Controlled Demolition expert on WTC 7

[Micahyah]

Just watch the 2 min clip, his reaction is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&NR

[stewey]

Just watch the 2 min clip, his reaction is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&NR

The guy probably wasn't told about the building having power generators burning inside, the unique design of the building (it was designed specially for another reason, but as a result wasnt as "stable" incase of a fire", as I said in other posts, read the Time article), and the SW corner was destroyed. If he had just heard about it, the guy explaining it to him seems to have left out those inconvenient facts.

[stewey]

Here are real demolitions experts debunking the stupid conspiracy theory of controlled demolition (PDF):

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

[Justice]

stewey

did you watch the link and are you a better expert than him

[stewey]

stewey

did you watch the link and are you a better expert than him

I watched the link. If he was just hearing about WTC 7 coming down now, and was not told of the damage WTC7 suffered (as I mentioned above), he is missing information and his conclusion cannot be valid. He was never told about WTC 7 having structural damage, generators inside, and the unique structure of the building.

[Justice]

I watched the link. If he was just hearing about WTC 7 coming down now, and was not told of the damage WTC7 suffered (as I mentioned above), he is missing information and his conclusion cannot be valid. He was never told about WTC 7 having structural damage, generators inside, and the unique structure of the building.

we can argue that all buildings are unique and forget that many skyscrapers have generators inside to power the emergency light system and back-up conputer supplies.

we are all missing information but some people can join the dots and some can not.

what melted the steel in the basement, can you join that dot for me

[stewey]

we can argue that all buildings are unique and forget that many skyscrapers have generators inside to power the emergency light system and back-up conputer supplies.

we are all missing information but some people can join the dots and some can not.

what melted the steel in the basement, can you join that dot for me

Probably fire. It didn't melt though, it just weakened it enough to bring it down.

[stewey]

Why would they bother with controlled demolition? After the "planes" hit WTC 1 and 2, there was enough damage to all 7 of the towers that they would've had to be brought down, so there'd be no benefits to bringing the towers down with demolition.

[grendel 13]

Why would they bother with controlled demolition? After the "planes" hit WTC 1 and 2, there was enough damage to all 7 of the towers that they would've had to be brought down, so there'd be no benefits to bringing the towers down with demolition.

it's called theatrics, it looks a lot crazier to see two of the tallest buildings in the world come tumbling down, it puts a greater amount of fear into the public, also all the deaths that resulted angered the population so much that we would support anything to get back at the terrorists .

[Raptor Witness]

Just watch the 2 min clip, his reaction is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q&NR

Good one Micahyah! It's one of the great mysteries that hasn't been solved, and one reason why I don't think Rudi can get elected in '08. Between this and his supposed purchase of an anthrax laced building in Florida, it smells of a conspiracy.

[stewey]

it's called theatrics, it looks a lot crazier to see two of the tallest buildings in the world come tumbling down, it puts a greater amount of fear into the public, also all the deaths that resulted angered the population so much that we would support anything to get back at the terrorists .

Why didn't they blow up the stadium that the world series was in? That would be less obvious and easier to pull off.

[grendel 13]

Why didn't they blow up the stadium that the world series was in? That would be less obvious and easier to pull off.

again, theatrics. there are plenty of stadiums around, and not too many care about baseball anymore. the twin towers where a symbol, they were the tallest buildings in the most well known american city. this just came to mind, are you asking why the terrorists or the government didn't just blow up the stadium? do you see what i'm saying, your asking that if the gov. did it than why wouldn't they just do a stadium, it would better their cause, but if it blowing up a stadium was such a better plan than why didn't the terrorists do it.

[stewey]

again, theatrics. there are plenty of stadiums around, and not too many care about baseball anymore. the twin towers where a symbol, they were the tallest buildings in the most well known american city. this just came to mind, are you asking why the terrorists or the government didn't just blow up the stadium? do you see what i'm saying, your asking that if the gov. did it than why wouldn't they just do a stadium, it would better their cause, but if it blowing up a stadium was such a better plan than why didn't the terrorists do it.

True, but the government wouldn't use "controlled demolition" to bring down WTC 7, 1 or 2. They all would've had to come down anyways after the attacks (because of fires and such). The government would have no gain faking planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2, when they could much easier plant a car bomb. For the terrorists, it was easier to hijack a plane and send it in. Plus engineering science can explain why they came down just fine without demolition help.

[grendel 13]

True, but the government wouldn't use "controlled demolition" to bring down WTC 7, 1 or 2. They all would've had to come down anyways after the attacks (because of fires and such). The government would have no gain faking planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2, when they could much easier plant a car bomb. For the terrorists, it was easier to hijack a plane and send it in. Plus engineering science can explain why they came down just fine without demolition help.

i understand your point, and i don't want people thinking i totally believe every conspiracy i hear, i just like to bring up certain points i feel are valid. i do believe that terrorists did do most of this on their own, however i am also convinced that the gov. knew about it and either encouraged it to happen or simply turned away, and that, to me makes, the gov. just as guilty.

[sleepy2k16]

The guy probably wasn't told about the building having power generators burning inside, the unique design of the building (it was designed specially for another reason, but as a result wasnt as "stable" incase of a fire", as I said in other posts, read the Time article), and the SW corner was destroyed. If he had just heard about it, the guy explaining it to him seems to have left out those inconvenient facts.

Dude,,WAKE UP!!!


The owner admitted it was controlled domilition.

You are believing a lie.

[Cartesiantheater]

Here are real demolitions experts debunking the stupid conspiracy theory of controlled demolition (PDF):

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

Stewey, that link doesn't work. However, for anyone who wants to read a paper produced about demolitions by DEMOLITION EXPERTS, (note "experts" is PLURAL- and note that this is not an interview where the interviewer determines which parts are published- this is a paper open to public and peer scrutiny)here is the actual paper. This is quite informative.

About why the towers "fell into their own footprint" :

With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e. 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximise breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward

Here's about the difference between a typical implosion and the collapses of 1 and 2

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extednded-duration "pancake-like" effect dwon to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter. As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site (sound like a controlled demolition? uh... NO {added by me}). Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower's collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block (they fell into their own footprints, huh? {added by me}) Ariel photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the tower's footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

More specifics about the "demolition squibs"

Human-inhabited buildings are typically comprised of about 70% air and 30% structural elements and contents. During any rapid collapse that air must be displaced in some manner. Therefore when gravity makes a structure fall downward, the air within the structure is propelled horizontally through windows, doorframes, or any other path of least resistance (why "squibs" appear a few floors below collapse) In the case of WTC 1 and 2, it has been scientifically documented that the failures of the interior floor trusses were occuring slightly ahead of the exterior collumns, which is why the columns fell outward and contributed to a "mushroom" effect. Another side effect of this unequal progression was that air- and various lightweight office contents- was forced out of windows well below the visible collapse mechanism. The amount of debris seen jettisoning from any given floor or window was likely dependent on the condition of the windows, obstructions or furniture blocking the windows, and the amount and weight of localized debris. The existence of vacant and non-occupied mechanical floors also likely affected the level or absence of expulsion in certain areas. Again, it is important to note that neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible...nor did they fail at any point in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence. Which tells us that the "plume" phenomenon witnessed was a predictable effect that gravity dictates had to occur.

And I thought this was a nice finishing touch from the DEMOLITIONS EXPERTS

With all due respect to distinguished scholars and others alike, it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote; for assertions to be credible they must eventually comply with the scientific principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure, realistic judgements of probability, and indisputable visual evidence. Thus far, every assertion we have investigated scores a resounding 0 for 3. Our team welcomes the opportunity to review additional data as it becomes available. However barring any additional evidence, those making allegations similar to the points above may do well to consider that sometimes "asking tough questions" isn't the biggest challenge; It's accepting the answers and decisively moving on to other areas that render their contributions productive and valuable.

But of course, this reputable collection of MANY demolition experts who have studied the incident IN DEPTH is less trustworthy than the ONE demolition expert given in the interview (the ONE expert who has NOT gone over ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA and who has NOT studied the incident IN DEPTH)...

[Justice]

Why would they bother with controlled demolition? After the "planes" hit WTC 1 and 2, there was enough damage to all 7 of the towers that they would've had to be brought down, so there'd be no benefits to bringing the towers down with demolition.

for Maximum publicity so the American people would be so enraged and let bush go to war and if as you say the heat did not melt the steel then how come molten steel was being pulled out the basement weeks later and how come molten metal could be seen dripping from the towers and why have I seen pictures of beams being cut from extreme heat.




Do you think it was aluminium dripping from the towers and maybe the clean up crew cut the beam shown below and the metal in the basement was so hot because someone forgot to turn the central heating system off.



You need to present better arguments to convince anyone and merely saying someone is a crank because they do not agree with you will not make you right

[Micahyah]

Some defenders of the government's story tried to pull a fast one and it backfired, lol.

I then called Jowenko Inc posing as a reporter for the Washington Post (my bad, but hey I figured I might get an on-the-record comment) To my amazement I was put right thru to Mr. Jowenko. He's a very nice gentleman who speaks great english. I told him that WTC7 burned extensively and had a gaping 20 story hole in it...I told him just about all I knew of the building from my own research. The fires fed by fuel tanks...the arangement of the columns to accomidate the pre-existing Con-Ed substation....

The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=13827

[Cartesiantheater]

if as you say the heat did not melt the steel then how come molten steel was being pulled out the basement weeks later

I already addressed this when I was addressing Jones' "traces of thermite." Here's an equally valid explanation:

The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON.

Iron (aka- metal found in steel alloys) will continue burning and increasing in temperature until all the iron has been oxidized. And the hotter the iron gets as it burns, the faster it will continue to burn (increase in energy generally increases reaction rate- chemical reactions are generally accelerated by temperature increases), and hence, the hotter the temperature will get, continuing in a vicious cycle.

Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue).

Further, heat escapes more slowly from an iron fire than normal carbon fires, and thus

Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large air-metal-fire could attain. It could, in theory, attain a temperature high enough to not only melt iron, but also to boil (vaporize) iron, but not at the same location at the same time.

Now, how much time was this steel given to burn? At least several days, right?


Now, about the molten metal falling from the building. If it really was molten iron (steel), than we would have seen (since this molten iron was exposed to large amounts of air as it fell) CONSTANT explosions and ignitions as the pool of metal was exposed to greater amounts of oxygen.
See?



Some additional reasons why the metal falling out of the impact points probably wasn't iron:

Also, more definitely, the falling molten material clearly turns into a silver colored (highly reflective) (flat, blocky) solid material after it cools (as soon as it stops glowing) after falling down a number of stories (strongly suggesting aluminum metal, not iron). Solid iron is generally not that highly reflective without polishing, but aluminum is. [Molten iron would probably not loose its glow and convert into a solid so quickly, since it does not conduct heat as well as aluminum and because it would be formed much hotter than molten aluminum.] Also, iron would be expected to coalesce into a rounder clump while falling before solidifying. [Shot towers are used to form iron ball-bearings, and lead musket balls, out of poured molten metal. But, there is no indication that aluminum can be formed into round balls by this method, perhaps because it cools down to quickly] If the "shot tower" behavior of iron (forming spherical balls of molten iron before solidifying) holds with larger amounts of poured iron, then the molten metal pouring out of the WTC, IF IT WERE IRON WOULD HAVE FORMED CANON-BALL SHAPED gobs of molten metal before it cooled down and solidified.
The falling metal pieces formed by that pour out the window of the WTC tower are clearly NOT ROUND and are very elongated, or flat, indicating a very rapid cooling of the falling poured (aluminum) metal. [These distinctions can be readily proved or disproved by experimentation or calculation]. Jones does not comment upon the silvery flat, blocky, (not round) metal pieces visible falling in the photo frames in his own thesis.

So, it is very justifiable that the metal falling from the points of impact was ALUMINUM, and that the metal found in the debris was IRON after given several days and/or weeks to combust. Further, IF it was steel falling from the impact points than we have quite a conundrum for conspiracy theorists- if they were using thermiteish stuff to weaken the beams...

More fundamentally, what good is molten iron falling out of a window to someone who wants to use it to HEAT a VERTICAL IRON BEAM to the point of failure???? In order to USE thermite to heat something, you have to let the molten iron transfer its heat to that thing, which means that the molten iron would cool and solidify if were actually USED to heat something. And, since Jones claims that the thermite was placed on the internal columns of the building (since they failed first), how and why would molten iron show up at the outside perimeter (near a corner) to fall out of a window? Thermite charges are always used ABOVE (or inside) the subject to be heated, because any other position would result in the hot molten iron formed by thermite flowing down away from the subject to be heated and being useless waste. Jones offers no explanation for why anyone would go to the trouble of using "thermite" to produce many gallons of WASTE molten iron that was not kept in intimate contact with vertical Beams and therefore served no purpose other than to fall out of a window and attract attention to itself. So, shall we call Jones' Theory: The Theory of the Incompetent Thermite Bombers Who Just Needed to Call Attention to their Handiwork by Pouring Molten Iron out of a Window.

[stewey]

The more these threads come, the more it shows conspiracy theorists know jack about engineering...

[Cartesiantheater]

The more these threads come, the more it shows conspiracy theorists know jack about engineering...

I wouldn't go that far stewey. No one can cover every aspect of this. And you also have to realize, that because of the nature of the two opposing arguments, the conspiracy theorists will generally have a better grasp of the TOTAL arguments, while having less knowledge about the detailed specifics, while non-demolition theorists will generally have more knowledge about a few specific details, and much less knowledge of the TOTAL amount of arguments being made against non-demolition theories.

In addition, as a few posters have found out (Ning, for example) it really is not wise to slam your opposition by saying that they don't know shit about something for two reasons- 1 people can become educated, and 2- it may be that you might have misunderstood what the person was saying, or in some other way you may make an ass out of yourself.

Further, it really doesn't help the exchange of ideas. Sure, some of the conspiracy theorists are just desperate for life to have meaning (fictional prophesy and the like; villains and heroes- like the gods and demons humanity invented). Sure, some are just leftists or anti-establishment bandwagon jumpers. But I'd bet that at least some of them are genuinely seeking justice for the people who died. And I think it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt and walk the highroad (i.e., try not to insult people {although it may be needed at times}).

[FireAnt]

One more thing about the molten metal. As a huge scyscraper falls down a lot of energy is released. All the kinetic energy of the falling building must be transfered into something. This energy is either transferred into sound energy or heat energy. The amount of heat energy produced from a falling building of that size would be enough to melt the already heated steel beams, i think. I have watched steel being broken in material labs and the amount of heat produced is actually quite amazing for the amount of steel.