Phillips:60 Architects Support WTC7 Controlled Demolition Theory

Originally posted by nick7261
But you also must realize that a CD theory raises many of the same questions. If there was a CD, what caused the collapse from the top down? And if there were beams cut out from beneath the top floors, what was providing and resistance or force to cause the top floors to disintegrate on the way down? If there were CDs in the base of the towers, they would have fallen from the bottom like WTC7.

Hmm. There was a good bit of dust coming immediately from WTC1+2 as the tops fell. Observation seems to show this in the vids. So unless a structural engineer pipes in I am going to conclude the falling tops of the towers can use their set amount of energy to either break mechanical bonds holding up the floors, or rubberize the internal steel core tower, or blitz the concrete floors into dust. I simply doubt the system's un-aided capacity can accomplish all three.

And for WTC7 - again I think observation puts the mechanical towers on the top floor first to fall?

it is my opinion that there is indeed a grand conspiracy here.

it is my opinion that both towers were destroyed by a lot more than 2 jetliners.

it is also my opnion that building 7 was blown.

the difference between the first two statements and the third is that that the third statement has not one single shred of evidence to support that it was not a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by jprophet420the third statement has not one single shred of evidence to support that it was not a controlled demolition.

What does that even mean?

What evidence would count towards it not being a cd? Ultimately there is no shred of evidence to support the idea that it was not god, some leprechuans, and some keebler elves using magic hammers that no one could ever hear, see or detect to bring down the towers.

What positive evidence exists for explosives being used on 7?

There isn't any.

Let's review.

FACT: There was damage to seven caused by the falling towers.

FACT: Fires burned uncontrolled in seven for over five hours.

FACT: Not one solid piece of evidence has surfaced showing the presence
of explosives or thermite/thermate/nanothermitate/leprechauns.


Should we;

A) Consider damage from the towers and uncontrolled fires as the culprit?
After all, we know for a fact that they were both present.
Or;

B) Believe that cutting charges/explosives/thermite/thermate/ nanothermate/leprechuans were responsible for the collapse without any positive proof that they were even there.


I know which one is reasonable and likely to me.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

That's what I was saying. But, your right in that they weren't pyroclastic flows in the definition sense of the word.

Then what sense whould we use? I am truly confused by this. Should we call everything that looks like a cloud a pyroclastic flow?

I don't think so. Pyroclastic flows are only produced by volcanoes.

Like I posted on page 2, a Pyroclastic flow is a gravity current, which I quoted as being described like this:

In fluid dynamics, a gravity current is a primarily horizontal flow in a gravitational field that is driven by a density difference. Typically, the density difference is small enough for the Boussinesq approximation to be valid.

Gravity currents are typically of very low aspect ratio (that is, height over typical horizontal lengthscale). The pressure distribution is thus approximately hydrostatic, apart from near the leading edge (this may be seen using dimensional analysis). Thus gravity currents may be simulated by the shallow water equations, with special dispensation for the leading edge which behaves as a discontinuity.

Gravity Current

Now, I don't know about you, but if you went up to the average person on the street, and said that the WTC demolition clouds looked like a gravity current, they'd say "What?", whereas if you said they resembled a Pyroclastic flow, they would agree.

But yes, it wasn't a true Pyroclastic flow.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
Now, I don't know about you, but if you went up to the average person on the street, and said that the WTC demolition clouds looked like a gravity current, they'd say "What?", whereas if you said they resembled a Pyroclastic flow, they would agree.

But yes, it wasn't a true Pyroclastic flow.

No. It wasn't a pyroclastic flow period. There were no volcanoes involved.

I sincerely doubt the average person would know what either of those terms mean, so I don't see the point in calling gravity flows pyroclastic flows. While a pyroclastic flow is also a gravity flow, they are not interchangeable terms.

Call it a gravity flow if you wish, but please stop saying that the dust cloud is proof of a volcanic eruption.

Secondly, what would it being a pyroclastic flow mean? It certainly wouldn't point to explosives, as no controlled demolition has ever produced a pyroclastic flow. Why are they trying to make people beleive that volcanoes and explosives are somehow interrelated?

FACT: if building 7 collapsed from the damage you mentioned, it would be the first time in recorded history that something like that happened, let alone replicated a CD to a T.

Something like what? If you are talking about a building collapsing from fire, you would be wrong, that has happened many times in recorded history.

If it really replicated a CD to a T, then we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no disagreement.

In fact there are many things not consistent with a CD in 7's collapse, it's just that most conspiracy sites choose to ignore them.

CD's do not drop the center of a building several seconds before dropping the rest of the building.

CD's always have very loud and very obvious explosive charges detonating, something completely lacking from 7.

So really it does not replicate a CD "to a T."

Originally posted by scrapple

So unless a structural engineer pipes in I am going to conclude the falling tops of the towers can use their set amount of energy to either break mechanical bonds holding up the floors, or rubberize the internal steel core tower, or blitz the concrete floors into dust. I simply doubt the system's un-aided capacity can accomplish all three.

Actually, you make an interesting observation about the amount of energy being required to take out the steel cores and pulverize the concrete. Under the CD theory, how much additional energy would need to be added by the explosives to topple the towers?

In other words, there were several events that released a calculable amount of energy:

-the planes hitting the buildings,
-the explosion of jet fuel,
-the ongoing fires, and
-the energy of the tops of the towers falling into the lower floors.

Many proponents of the CD theory state that the above four events alone absolutely could *not* have had the energy required to collapse the buildings, therefore it must have been a CD.

So has any CD proponent actually done ANY calculations on the amounts of energy each of these five events represents?

planes hitting buildings = xxx?
explosions of jet fuel = xxx?
ongoing fires = xxx?
top caps falling = xxx?
explosive charges = xxx?

If not, then all the CT claims that it *had* to be a CD are really nothing more than uneducated guesses. Not being able to explain how the buildings fell may more likely reflect an ignorance of the physics involved than proof of a CD.

It would be comparable to a child not understanding how pictures magically appear on television and then concluding that there must be tiny little people living inside the tv set.

Many CTers lack any education or understanding of mechanical physics and thus conclude that the towers had to be brought down by CDs because they read this on some CT web site.

"I don't understant how to do all those complicated physics equations to figure out what happened so that means it was a CD!" doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No. It wasn't a pyroclastic flow period. There were no volcanoes involved.

I sincerely doubt the average person would know what either of those terms mean, so I don't see the point in calling gravity flows pyroclastic flows. While a pyroclastic flow is also a gravity flow, they are not interchangeable terms.

Call it a gravity flow if you wish, but please stop saying that the dust cloud is proof of a volcanic eruption.

Please tell me where I said it was proof of a volcanic eruption then?

I'm just saying that it's an explanation of where the term comes from in this context, that they resemble, them, and nowhere did I say that it was a true Pyroclastic flow.

And i maybe wrong about an average person, but the average person would probably prefer to be told it resembled such a thing, as they can search for what one is and get a nice picture of one, whereas if you described it as a Gravity current, you would search for that and find the usual boring explanation, involving Froude numbers, and other fun terms used in analysing fluid flow.

Originally posted by snoopy
So in other words you think the building should just slowly collapse. It simply doesn't work that way.

Show me ANY building that has collapsed in that manner without the use of controlled demolition. You can't. It just doesn't work that way.

If you were to take your chair leg and slowly hack away at it, is it just going to slowly fall, or at some point if the chair going to just fall over? With the fire it weakens the steal which reduces it's strenth. There is a point at which the weight above is great enough to overcome to strength of the steel. At which point the supports give way. They don't just slowly fold down. It's basic physics.

Oh really? Take that same chair and instead of hacking at the leg try using fire. That's what we are talking about. Would the steel legs all of a sudden just give way with no resistance? Nope, they would bend and deform more slowly than freefall.

The floor below can in no way withstand the force of an entire floor in momentum (for example, hold a 40lb weight. Then try catching a 40lb weight dropped form 12 feet above). Then each floor below has to take on the weight f the building above adding an additional floor worth of weight and momentum with each floor. This is called a progressive collapse.

What caused the freefall "drop" of the cap in the first place? It should not have dropped, it should have slumped.

I know everyone means well, but it's kinda silly seeing a whole bunch of us with no expertise what so ever trying to convince ourselves that we are structural engineers. Just because YOU don't understand how collapses work does not prove a conspiracy. it only proves you are not a structural engineer.

Care to see my credentials? Just because YOU don't understand physics, material science, statics, dynamics, finite element analysis etc. does not prove that what the government has fed you is correct.

And of course all this has been well documented by hundreds of engineers and scientists and tested. As well as viewable by every structral engineer in the world. So again, not understanding the engineering does not make the engineering wrong.

Please provide some calculations, computer models, steel frame fire tests etc. that support your theory. Because going by 100+ years of known physics, the Cardington steel fire tests (pre-9/11) and even NIST's fire tests and computer simulations prove these hundreds of engineers wrong. Just because you don't understand engineering principles does not make them right.

Originally posted by nick7261
If the fires weren't hot in the towers then why were dozens of people leaping to their deaths from the buildings? Were they just suicidal to begin with, or did they too misjudge the intensity of the fires in the WTCs?

Suffocation from the smoke most likely, that's what usually happens when there is smoke in a building but doesn't mean there are extreme fires in the building to have smoke.

Originally posted by nick7261
Really, for someone who claims to be "open-minded" you're really struggling with the concept that the woman standing in the "big hole" was obviously standing on the opposite side of the building from the fires.

Please leave the personal attacks out of this.


Now to show you what i mean here is a comparison of the WTC fire and the Madrid fire.

I'm sure you will notice the extreme difference in fire density.


Here is the tiny little fire from the WTC.





And here is what a real fire looks like from the Madrid fire.





And so the tiny fire took down the WTC in 1 hour?
And so the Madrid fire lasted for 24 hours and didn't take the building down.

I think you need to re-evaluate the situation nick.

www.dc911truth.org...

[edit on 1-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by snoopy
And what I am saying is that he isn't.

I guess what I'm going to have to do is when I recieve my PE stamp, I'll stamp a page and sign it for you. Then you can look up my PE number and verify that I am a structural engineer. Would this be acceptable to you or would you ignore it like you've ignored my transcripts?

Crap, I ment to quote this post and not edit it.
[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by snoopy
And by trolls you mean anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.

Gosh yeah I am so out there for being skeptical of a web site that allows anyone to say they are an engineer or an architect. That's just a center of honesty there in that web site. What a troll I am for pointing out a fraudulent web site.

So hopefully Griff will clear things up for us. But one thing he can't clear up is that the web site is a fraud.

But hey, I could tell you I'm a civil engineer too. Am I now somehow credible? Of course not, because I am not telling you there's a conspiracy. If any structural engineer came on here and didn't tell you there was a conspiracy, you would call them a troll.

BTW, I thought this thread was already warned about staying on topic and not talking about other members? Where's the warn for the Snoop dog?

Also, if it wasn't for arseholes that would intentionally lie about thier credentials on that site, there wouldn't be a problem.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
No, I'm telling you that a steel column will not just buckle all at one in fire

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Explosives can produce that result right?...

[edit on 1-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Then why would they put such a statement on the front page if they don't even provide one source for it? Why not just stick to the facts and leave the rhetoric behind?

Agreed. And firstly, I think you guys are forgetting. I'm just a member there. I didn't create the site, I didn't write anything for the site. Just my name is there. So, quit with the accusations on me. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THAT SITE!!!!!!!!!!!

You, see that's my main problem with what they are presenting. If they want to be taken serious as engineers, then stick to the facts.

Also agree.

Instead they claim that literally tons of steel were not only present in the basement of 7, but also in the basements of both towers.

What should they say? "An unknown amount of molten steel"? I think tons is acceptable seeing as it was flowing. Plus the metorite proves that there WAS tons of molten steel.

Claims that are dubious at best, yet we are somehow expected to take them seriously with stuff like that on the front page, merely because they claim to be engineers. It's preposterous.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, why post the rhetoric and the strangely worded sentences. Just say a thermate/thermite cutting charge, not a cutting charge like thermite/thermate, or just say cutting charge.

Agreed.

Have you even looked at the site?

It says thermate four times on the right side of the main page!

Hence why I said that they don't mention therMITE at all.

And what is thermate you ask?

Is is basically a supercharged thermite reaction, so thermite/thermate are practically interchangable.

No they are not. Having Barium Nitrate and Sulfur added to something makes it chemically different from the original. Like how oxygen is a flamable gas and hydrogen is a flamable gas but combine them and you get a liquid that puts fire out. Adding things chemically changes it's chemical composition, so, NO thermite/thermate are NOT interchangeable. Especially when we were talking about by-products.

You would be wrong. Since it is primarily thermite, it would end up with primarily the same end product, which is mostly aluminum oxide.

A compound with 68% thermite, and 2% sulfur, would produce an end product that is mostly aluminum oxide and molten iron. The sulfur content is almost negligble as a "chemical signature."

You forgot barium nitrate also. No, it would NOT have the exact same chemical signature as thermite.

Sorry. Read the above link. Thermate's main ingredient is thermite.

And concrete's main ingredient is cement. Is cement and concrete interchangeable? Does cement and concrete act the same? careful because if you answer yes, then it shows why you think thermite and thermate are the same thing.

I don't think so. Pyroclastic flows are only produced by volcanoes.

Agreed that the word pyroclastic shouldn't be used. It was not scorching hot but it DID have non uniform densities in it which makes it a density flow.

Ultimately, they need to improve their sources and drop the rhetoric or they will end up a joke like those scholars for truth and justice that are advocating energy beams.

Agreed.

Note: I purposefully ignored the off topic comments and personal attacks. I apologize for the Mr. Engineer comment, it was out of line. Let's try and keep this discussion to their stated beliefs on the site, and the site in general.

Will do. And you are forgiven for the comment. And I also appologize if I said anything to offend you.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff


No, I'm telling you that a steel column will not just buckle all at one in fire. It will bend a deflect more slowly than freefall. Try it once.

For the record, the towers did not fall at "free fall" speed. Look at this photo. The debris that was ejected at the beginning of the collapse has cleary fallen further than the collapse itself has progressed.

Originally posted by nick7261
If the fires weren't hot in the towers then why were dozens of people leaping to their deaths from the buildings? Were they just suicidal to begin with, or did they too misjudge the intensity of the fires in the WTCs?

How do you know it was heat and not because of the smoke. You, nor I, nor anyone else knows this.


[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
While a pyroclastic flow is also a gravity flow, they are not interchangeable terms.

But thermite and thermate are?

Secondly, what would it being a pyroclastic flow mean? It certainly wouldn't point to explosives, as no controlled demolition has ever produced a pyroclastic flow. Why are they trying to make people beleive that volcanoes and explosives are somehow interrelated?

Actually, CDs do produce gravity flows (density flows). But, I would expect a 110 story collapsing would also produce a gravity flow.

Something like what? If you are talking about a building collapsing from fire, you would be wrong, that has happened many times in recorded history.

Name one steel framed skyscraper (that was built to code) that has globally collapsed from fire. You'll be hard pressed to find any.

If it really replicated a CD to a T, then we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no disagreement.

And? It didn't replicate a CD to a T. How many times do we have to say that a black op is NOT going to look like a conventional CD.

Sometimes it seams to me that you either don't read what we write or you don't comprehend it. Not an insult but I'm getting sick of saying till I'm blue in the face that

a) They wouldn't look like a conventional CD if it was a black op.

b) The towers would have collapsed from the impact zones either way. The impact zones were the weekest link. Any natural collapse or demolition would initiate at the impact zones.

In fact there are many things not consistent with a CD in 7's collapse, it's just that most conspiracy sites choose to ignore them.

Like what? That it didn't collapse PERFECTLY into it's footprint? That's a strawman and you know it.

CD's do not drop the center of a building several seconds before dropping the rest of the building.

Really? All CD's are different and I've seen videos of some that did.

CD's always have very loud and very obvious explosive charges detonating, something completely lacking from 7.

So really it does not replicate a CD "to a T."

Again, you are ignoring many eyewitness accounts as to explosions and also video accounts of explosions. I know that doesn't mean they were CD explosives but to ignore them and say they didn't happen is disingeneous at best.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Griff
No, I'm telling you that a steel column will not just buckle all at one in fire

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Explosives can produce that result right?...

[edit on 1-6-2007 by selfless]

So could a thermate cutting charge.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Griff


No, I'm telling you that a steel column will not just buckle all at one in fire. It will bend a deflect more slowly than freefall. Try it once.

