The Progressive Collapse Challenge

I don't know the specifics on how they could've done that either, but if you look at the squibs and actual collapse, you'll notice that the explosions that blow out those columns are all from within the building blasting outwards and not actually on the outer columns. The squibs, for example (though some video footage shows the actual collapse destruction similarly), continue outwards for well over a hundred feet, solid debris and all. Like I said, I can't reverse-engineer how they must've set this one up, but we can look at the evidence and get some ideas at least. What's important is proving that it couldn't have been a gravity-driven collapse anyway, which we will hopefully be able to do with a little more exploration into simulations.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'm still trying to understand how they would have gotten the chapeed charges all around the exterior box columns. They would have had to take off the aluminum covers to access the outside of the columns.

QuietSoul's demolition friend said that it was possible to sever columns without access to all sides using conventional technology alone. We can keep trying to reverse engineer how they would have done it, but to be honest we can only guess as to what technology is available to the CIA/FEMA/US intel/whoever. Asking us to explain exactly how they did it is in every detail is a tried and true disinformation tactic called "Demand Complete Solutions". The important thing is that we have shown that the collapses were impossible under gravity alone and that there are enough anomalies to strongly point to the use of explosives in the demolitions. In particular WTC7 was irrefutably brought down by controlled demolition.

I also read somewhere that it was Rockefeller that pushed for the construction of the towers way back in the 70's (although I have yet to confirm this) which is also the time that the neocons started to take over Washington proper. Something tells me that the whole thing was planned back then, which lends some credence to the C4 placed on the rebar at the time of construction theory:

algoxy.com...

I still like this theory, because it explains away so many anomalies, most notably the pulverization of the concrete and the high energy ejection of debris and dust which are simply impossible under gravity-driven collapse, and maybe even with conventional explosives.

[edit on 2005-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'm still trying to understand how they would have gotten the chapeed charges all around the exterior box columns. They would have had to take off the aluminum covers to access the outside of the columns.

QuietSoul's demolition friend said that it was possible to sever columns without access to all sides using conventional technology alone.

Q: How would you place a cutting charge on a box column if you only had access to one face of that column?
A: Access to each side of a box column is needed....there are outrageous exceptions.

No he didn't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I'm still trying to understand how they would have gotten the chapeed charges all around the exterior box columns. They would have had to take off the aluminum covers to access the outside of the columns.

According to a docu I saw there's a hollow space above the windows for cables etc..

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No he didn't.

....there are outrageous exceptions.

Yes...he did.

And if it's possible for conventional industry, I'd say it would be no problem for the best the military/CIA has at their disposal.

[edit on 2005-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]

I found some of the RDX shape charge pictures:



Just like the gentleman said.. V shaped copper

Also found this .pdf file.. its pretty big and informative: Explosive Demolitions Handbook

Shape charges are governed by the Munroe Effect discovered in 1888 by Professor Charles E. Munroe. Munroe surmised that the deeper cuts were created by accelerated particles of the explosive. The explosive created pressures up to 160 tons per square inch, and when particles were accelerated, they created even more pressure. Munroe surmised that the particles acted much as a bullet fired from a gun. These “bullets” have more energy than the rest of the explosive. “The cutting mentioned above is accomplished by use of a shaped charge. The shaped charge is generally either a linear or conical shape.

A shape charge consists of an explosive that has been hollowed out and mild steel placed in the hollow, usually aluminum or copper. When the explosive is detonated, the aluminum or copper liner is rapidly collapsed, which forms a steel jet. The metal is compressed so fast that it changes from a steel state to a plastic state. The jet has an extremely high velocity and density. The density is about 3600 kilograms per one square millimeter and has a velocity that can reach speeds

More information:

Metal-cutting charges are flat triangles of plastic explosive (usually plastique). A blasting cap detonator is placed in the point of the triangle. The triangle is laid down with the wide end wrapped around the material to cut. When the blast reaches the end of the explosive, it is reflected into the metal, cutting it.

A scissors charge is two of the above triangular charges, placed on opposite sides of the metal, on opposite sides of the cutting line. They must be sized and timed so the blast wave of each arrives at the same time at the cutting line. The opposing blast waves shear the metal.

I also found out you can skip the dynomite addition (that knocks the beam away) by placing the cutting charges at an angle like so:



Now, what I don't understand, and what I'm currently researching.. is the method of "cutting windows" (The holes all over the above beam) in steel before placing charges. If this method or procedure is required, then it really puts a strain on the "sneak in and out" theory of placing the charges in the WTC.. I'll continue to research

I mean.. accessing a beam and placing a charge seems plausible.. but accessing a beam, and cutting several holes with a plasma torch causes alot of smoke and possibly fire..

