WTC 9/11 Site - Molten Metal & Copper Oxide Thermite

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe these charges must be placed accurately and detonated in the proper sequence. Just sticking a block of explosives on to a column or wall isn't the way it's done.

Like a plane with uneven fires would do more damage?

You tape a stick of dynamite to a structural I-beam and detonate it all you are going to do is to strip the paint off of the beam and pit the metal.

And yet you believe that damage from a plane and uneven fires would do the same thing, bringing the buildings down in such a nice neat way. Funny how the contradiction never enters you guy's mind. If all this intensive work needs to be done to take down these towers, then how in the heck did a plane and fire do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the towers were shotty, didn't have fireproofing and pretty much could be felled by an airplane and uneven fires or the towers were built strong and had to have all these explosives placed at intrical parts.

I have to ask. How can you believe that the explosives had to be placed accurately and detonated in sequence, when you believe that a plane (mind you that the planes hit different parts of the buildings but yet fell in an identical manner) and fire can accomplish the exact same thing? And don't say that the plane could have acted as the bomb, because by your own words, an explosion would need to be next to the structural members to do any damage.

Conclusion.....you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the explosives had to be presise or the plane and fires could bring down this shotty structure.

Also, I find it amusing that when defending the official story, people talk about fireproofing missing, the mafia built the towers to be inferior, etc. etc. But, when it comes to the explosives...."oh, no..these towers are mighty and have to have precision placed explosive on every structural element". BTW, you know why they have explosives placed pricisely don't you? So that the structure doesn't fall hap-hazardly like it should when a plane and fire cause a gravitational collapse.

Originally posted by Griff
And yet you believe that damage from a plane and uneven fires would do the same thing, bringing the buildings down in such a nice neat way. Funny how the contradiction never enters you guy's mind. If all this intensive work needs to be done to take down these towers, then how in the heck did a plane and fire do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the towers were shotty, didn't have fireproofing and pretty much could be felled by an airplane and uneven fires or the towers were built strong and had to have all these explosives placed at intrical parts.

I have to ask. How can you believe that the explosives had to be placed accurately and detonated in sequence, when you believe that a plane (mind you that the planes hit different parts of the buildings but yet fell in an identical manner) and fire can accomplish the exact same thing? And don't say that the plane could have acted as the bomb, because by your own words, an explosion would need to be next to the structural members to do any damage.

Conclusion.....you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the explosives had to be presise or the plane and fires could bring down this shotty structure.

Also, I find it amusing that when defending the official story, people talk about fireproofing missing, the mafia built the towers to be inferior, etc. etc. But, when it comes to the explosives...."oh, no..these towers are mighty and have to have precision placed explosive on every structural element". BTW, you know why they have explosives placed pricisely don't you? So that the structure doesn't fall hap-hazardly like it should when a plane and fire cause a gravitational collapse.

I don't believe the implosion theory. I never have. I am trying to show that the sheer logistics involved in secretly imploding both towers is why it couldn't have been done.

I don't have an exact answer for why the towers collapsed like they did. My own theory is that substandard steel was used in the upper levels and it lost its strength from the impact and the resulting fires. The way that the towers collapsed was as a result of their design.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

I don't have an exact answer for why the towers collapsed like they did. My own theory is that substandard steel was used in the upper levels and it lost its strength from the impact and the resulting fires. The way that the towers collapsed was as a result of their design.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. In one breath you state that substandard steel was used and the way the towers collapse was a result of their design obviously from plane impact and fire. But, then in another breath you say that the towers are so well built that you'd need all these precision placed explosives. What is it? Where the towers shotty or where they solid? Simple question.

Originally posted by Griff
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. In one breath you state that substandard steel was used and the way the towers collapse was a result of their design obviously from plane impact and fire. But, then in another breath you say that the towers are so well built that you'd need all these precision placed explosives. What is it? Where the towers shotty or where they solid? Simple question.

Simple answer. The properties of the steel, originally specified for the construction of the towers, had enough strength to meet the requirements necessary, plus a factor of safety. It was this factor of safety that was reduced by the substandard steel. That being said, the towers still had a formidable amount of strength. In order to overcome this strength the explosive charges, if there were any, would still need to be placed precisely in order to cause the collapse.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
It was this factor of safety that was reduced by the substandard steel. That being said, the towers still had a formidable amount of strength. In order to overcome this strength the explosive charges, if there were any, would still need to be placed precisely in order to cause the collapse.

And I repeat. You say in order to overcome this strength the charges would need to be placed precisely in order to cause the collapse. But, in another gulp of breath you state that a chaotic plane crash plus chaotic fires could do the very same thing that you insist needs to be precise. Not to mention that these chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires produced a collapse that only precise charges could do, they did it to 3 buildings....all of which had very different chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires. See where your precision theory doesn't hold water when you look at it from both sides?

Originally posted by Griff
And I repeat. You say in order to overcome this strength the charges would need to be placed precisely in order to cause the collapse. But, in another gulp of breath you state that a chaotic plane crash plus chaotic fires could do the very same thing that you insist needs to be precise. Not to mention that these chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires produced a collapse that only precise charges could do, they did it to 3 buildings....all of which had very different chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires. See where your precision theory doesn't hold water when you look at it from both sides?

For the last time. The use of explosives to bring down the towers IS NOT MY THEORY. As a matter of fact I am 100% opposed to it because of the prescision that would have been required and the difficulty in doing it secretly.

You mean like the precision of 2 chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires bringing down 3 buildings in a controlled demolition style collapse? Or am I missing something?

Originally posted by Griff
You mean like the precision of 2 chaotic plane crashes and chaotic fires bringing down 3 buildings in a controlled demolition style collapse? Or am I missing something?

To be perfectly honest I think that the structure of each tower failed on the floors impacted by the planes. This caused the section of each tower above those floors to collapse. The kinetic energy generated by that collapse caused each floor to collapse as the force of the falling sections reached it. Each floor's mass added to the total energy of the collapsing structure until it was stopped by the ground.
The way the towers were designed actually acted as a guide to the collapse causing them to fall almost vertically.

The reduction in strength caused by the use of the substandard steel, the impact of the aircraft and the fire that followed in combination were the cause of the initial collapse.

That's my theory.

So, you think that the official story is correct in every way then? Ok...I can live with that..we can agree to disagree. My point is that you say it had to be precise if there were explosives used but it could be chaotic if planes were used by themselves to come to the same conclusion in the end. Couldn't this shotty steel make it possible that the explosives didn't have to be precise? Or does the shotty steel only come into play when we talk about planes alone?

You also say that the design of the towers made them fall the way they did. Would this not also happen if explosives were used?

To clarify. My theory is that thermite or some other device was planted in the basement, 2/3's the way up, and at the 1/3 mark. Going by your theory, as soon as one floor fails, the building is doomed to fall via gravity. So, why do the explosives have to be precise if you only need one floor to fail? BTW, don't give me the "it failed at the impact points" either because if they used thermite on a floor not near the impact collapsed (say 5 floors above), we wouldn't see it collapse at that point. We'd see it collapse where the structure was damaged....the impact points. You don't need to place the devices on the exact impact point for it to collapse at the impact point.

[edit on 6/20/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
So, you think that the official story is correct in every way then? Ok...I can live with that..we can agree to disagree. My point is that you say it had to be precise if there were explosives used but it could be chaotic if planes were used by themselves to come to the same conclusion in the end. Couldn't this shotty steel make it possible that the explosives didn't have to be precise? Or does the shotty steel only come into play when we talk about planes alone?

I don't think that the official story is totally correct.

The problem I have with the towers being imploded by explosives is the way that they fell. There have been numerous posts about people seeing explosions on each floor right before it collapsed. To place, connect and detonate that many charges would be at the least very difficult. To do it in an occupied building totally in secret would be almost impossible. If the lower floors had blown out and the towers collapsed that way then I would agree with the explosives theory. There are posts earlier in this thread that say that it could have taken 150 people to place the charges. How do you keep total secrecy in a group of 150 people? Somebody would have blabbed by now or written a book.

If the aircraft impacts and fires didn't do it and if the towers were not imploded then what did do it?

I understand your whole post and basically agree with you. That is why my theory (although not complete and I'm not married to) is that some sort of device (thermite maybe) was placed at the base, maybe a third of the way up... 30 something (although the information found by Valhall about the 22nd floor is interesting) and then one more at the 2/3's mark (70's). This way the core would start to collapse first and the transfer system at the top would shift the loads to the outside columns. In doing so (fractions of seconds) the outside columns would buckle at their least resistance (the impact zones). Thus, making it look like they collapsed from the impact zone themselves.

Another way it could have been done would be to stagger the thermite at 47 different locations (or as many as possible but still severing all core columns). That way you would still be shifting the load bearing to the outside columns and forcing the outside columns to buckle at the impact zones. This way, I'm thinking would entail more work than would be needed because of the staggering.

A work in progress of how I think they might have accomplished this without the need for explosives and without that many people being involved/needed to do it. If anyone would like to add anything...I'm all ears....no matter what side you're on.

Originally posted by jtma508
I have held senior executive level jobs with a few companies that held significant office space in two different high-rise towers in a major US city. In one case I was directly involved in the build-out of an exapansion to a lease. We covered several non-contiguous floors. There was a variety of tenants sharing these buildings including some federal and state agencies.

During the several years I worked there, ongoing construction was non-stop. Large areas were being reconfigured, expanded, built-out, remodeled. Groups of contractors were constanttly coming and going doing all manner of work. Electricians, IT and HVAC guys were in the ceiling utility spaces. We had a central security service and security staff in the tower complex and they provided the swipe cards needed by the crews to access the areas in which they were working. There were several banks of elevators and it was very common for some of them being 'down', sometimes for a few days, while they were being 'serviced'. This work went on all hours of the day and any day of the week, including weekends. From my experience, these guys could have been anyone and could have carried anything into or out of the building.

