings would require charges of far greater magnitude. The use of such explosives would have been immediately apparent to everyone in the area, as well as to audiovisual and seismic recording equipment.

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

What about those “explosive squibs” coming from WTC 7 on video?

Steven E. Jones, among others, promotes that idea, and it’s as silly as 9/11 conspiracy claims get.

Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are
 observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence,
 just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE:
 http://tinyurl.com/7drxn) Yet the floors have not
 moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify
 from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing
 floors is excluded. I have personally examined many 
building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the
 presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as
 observed is prima facie evidence for the use of
 pre-positioned explosives inside the building. ...I conclude that the evidence for
 pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1
 and 2) is truly compelling. http://tinyurl.com/jpe9s

I encourage everyone to read the whole page from which the Jones quote is taken. But don’t play “spot a false statement: drink a shot of Jack” – you will die. Jones’ “observations” and conclusions wouldn’t pass muster if they came from a junior-high school student. Note in particular his “experiment” in which he drops a block of concrete on another from a height of 12 feet and concludes that it’s “nonsense!” that concrete could pulverize when a billion-pound, quarter-mile high building crashes down! Can Jones, a physicist, possibly be that ignorant? Is he putting us on?

Here’s a still from the cropped, low-quality video that Jones wants us to see (http://tinyurl.com/7drxn)

Is there some reason that Steven Jones doesn’t want us to see a good quality video of this event, which is just as easy to find on the internet as a poor-quality video? Judge for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/qbvl6

There are a few things that Jones neglects to show us with his highly selective video:
– That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building. Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss of support from below – first the east penthouse, then the center, then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors not moving “relative to one another.”

I’d love to hear Jones explain why he thinks the crack WTC 7 demolition team chose to plant a few “charges” in the southwest corner of the building...at the top.

In Jones’ presentations to live audiences, he actually uses the Southwark Towers demolition video linked above, which shows huge, high-velocity jets of debris shooting out before the buildings collapse. WTC 7 looks nothing like that. What does Jones omit from that video? The audio, of course.

 

[Popeholden]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

interesting theory gravy...are you suggesting that ROUS brought down the towers? of course, you'd have to explain how they were secreted behind the walls of the towers and attached to the core columns beforehand without thousands of people noticing.

 

[Scientologist]

Gravy stop giving me such a raging clue.

 

[Horatius]

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

Just to let you know, this link doesn't seem to work right for me.

 

[Gravy]

Just to let you know, this link doesn't seem to work right for me.

Thanks. Things change fast on the ol' internet. That link worked two days ago. I'll try to find another.

 

[Kent1]

Wanna bet? Here's the section of my paper that TS is referring to (pages 80-81, photos not shown here):


The video Loose Change quick-cuts between WTC 7 collapsing and a building being demolished. This building is the Beirut Hilton. Play the original video with your computer’s sound on and find out why the creators of Loose Change don’t want you to hear the audio: http://tinyurl.com/oufj3

Watch and listen to another demolition, Schuylkill Falls Towers: http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
And another: Landmark Tower demolition http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
And another: Southwark Towers, Philadelphia: http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

In each case we hear the initiation charges, then the larger primary charges. Keep in mind that the buildings above underwent extensive structural weakening before their demolition. Absent such weakening, using explosives to bring down the WTC buildings would require charges of far greater magnitude. The use of such explosives would have been immediately apparent to everyone in the area, as well as to audiovisual and seismic recording equipment.

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

What about those “explosive squibs” coming from WTC 7 on video?

Steven E. Jones, among others, promotes that idea, and it’s as silly as 9/11 conspiracy claims get.

I encourage everyone to read the whole page from which the Jones quote is taken. But don’t play “spot a false statement: drink a shot of Jack” – you will die. Jones’ “observations” and conclusions wouldn’t pass muster if they came from a junior-high school student. Note in particular his “experiment” in which he drops a block of concrete on another from a height of 12 feet and concludes that it’s “nonsense!” that concrete could pulverize when a billion-pound, quarter-mile high building crashes down! Can Jones, a physicist, possibly be that ignorant? Is he putting us on?

Here’s a still from the cropped, low-quality video that Jones wants us to see (http://tinyurl.com/7drxn)

Is there some reason that Steven Jones doesn’t want us to see a good quality video of this event, which is just as easy to find on the internet as a poor-quality video? Judge for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/qbvl6

There are a few things that Jones neglects to show us with his highly selective video:
– That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building. Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss of support from below – first the east penthouse, then the center, then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors not moving “relative to one another.”

I’d love to hear Jones explain why he thinks the crack WTC 7 demolition team chose to plant a few “charges” in the southwest corner of the building...at the top.

In Jones’ presentations to live audiences, he actually uses the Southwark Towers demolition video linked above, which shows huge, high-velocity jets of debris shooting out before the buildings collapse. WTC 7 looks nothing like that. What does Jones omit from that video? The audio, of course.

Also check out where the location of the "squibs" are and the corner damage on WTC7
Scroll to the bottom photo comparision.
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm