Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,850
- 2,250
This particular article deals with WTC 7 but if Seven was wired for demolition then they all were.
FSJA Fire and Safety Journal of the Americas: "Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?"
Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?
WTC 7, the third high-rise to collapse on 9/11, was located about 100 yards (91.4m) north of WTC 1, was a 47-story steel building, stood 610 ft. (186 m),fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com
"Sudden transition to freefall rules out a progressive collapse by fire or any other known natural mechanism other than explosive demolition."
Firefighters Call 9/11 an Inside Job - "Calling Out Bravo-7" Documentary.
Several problems.
First, the building didn't just suddenly transition to free fall. The penthouse collapsed into the building about 19 seconds, before the rest of the building came down, demonstrating that the building was collapsing internally long before its shell collapsed.
Second, when the building did fall, it fell silently. Any explosive sufficiently powerful to cut structural steel girders is sufficiently powerful to make an enormous sound. There is no such thing as silent explosive demolition. This is a deal breaker for the explosive demolition crowd. There is no way around it.
But fuck that dead horse. Lets keep beating it.
Third. the building was subject to massive fires. There's no known system of explosive demolition that would survive a building fire. Transmitters or timers would have melted. Blasting wire would have melted or detonated. Charges would have melted or detonated. For the explosive demolition theory to work, thousands of charges and their wiring would have had to have been on fire from about 10AM to about 5:20. Almost 7 and half hours.And then worked perfectly.
Nope.
Fourth, the report just glosses over the massive structural damage to the building. The FDNY observed and the NIST confirmed massive damage to the building. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 did extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.
The FDNY saw this damage, saw the building bulging, leaning and burning as it slowly structurally failed, and pulled its men out hours before the collapse occured. This happened around 2 pm when they saw the face of the building begin to bulge. The put a transit on the building to measure the angle of deformation and measure the slow structural failure. They accurately estimated the collapse to within about an hour based on the transit they put on the building to measure its gradual structural failure due to fire and catastrophic structural damage from debris from WTC 1 and 2.
No bombs required.
Fifth, the entire WTC plaza had been searched by bomb sniffing dogs a week before the 9/11 attacks due to a bomb threat. The Port Authority had its own bomb sniffing dog team and were on site for days looking for any explosives. They found none. Which means that the entire 47 story building would have had to have been wired in the week after. Due to the 1993 bomb attack on the WTC, security on the plaza was tighter than almost anywhere else in the city. And they took bomb threats deadly serious.
Even when the building has been stripped down to its structural steel, it takes literal months to wire these biuldings for demolition. The process is completely and utterlly obvious. There is simply no way that 1) the building could have been wired in only 1 week and 2) that it could been wired for explosive demolition without it being detected. The building was occupied and used daily. It was maintained. It was inspected. The New York office of emergency management was there. The US Secret Service had offices there. It had excellent security.
The explosive demolition story again fails the circumstances on site.
Sixth, there have been analyses of the dust from the WTC site, which would include WTC 1, 2 and 7. There was no residue of explosive demolition ever found in any sample. Again killing the explosive demolition theory.
Seventh, explosive charges cut structural steel. Kicker charges break it up with even more cuts. In most cases there is extensive pre-cutting of the main structrual supports to weaken them. Literal blow torches to cut away sections of structural steel. There were no girders cut by explosive demolition. There were bent girders. There were ripped girders. There were no cut girders. There is zero evidence of pre-cutting.
Excluding explosive demolition as the cause yet again.
Eighth, WTC 7 was an odd building. It had an entire Con Edison substation built into its first 5 to 7 floors, with a unique cantilever truss redirecting gravity loads AROUND the substation, essentially creating massive structural voids in about 1/3 or the base of the building.
The report compares the fire in this building, without massive structural damage and with functioning firefighting efforts, and WITHOUT a substation built into its base, WITHOUT the odd canterlever construction of the WTC. The differences in these buildings, the conditions, and the pre-existing structural damage makes direct comparisons ludicrous.
Explosive demolition, again and again, is simply an awful explanation for the collapse of WTC 7.
Last edited:
