WTC7 Caught on Tape -- WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers on 9/11

ABC News (Television) ^ | Sept 11, 2001 | ABC News

[dirtboy]

Comparing the Empire State Building accident to the 9-11 WTC impacts is like comparing getting shot by a Daisy BB gun to getting shot by a .44 magnum.

[editor-surveyor]

DB, please follow the nonsense that I was replying to.

Some of these fools have no idea what they are even defending. They don’t want to believe that maybe Al Quaeda was a bit smarter in the way they went about it, and that the planes were not the totality of the plan. I frequently have occasion to work with Arabs and Persians that are competent engineers and scientists, and I have no trouble seeing more to this.

Watching the videos of the buildings falling does not give me the slightest bit of confidence in the idea that what happened was caused by a failure at the location where the planes penetrated.

[dirtboy]

The level-flight stall speed for a B-25 is about 100 mph. So let's say the pilot was buzzing around NYC at 150 (I'll be generous, the pilot was probably flying as slowly as possible since he found himself surrounded by skyscrapers).

And I'll stick with my 450 mph speed stated earlier. So the net difference in momentum from just the difference in velocity, being that conservative is 9. And the mass difference was at least 10. So the 767s that struck the WTC towers had about 20 times the momentum of th B25 that hit the Empire State building. But the real, critical difference is that the 767s had vastly more fuel on-board than the B25 - the 9-11 hijackers deliberately chose cross-country flights that would have been carrying a large fuel load - and only used up a fraction of that fuel flying from the takeoff airports.

[Moseley]

Your father may have worked in a foundry, but I doubt that he was charged with repealing the laws of physics or chemistry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But it is the 9/11 Truthers who are trying to repeal the laws of physics.

Steel is VERY EASY to soften. That is why it has utility. If steel were hard to soften, then it would be USELESS as a common material. It is precisely because steel can EASILY be shaped into useful tools that it has made such an impact on humanity.

A blacksmith 3000 years ago — in places where THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY COAL — could simply heat steel over a perfectly ordinary fire, and then beat the softened steel into all sorts of shapes, from swords to suits of armor to plows.

The absurd insanity of the 9/11 Truthers that steel is HARD to soften is a false assumption that warps their entire thinking.

Steel foundries use ordinary heating oil, very similar to kerosene or jet fuel, to melt and smelt steel... to the point of a liquid state.

The jet fuel burned by EMTC ran at 2,000 degrees F.

Again: Jet fuel must have a very high energy to weight ratio. Jets have to FLY through the air, though heavier than air.

As for the forced air through the gaping hole in the WTC, functioning like a blacksmith’s bellows, I did not say that the wind was at high speed. That is irrelevant.

Even a modest wind striking a 208 foot wide surface with a gaping hole int eh middle will create a powerful wind tunnel effect forcing a constant flow of air through the fire.

Howevr, the speed requires is not great.

A blacksmith’s bellows does not create hurricane force winds. All it does is keep a good flow of air into the fire.

High speeds are irrelevant and unnecessary. Only a good flow of air is needed to equal the effect of a blacksmith’s bellows.

[dirtboy]

DB, please follow the nonsense that I was replying to.

I am. And quite frankly, you are buying into truther idiocy, just apparently with your own flavor. The fact that you are attempting to compare the Empire State Building accident with 9-11 shows how vapid your analysis is here.

Some of these fools have no idea what they are even defending.

Fools? The only fool I see here is you. Many highly competent scientists have studied this issue. Meanwhile, you cling to silly notions such as thermite traces - do you even know what thermite is, what composes it and how it is normally used? Do you have any understanding of Occam's Razor?

Watching the videos of the buildings falling does not give me the slightest bit of confidence in the idea that what happened was caused by a failure at the location where the planes penetrated.

Funny, from what I have read, what I saw was entirely explainable by the 'official' version of events.

[editor-surveyor]

"Remember that kinetic energy increases with the SQUARE of the speed"

Sorry pal, but it is linear. Try again.