For the record, the towers did not fall at "free fall" speed.

For the record, read what I said. Nowhere did I introduce the word speed. I said freefall. There is no way that the cap should have freefallen into the lower part of the building. It should have slumped into it.

By freefall, I mean falling with no resistance NOT the speed or velocity.

Look at this photo. The debris that was ejected at the beginning of the collapse has cleary fallen further than the collapse itself has progressed.

There are also pictures showing the collapse wave being in front of the freefalling debris. I could show you a picture of that and claim it was faster than freefall speed. What is needed is video and even then it's hard to tell the time it took.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by selfless
Suffocation from the smoke most likely, that's what usually happens when there is smoke in a building but doesn't mean there are extreme fires in the building to have smoke.

Of course you don't need extreme fires to cause smoke. I'm sure that it took more than "tiny little fires" to cause this much black smoke to be pouring out of WTC1 15 minutes after the attack:

Now to show you what i mean here is a comparison of the WTC fire and the Madrid fire.

Don't take this personal, but for 5 years CTers have failed to grasp how irrelevant and borderline moronic it is to compare the Madrid fire to WTC1 and WTC2.

The Madrid building was not hit with a plane; WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by 300,000 pound planes traveling at 500 mph, filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Do you have any idea how much force and energy are contained in a 300,000 pound mass traveling at 500 mph?

The incredible force from the impact of the planes, along with the explosing jet fuel was the equivalent of the WTCs being hit with a huge missile. The planes and the subsequent explosion caused not only fires, but massive damage to the WTC's steel beams. There is nothing comparable to the Madrid fire.

Here is the tiny little fire from the WTC.

The photo that shows the close-up of the hole in the north face of WTC1, along with the woman standing in the hole, might be either the most ill-informed or most intellectually dishonest argument ever put forth by the CT movement. It's such a bogus argument that I'm starting to believe it was first put out there by paid disinfo agents.

Showing a zoomed in photo with a "tiny" fire in the photo does *not* prove there were no large fires in WTC1. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ill-informed and not being intentionally intellectually dishonest about this.

Look at these photos of the opposite side of WTC1, where the fires were consuming the better part of the entire width of the structure, and at least 5 or 6 floors:












Even the photo of the east face of WTC1 shows there was a large fire in the SE corner of the building.




Here's another photo of the north side of WTC1 zoomed out to show the *actual* fires visible from the north.

And so the tiny fire took down the WTC in 1 hour?

You no longer can use being misinformed as an excuse. If you continue to characterize the fires at WTC1 as "tiny little fires" then it's obvious that you really don't care about the truth, and only want to sensationalize and perpetuate a distorted reality that exists only in the CT sub-culture.

And so the Madrid fire lasted for 24 hours and didn't take the building down.

Correct. The Madrid fire didn't take the building down because the buidling was not hit by a 300,000 pound airplane traveling at 500 mph before the fire began.

Originally posted by snoopy
And what I am saying is that he isn't.

Prove I'm not. I have posted my transcripts before. If that is not enough for you, I'll be getting my PE sometime this year and will gladly give you my PE number to be verified.

If he was, he would not be asking questions the way he is asking them.

So, engineers are to be all knowing and can't ask questions?

But I guess since he is listed as a civil engineer on a web site that has no verification process at all, it must be true.

You could easily verify the ones that have PE listed by their name. You can look up anyone who is a PE and verify they are real. Go to the state's board for professional engineers website and look up their name. Soon, you'll be able to do the same with me.

You're telling me that a civil engineer is suggesting that a it's odd that a failed support on a building could cause a sudden collapse instead of slowly falling? I mean that alone should be a red light for you.

No, you are taking what I'm saying wrong or misrepresenting what I'm saying on purpose. Which is it?

A steel column will not buckle all at once from heat. It will bend and deform more slowly than a sudden free fall. And when I say slowly, I don't mean like mollases like you are trying to make it seem.

And, the whole point was to say that the calculations of the cap falling at freefall are eroneous because the cap wouldn't have fallen freefall 12 feet. It should have slumped slower into the rest of the building.

In conclusion:

I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO BEING CALLED A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Griff]