Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[Disbelief]

Several people here have asked that question. I have mentioned before that it could have been a combination of thermite/nano-thermite and explosives.

Is it the tons of thermite that Harrit feels were necessary? How much explosives?

In any case, all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed in a manner that made the upper portion of the building fall straight down at FFA for ~100 feet. That requires explosives - unless you can think of something else.

How can explosives/thermite get rid of 7 or 8 floors simultaneously? Did these floors disappear? Vaporize?

 

[Sabretooth]

How can explosives/thermitie get rid of 7 or 8 floors simulatneously? Did these floors disappear? Vaporize?

He's not going to answer. I've asked several times.

He's going to say FFA = demolition. That's about it.

He still hasn't even covered the logistics of this. How was the thermite/dynamite/etc placed without being noticed? How did they access those areas? How did they hide all the ignition wires and cables? Why was the "explosion" not heard? Why bother with demo in the first place? And, here's one that I'd be curious to hear... Who pulled the trigger?

This thread is 80+ pages and he has answered nothing.

 

[dafydd]

He's not going to answer. I've asked several times.

He's going to say FFA = demolition. That's about it.

He still hasn't even covered the logistics of this. How was the thermite/dynamite/etc placed without being noticed? How did they access those areas? How did they hide all the ignition wires and cables? Why was the "explosion" not heard? Why bother with demo in the first place? And, here's one that I'd be curious to hear... Who pulled the trigger?

This thread is 80+ pages and he has answered nothing.

I have asked this of CD truthers in other threads,but answer came there none.

 

[Disbelief]

He's not going to answer. I've asked several times.

He's going to say FFA = demolition. That's about it.

He still hasn't even covered the logistics of this. How was the thermite/dynamite/etc placed without being noticed? How did they access those areas? How did they hide all the ignition wires and cables? Why was the "explosion" not heard? Why bother with demo in the first place? And, here's one that I'd be curious to hear... Who pulled the trigger?

This thread is 80+ pages and he has answered nothing.

Thanks for quoting me and showing how crappy my spelling was in that post!

I know he will not answer. He expects NIST to be able to describe exactly how the fires moved, what beams/columns failed and when and many other exact items. However, he and his heroes never provide particulars for anything.

I still want to know how FFA = CD, but he can provide no other CD that meets that requirement.

 

[Miragememories]

These pictures show that the coating, when subjected to temperatures above 250°C, begins to break up in irregular patterns and can flake off surfaces if subjected to impacts. For temperature far above 250°C, the coating separates completely from the part to which it was applied and the organic component undergoes combustion, causing complete separation from the steel and simultaneously producing a layer of dark burned residues. This result is compatible with the description given in the paper:

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust."
​

The corrosion-proofing paint used in the WTC was tested by NIST by subjecting it to 650°C for one hour. Combustion of the organic matrix occurred, but the paint was not reduced to ash. Bearing in mind the passive fire-retardant protection of the perimeter columns, one can notice that the inward face of the many columns that composed the building faces was protected by panels of vermiculite, i.e., by panels of a lightweight aggregate of magnesium phyllosilicate, trivalent iron and aluminum, which is generally found in the form of laminar or sheet-like particles. Vermiculite used in the building sector is obtained by baking micaceous rocks and is used as a heat insulation and soundproofing product. One should also bear in mind that mica is a combination of chemical substances that have the following chemical characteristics:

Mica classification:
Chemically, micas can be given the general formula
X2Y4–6Z8O20(OH,F)4
in which:

• X is K, Na, or Ca or less commonly Ba, Rb, or Cs;
• Y is Al, Mg, or Fe or less commonly Mn, Cr, Ti, Li, etc.;
• Z is chiefly Si or Al but also may include Fe3+ or Ti.

Structurally, micas can be classed as dioctahedral (Y = 4) and trioctahedral (Y = 6). If the X ion is K or Na the mica is a common mica, whereas if the X ion is Ca the mica is classed as a brittle mica.
​

These panels were bonded by means of adhesive to the internal face of the columns, in direct contact with the corrosion-proofing paint. Vermiculite has practically no structural strength, and its use is limited to thermal insulation and soundproofing work. If impacted, it breaks into pieces. The Twin Towers contained enormous amounts of vermiculite in direct contact, by means of adhesives, with the painted face of the perimeter columns. Yet the researchers that signed the study do not appear to have considered and investigated correctly this possibility before claiming residues of "active thermitic material" in Ground Zero dust.

Is that what happened to the control sample of WTC primer paint Harrit and Jones tested?

I see a lot of uncredited cut 'n pasting on your part but absolutely nothing in the form of rebuttal?

Your document deceptively avoids scientific precision where it really counts, as in the ignition temperature of the sample.

Professor Harrit provides a precise temperature of 430°C where as Enrico Manieri blog's provides a vague "far above 250°C".

The rest of your paste up is a lot of obfuscation, much like a good lawyer employs when flooding the court with reams of documents with a general but not specific connections to the case in question.


MM

 

[Miragememories]

"we have no evidence of "explosives" being used for CD."

W R O N G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, there is a bang, we don't know what it was, if it was an explosion we don't know where, when or what it was.

Calling it a 'demolition blast' is assuming your conclusion.

 

[DGM]

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

Or maybe something simply blew up in the fires. Never thought things could do that, huh?

Too Funny!

 

[twinstead]

W R O N G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

So the next step of course is to contact those firefighters and ask them if they believe what they heard were demolition charges going off, right?