Just my $.02

Just because it wasn’t your job to track all of that doesn’t meant that people weren’t keeping a close eye on who was doing what.

From the sounds of it, you had a building management staff that knew how to co-ordinate a project. It takes a number of people to do this successfully, including security, the office of the building, the building engineers, the house trades the general contractors etc.

I can guarantee that if 50 strange guys showed up to so some nebulous work throughout the building, every one else in the building would have been saying “WTF?”

Oh, and in New York, those workers had better be in the union.

Originally posted by Griff
I understand your whole post and basically agree with you. That is why my theory (although not complete and I'm not married to) is that some sort of device (thermite maybe) was placed at the base, maybe a third of the way up... 30 something (although the information found by Valhall about the 22nd floor is interesting) and then one more at the 2/3's mark (70's). This way the core would start to collapse first and the transfer system at the top would shift the loads to the outside columns. In doing so (fractions of seconds) the outside columns would buckle at their least resistance (the impact zones). Thus, making it look like they collapsed from the impact zone themselves.

Another way it could have been done would be to stagger the thermite at 47 different locations (or as many as possible but still severing all core columns). That way you would still be shifting the load bearing to the outside columns and forcing the outside columns to buckle at the impact zones. This way, I'm thinking would entail more work than would be needed because of the staggering.

A work in progress of how I think they might have accomplished this without the need for explosives and without that many people being involved/needed to do it. If anyone would like to add anything...I'm all ears....no matter what side you're on.

If the towers were rigged to be brought down by explosives. I have one simple question. Why crash airliners into them? If this whole thing was a plot to start a war on terror, why not just leave manufactured evidence around after imploding the towers?

This is only my theory but maybe they didn't want as many dead. If they had just blown them, there would have been many more thousands dead. Also, the buildings wouldn't have been on camera when they fell....remember how much a picture affects you much more than the written word. The affect on the populace is what you are after (If the government is behind it). It was much more devastating to actually watch them fall on live tv than to just have a newsman at ground zero after they fell. All speculation but does answer some of the questions of why not just the bombs.

Originally posted by Griff
This is only my theory but maybe they didn't want as many dead. If they had just blown them, there would have been many more thousands dead. Also, the buildings wouldn't have been on camera when they fell....remember how much a picture affects you much more than the written word. The affect on the populace is what you are after (If the government is behind it). It was much more devastating to actually watch them fall on live tv than to just have a newsman at ground zero after they fell. All speculation but does answer some of the questions of why not just the bombs.

Why not just use an inciendiary device to start a fire about 30 minutes before you dropped the towers? For this to be anything other than what it appears the level of complexity would have to have been enourmous. The number of people that this would have taken and the difficulty in keeping this a secret would be next to impossible.

Again. It wouldn't have made national (world) news if it was just a fire. Then also you'd have the same problem....people would see through the fire facade. We are questioning plane crashes and fire now as it is...could you imagine if it was just fire?

Also, another reason why they couldn't have just blown the towers. The '93 bombing didn't succeed. How would the people of the US take it to hear that the same arab groups were able to infiltrate the WTC buildings again and blow it up? They wouldn't be able to claim coincidence about their neglegence then could they?

Draft 0.0.8 of the site has now been uploaded. I have a new video angle on the molten copper. This video zooms into the corner whilst the building is collapsing. You can see what maybe a fireball from the explosion of an oxygen tank, but you can also see this burning mass of metallic material pouring from the side of at least 4 windows as the building crumbles...

We also observe how the building was pulled inwards, as though someone had blown the columns on the basement floor causing the core to collapse like a dart...pulling inwards the exterior columns.

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper
www.gieis.uni.cc...

Have a watch and tell me what you think...

[edit on 20-6-2006 by MMC]

I don't see a contradiciton Griff.

For those who claim that the explosives were set to make it look like a natural collapse, with bombs going off one after another on each floor to produce "no resistance". That theory requires massive coordination and timing, as well as precision explosives.

If someone is claiming that they just preplanted explosives on the floors that they knew planes would hit, and that they were just there to initiate the collapse, then the precision would be needed by the pilots in that situation.

But if the latter is the case, then why use explosives at all? Just use the planes full of jet fuel as explosives.

Because the WTC could take multiple strikes from a 707 and remain standing.

You can watch a short video on it here:

Video 10: WTC Towers Designed to Take Multiples Airline Impacts
www.gieis.uni.cc...

As for the specifics of how and where to plant the devices, that requires the blue-prints and some planning.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I can guarantee that if 50 strange guys showed up to so some nebulous work throughout the building, every one else in the building would have been saying “WTF?”

Not if the security company was in on it. And the WTC's security company had direct ties to the Bush family.

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

Source.

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

Source.


Thought I'd point this out, too.

Check this out:

NEW YORK - Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.

Many documents destroyed in the disaster "are pretty key in carrying out the work," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said.

Source (9/11 Research cache; original source Sara Kugler, Associated Press, Dec. 10, 2002).

[edit on 20-6-2006 by bsbray11]