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

And if it's possible for conventional industry, I'd say it would be no problem for the best the military/CIA has at their disposal.

[edit on 2005-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Iraqi insurgents have no problem rigging up a remote control explosions with very little means, nor do some 'extreemists' living in London have a problem detonating multiple explosions under ground remotely (or are they suicide bombers this week? hard to keep up with the press on that one).

I would imagine the research out at the Groom Lake region for example, would be far beyond these people in explosive technology since that area is a secret base for airforce and explosive testing. Hell, they even have there own set of Boeing 737s they use as taxi's. Can anyone here honostly say they KNOW for a fact that explosive cutting technology hasn't been years into development prior to 9/11 at a secret military base that conducts weapons and explosive testing? I know it suits non-conspiracy minds to only deal with what's at hand in the general public but if I were planning a coup which was to change the face of the world, i would make sure i use everything i had at hand and if possible, i would make sure NOT to use publically available means if a higher technology exists. It would surely make proving the conspiracy harder to prove, hence helping my cause.

Do we know that the planners of 9/11 didn't do the math we are doing now and work out the means it would take to bring that building down and then go develop/adapt an explosive technology which got around the very problems faced? Why not ask why the arab hijackers never bothered to research fighter response time to realise they'd be lucky to have 15mins before being tagged by figher jets, way too little time, even thou they got upto 40mins by pure 'luck' - another first for America. Why is it the US government are meant to be the innocent fools who got tricked out of the blue, while the hijackers are the evil geniuses who somehow while planning this extravagent display, never bothered to use the most obvious of airplane hijacking logic - that hijacked planes get intercepted fast when the country has a multi-trillion dollar defense system. The fact it didn't happen should lend creedence to the belief that maybe, just maybe, the US government aren't as innocent as they want you to believe? If one domino falls...

Do we know there were'nt years of CAD planning of the WTC to determine where charges needed to go, Computer simulations of the affects being carried out BEFORE the event when they not only had access to the WTC blueprints which are since under lock and key, but also having the FULL information needed to make a valid computer sim, unlike post 9/11 sims which estimate the most important areas of the data. We know that in 1978 some military were asked to develop the 'perfect hijack scenario' for 'airline safety'. We know NASA had a meeting with the Bin Ladens in 1987 in which they were told what would happen. Hmmm, how many years does it take to plan a demolition of the WTC?

Couldn't, well lets face it, wouldn't these types of sims have been done prior to 9/11 to get a good idea of what will happen and to minimise the amount of time needed to place charges. It would be very easy to compartmentalize a project of CADing the WTC, once a complete model is made, the program changes hands and another level of compartmentalisation occurs and those who made the model have no idea what its used for but have signed a confidentiality agreement anyway since it was a government job. Same goes with cutting/demolition technology, why would you expect the WTC to be demolished if you develope explosive technology for the US military and were contracted to develop an advanced steel cutting explosive that needed to meet certain criteria years before the event occured?

While a conspiracy should be proven with the known means, sometimes when both sides hit a stalemate that could mean a worlds first scenario is also using a worlds first technology.

Fire didn't bring those buildings down but maybe neither did conventional explosives - considering the grand scale of this event and the fact it created mulitple firsts - maybe something new was used in order to keep a circular debate alive until years later when that technology finally hits the market and people start to wonder why, for example, since 9/11 wireless technology has boomed.




[edit on 31-8-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

I sent another email out to a different man regarding the "windows"

Here's the response:

Cutting windows is done to weaken the perpendicular flanges of the beam, thus allowing a linear shaped charge to "finish the job". If it were skipped, there's a good chance the beam would remain intact, albeit with a long horizontal slice in it where the charge fired.

Hope that helps

Originally posted by QuietSoul

I want to include a bit more information .

To demolish a structure like the WTC professionally would require hundreds, probably thousands, of shaped charges. Each must be set a very precise, measured distance from their target....(within a few centimeters). Each charge would require it's own separate, properly delayed (timed) detonator. There would be wires, bundles of wires, all over the place. (non electric ?, then det -cord, bundles of it, all over the place. If one or two of those wires or charges is broken or disturbed, the entire shot could be ruined.

Advance preparation for the charges is required...Metal must be exposed....excess trimmed with a cutting torch, Etc. Conventional charges (dynamite) would be needed to kick cut steel beams out of the way.

There is no way such an event could be set up unnoticed.

Basically what I have been asserting for years now! I have worked with these people. I have sold them their software. I have trained them in the use of said software. I have asked this lingering question of these professionals repeatedly only to receive the same answer... "Impossible, there is no way one could conceal such a demolition." Rudimentary analysis (And when I say rudimentary, I mean rudimetary for an engineer... highly detailed to lay-folk like us) has demonstrated, REPEATEDLY, that the progressive collapse theory is not only possible, but everyone has agreed that it is in fact beyond probable and, in fact, a genuine reality!