 

[triforcharity]

MM,

That video is garbage. An explosive capable of cutting core columns would have clipped that video. No clipping was observed. Also, that sound is in perfect stereo. A real blast would have been off to one side or another, do to the fact that the sound would have had to deflect off buildings.

Lastly, if a huge explosion went off, all of the people in the video would have reacted. They most likely would have ducked for cover, especially considering the circumstances.

The video is garbage.

 

[dafydd]

W R O N G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

You fail,as all truthers do,on the details.How was it done?

 

[Disbelief]

W R O N G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11
that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned.

MM

How does this fit in with your nanothermite theory? Maybe you can answer the logistics questions.

 

[tfk]

[FONT=&quot]9.81 - 9.802 = .008[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1/10th of 1% of 9.81 is .00981[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The difference is less than one tenth of one percent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][or you can divide .008 by 9.81 and get .0008 = .08%][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you want to be picayunish, the proper scientific term is "Indistinguishable from free fall acceleration".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NIST used the word "equivalent" which means equal.

Let this be the last Tango on FFA. It freakin fell at free fall fellas.

[/FONT]

Sorry Chris,

You can say it. You can put it into big letters.

You can scowl , kick your feet , & hold your breath until you turn blue ...

But this is the reality.

The red line is Free Fall Acceleration.
The green line is the acceleration of the North Wall of WTC7.

They look nothing alike.

Not for 2.25 seconds.
Not for 1 second.
Not for 0.1 seconds.

It is correct to say that, "for approximately 2.2 seconds (4.9 to 7.1 seconds by this time reference), the average acceleration of the wall was approximately equal to a true FFA."

But that's as far as it goes.


tom

PS. Feel free to kick & scream, now... But remember, "bad boys go to bed without dessert."

 

[GlennB]

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

The time of day is not so important to your point as ....

Er, so a 'demolition blast' at the wrong time was heard. But multiple synchronised blasts at the 'right' time were entirely absent.

You couldn't make this stuff up. Oh wait ... you have.

Too funny.

 

[dafydd]

Er, so a 'demolition blast' at the wrong time was heard. But mutliple synchronised blasts at the 'right' time were entirely absent.

You couldn't make this stuff up. Oh wait ... you have.

Too funny.

What is wrong with these Truthers? Have they lost the ability to think,or did they not have it in the first place?

 

[GlennB]

What is wrong with these Truthers? Have they lost the ability to think,or did they not have it in the first place?

It's a mystery. What's even more of a mystery is their ability to latch on to trivial details like they're a tick on a dog, while hand-waving away inconvenient facts.

Hey MM - why did nobody hear the multiple synchronised 130db CD blasts just prior to collapse ?????????

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is common to all COnspiracy buffs. Look at the Moon Hoax proponents as a prime example.

 

[Miragememories]

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11 that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned."

"That video is garbage. An explosive capable of cutting core columns would have clipped that video. No clipping was observed. Also, that sound is in perfect stereo. A real blast would have been off to one side or another, do to the fact that the sound would have had to deflect off buildings.

Lastly, if a huge explosion went off, all of the people in the video would have reacted. They most likely would have ducked for cover, especially considering the circumstances.

The video is garbage."

So now you are not only a teacher of fire science, you are also an expert in video analysis?

It is ridiculous to assert that it is impossible to make an audio recording of a controlled demolition explosion.
Cutting core columns is what those blasts do and there is no shortage of such recordings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
The audio from the above video is in perfect 2-channel mono.

It is not in perfect stereo as you so arrogantly claim.

WTC-Explosion-2Ch-Mono

If you compare the waveforms for the two audio channels, it is quite obvious that the WTC blast is a 2-channel mono recording
(single-microphone, identical audio recorded on each track).

Stadium Explosion-2Ch-Stereo

If you compare the waveforms for the two audio channels, it is quite obvious that the stadium blast is a 2-channel stereo recording
(two separate-microphone sources, unique audio recorded on each track).

And yes the people in the video did react! The firefighter on the phone reflexively turned at the sound of the explosion.

The cameraman immediately pans towards the sound and two other firefighters are clearly heard in the recorded audio;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

In short, your feeble rebuttal attempt is garbage.

MM

 

[tfk]

Since it's easy to calculate (now that I've got the accel. function), here is a table of the "Average Accelerations over 2.25 second intervals", for start times running from 4.6 sec to 5.6 seconds.

{Interval Start time, Average Acceleration over 2.25 sec interval }

{4.6, -28.6556},
{4.7, -29.5611},
{4.8, -30.2888},
{4.9, -30.8012},
{5.0, -31.0492}, *** max value
{5.1, -30.9424},
{5.2, -30.3447},
{5.3, -29.3036},
{5.4, -28.0272},
{5.5, -26.8454},
{5.6, -26.0467}

So, Chris, you can see that the "average accel over 2.25 sec interval" peaks out for the interval starting at 5.0 seconds (5.0 -> 7.25 second interval) at 31.05 ft/sec^2.

Or about 100 * 31.05/32.18 = 96.5% G.

Sorry, you don't get your 0.08% or "indistinguishable from free fall accel" either.


tom

 

[Gamolon]

Several people here have asked that question. I have mentioned before that it could have been a combination of thermite/nano-thermite and explosives.

In any case, all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed in a manner that made the upper portion of the building fall straight down at FFA for ~100 feet. That requires explosives - unless you can think of something else.

Question.

If a section of a steel structure weakens due to fire to a point that the said steel cannot support it's potion of the load anymore, does it fail slowly to let the structure above down slowly or is the failure instant and can cause a FFA collapse?