Of course the conspiracy theorists will simply say that these highly educated professionals are either part of the disinformation campaign or they have drunk the kool-aid. In either event it is much more of a stretch for me to accept their baseless claims that this was a conspiracy over the educated and highly professional opinion of someone who would know!

I have been thinking that these explosives could have been place above the drop ceilings.
And all the remotes and wiring to go along with it, no?
Just an idea.

Not likely at all. You need to first recognize that you would need THOUSANDS of shape charges. The site would have to be prepped extensively and a structural analysis of the building would likely reveal that the charges would have to be placed at SPECIFIC locations on each support beam. In other words, it wouldn't be a matter of convenience on where to place such charges but rather a factor of necessity in order to facilitate a progressive collapse. Secondly, the order in which these charges would have to detonate to facilitate such a collapse would likely negate the use of wireless transmitters... not to mention the level of likely RF interference in the area.

If you have ever witnessed a controlled demolition you would have recognized that the only wireless devices that they are permitted to use in the blast area are the walkie-talkies used to confirm that the area has been evacuated. Other than that they have a perimeter inside of which NO WIRELESS devices are to be used as they could inadvertently detonate the charges... that is why det-chord is still mostly used.

Why can't you guys think outside of the box? If these were demolitions, they would've obviously been unique and unconventional, even while still showing many trademarks of implosion and not of gravity-driven structural failures. You can't apply conventional demolition issues to these buildings and expect them to apply regardless.

There has been much looking into the different possibilities of explosives that may have been used. LabTop had a thread where he did some digging into a few possibilities. But there was not one, definitive method for bringing the towers down. There would've been plenty of options available. These guys could've had access to top military tech if they so wished. Our military developed the technology to level whole cities with a single bomb over 60 years ago. And you think they'd have to use the conventional explosives if they wanted to destroy a building?

Is it hard to take into consideration that they might've used something more powerful?

As has already been pointed out, pressuring us to reconstruct the methods and details of the demolition and offer a 100% accurate scenario, detail by detail, is a known disinformation tactic. We can not know exactly how they did it. We can not know every detail of every aspect of 9/11 in and out (and this applies to either or any camp here), and can't be expected to. But there are more macroscopic issues that can be addressed directly and with compelling evidence. We can see squibs coming from the buildings. We can see them fall vertically at an incredible rate of speed, while huge chunks of debris and shot laterally several hundreds of feet. We can read the many witness reports of secondary, tertiary, and other explosions after the impacts, with some critically damaging the base of the buildings. etc. And now the most recent discussion has turned to what explosives would've been used and how, which is not only hard, if not impossible, to tell, but also irrelevant to the evidence of a demolition in the first place.

You guys can keep running on and on with this bit about knowing of no conventional/practical methods with which the towers could have been collapsed, but the fact will remain that conventional demolitions were far from the only option available. It will also not change the fact that all three collapses were a little closer than cousins to demolition implosions.

The fact that you guys will never be able to definitely prove that conventional demolitions were the only option available is reason enough to move to the next issue, or better yet, back to the point of the this thread. This issue is ultimately a stalemate, with no conclusive evidence for either side in regards to either what explosives were used and how, or what options were even available. That point is reproducing a collapse as seen in NYC on 9/11; the only force you have to work with to produce these massively explosive collapses, similarly, is gravity.

So, again, I wish luck to those of you who will actually attempt this challenge.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by bsbray11]

One thing that has made this thread interesting is the change in tone once we started looking at explosives.

Remember, NIST have stated it wasn't the plane damage, it wasn't the jet fuel, it WAS intense office fires.

So according to all our explosive experts, it would take extreem amounts of explosives to bring those buildings down - thousands of charges! thousands of feet of wires and even then, detonations probably wouldn't be successful.

But an office fire, well run for the hills, your lucky to have an hour before those steel framed buildings fall on themselves and do what detonitions can't!!

If your in the detonation industry, remember this thread because you will be getting new technology in the future, it's been developed and tested.

Maybe ask these Government Agencies how far away it is, as they are currently doing the PR needed to get this technology out of the testing fields and onto the army fields:

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Advanced Technology Office (ATO).

Improved Explosives
www.darpa.mil...

High Explosives - DARPA seeks to gain information about improved conventional high explosives, volumetric explosives (a.k.a. thermobaric explosives), and novel explosive techniques. The latter includes, but is not limited to, using micrometer and nanometer sized particles to replace or supplement conventional high explosives. The goal is to develop explosives that are several times more powerful per unit weight than TNT in the open air, with both better blast effects and improved metal breaking abilities. Considerations for this topical area will focus on the effectiveness of innovative high explosives compared to those of currently available high explosives.

Improved Energy Transfer from High Explosives to Hardened Targets - Current techniques to attack hardened targets include the shaped charge, platter charge, and self-forming projectiles. Currently available technologies transfer less than 15% of the explosive's released energy to the target. DARPA seeks information regarding techniques to increase the amount of energy transferred to the target to substantially greater proportions. Considerations for this topical area will focus on the innovative technologies ability to penetrate varying thicknesses of reinforced concrete, armored steel, and composite armors.

Of course, this is all just 'discussion' of course. i'm sure the DARPA would wait until 2 years into a war before beginning to develop new explosive technology rather than having it already underway and tested before they plan their coup that is intended to put the country into multiple wars.




[edit on 31-8-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Remember, NIST have stated it wasn't the plane damage, it wasn't the jet fuel, it WAS intense office fires.

Actually, that is not what they said at all.

Their primary finding was this:

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been
widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
But an office fire, well run for the hills, your lucky to have an hour before those steel framed buildings fall on themselves and do what detonitions can't!!

If the fireproofing has been removed from the steel, then yes, that is pretty much it. You won’t have that much time.

Keep in mind also that fireproofing is rated for how many hours of protection it will provide before the structure will be compromised by the fire. Many municipalities allow 2 hour fire ratings, while others may require 4.

So Howweird was the fire proofing unique to the WTC towers?

Because, as has been mentioned a thousand times here, NO building has ever fallen from fire.

Did all those other buildings have a different kind of fireproofing?

And as has also been mentioned, the steel did not get hot enough, with or without fireproofing.

Originally posted by ANOK
So Howweird was the fire proofing unique to the WTC towers?

Because, as has been mentioned a thousand times here, NO building has ever fallen from fire.

Did all those other buildings have a different kind of fireproofing?

And as has also been mentioned, the steel did not get hot enough, with or without fireproofing.

Not many other buildings have been rammed by fully laden passenger jets, or am I wrong?

I guess we can analyse the outcomes of all those other similar incidents....

I honestly think the fireproofing has very little to do with all of this.
First of all, I believe the fires were never hot enough to affect the steel in way that could cause a collapse. The images of the thermal analysis showed that the fires were only hot enough to affect the steel in a couple places (if we can believe those).
But, the temperature is greatly irrelevant because the steel is only affected by exposure to heat after several hours. Not 50 minutes or an hour and a half.
Especially if the high temperature is very local because steel will transport heat to cooler places quickly.

If you then look at the FEMA or NIST report, where they calculated the amount of inner support colums that were removed to be, in the worst case scenario, 10, of a total of 47. You can conclude that, unless you have very little confidence in 30 year old buildings, fires did not let them collapse.

But anyway, this has got very little to do with the challenge.
Your building will collapse faster without fireproofing yes, otherwise it wouldn't be there, so if you want to skip that part in your personal experiment then by all means do so.

Originally posted by ANOK
So Howweird was the fire proofing unique to the WTC towers?

Because, as has been mentioned a thousand times here, NO building has ever fallen from fire.

Did all those other buildings have a different kind of fireproofing?

And as has also been mentioned, the steel did not get hot enough, with or without fireproofing.

ASSNOK, the fireproofing was unique in that it had an aiplane slam into it.

Sprayed on fireproofing like the type used in the WTC is fairly friable, it comes off undet moderate pressure. Normally this isn't a problem since buildings that use this type of fireproofing are not typically hit by airplanes.

And as has also been mentioned, the steel did not get hot enough, with or without fireproofing.

ANY structure fire will get hot enough. That is a fact. Without the fireproofing to insulate the steel, it will quickly reach temperatures that will cause the steel to creep and yeild.

Well it was a good thing then that the WTC fell down!! Lets look at the positive side here, we now know that when you build a giant building, over engineer it so it CAN survive (multiple) jet impacts, make it strong enough to survive intense winds, survive multifloor office fires etc etc - just make sure you use the GOOD fire proofing because when you use the CRAP fire proofing that just crumbles off in an event which is otherwise catered for, your building will collapse on itself just like a controlled demolition.

Well, now we know. Back to sleep.

So is the 'fireproofing' your final answer? That's the crux of the issue? If that didn't crumble off, the buildings would of stood??

I'd still like to see ONE quote where an architect says it can withstand multiple hits. EVERY quote I've seen said it can withstand A 707 impact, which was then construed to mean that he meant to say multiple, because he DIDN'T say it couldn't withstand more than one.