Also, the velocity calcs out to around 220 mph in the videos. That is close to the limit for the manuvering that they did too. Turns expend energy much more quickly than straight flight.

[dirtboy]

Sorry pal, but it is linear. Try again.

Say WHAT????

You've never heard of 1/2 m v-squared?

And you are lecturing everyone else about a lack of knowledge of physics?

[editor-surveyor]

Where do you get this nonsense?

I said nothing about thermite. Occam’s is on my side here. Neither building showed an incipient failure at the point of penetration before the nearly perfect cascade occurred

[editor-surveyor]

Didn’t you mean F=KMV?

Neglecting air resistance, the function is linear.

[dirtboy]

We are talking about momentum, which is 1/2 m v-squared. Have you ever heard of that? Momentum?

[Moseley]

They don’t want to believe that maybe Al Quaeda was a bit smarter in the way they went about it, and that the planes were not the totality of the plan. I frequently have occasion to work with Arabs and Persians that are competent engineers and scientists, and I have no trouble seeing more to this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You might want to remember that the reason that Osama Bin Laden was worth over $200 million personally, not to mention donations from like-minded Saudi oil princes, is that HIS FAMILY OWNED A GIANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY with experience throughout the Middle East.

Even though the Bin Laden family disowned and rejected Osama when Osama threatened the Saudi royal family (those not sufficiently insane as Muslims), Osama still had estensive expertise in engineering and construction.

Osama was not just some cave-dweller in love with his goat.

Osama studied civil engineering in the university, and knew about construction from the family busieness.

On the internal Al Qaeda videotape recording a meeting with an Egyptian terrorist, Osama Bin Laden describes in detail his analysis of why he thought (in advance of 9/11) the WTC twin towers would collapse although other Al Qaeda leaders
expected the airplanes to do damage but not enough to collapse the towers. Bin Laden emphasizes how he is a trained engineer and he told the other Al Qaeda leaders that the towers would collapse from the aircraft impact and fire.

[Moseley]

Neither building showed an incipient failure at the point of penetration before the nearly perfect cascade occurred

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is incorrect. The very first moment of movement was in the gaping hole where the aircraft gouged out a hole in the building.

In that place, any demolition devices would (a) be destroyed (b) if not destroyed would be prematurely detonated out of sequence by the fire (c) any controller electronics would be melted.

So the very place where there COULD NOT be any demolition devices in operation IS the place where the building starts to move. THe gaping hole begins to close like a mouth closing, windows start popping out as the walls warp, and you can see the columns buckling.

The Building DID show incipient failure at the point of penetration.

Several minutes before the collapse, the NYC police started to claer the area because they could see that the building was “leaning” or “buckling”

SEE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERr6zSE3clM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fuser%2FJonathonMoseley&feature=player_profilepage

Furthermore, note the most conspicuous aspect of the observed collapse.... NOTHING MOVES in the building until hit from above.

If there were controlled demolition, this would be impossible to achieve. NO demolition occurred (if any) until a SPLIT SECOND before the mass falling from above stricks.

This split-second accuracy (a) would be impossible to achieve, (b) would require 22,050 demolition devices in EACH of the towers.... (268 steel columns around the perimeter + 47 interior columns) x 70 floors at least.

To cause each floor to move only a split second before being hit, EVERY floor would have to be wired.

To create the supposed smooth and rapid collapse, ALL the supports would have to be wired with explosives.

Note that we DO NOT see a CHUNK of floors below the falling mass moving. We see NOTHING moving until the mass falling from above strikes.

[editor-surveyor]

"Furthermore, note the most conspicuous aspect of the observed collapse.... NOTHING MOVES in the building until hit from above.
If there were controlled demolition, this would be impossible to achieve. NO demolition occurred (if any) until a SPLIT SECOND before the mass falling from above stricks."

You describe the exact objective of a controlled collapse of a building, and then say that it is impossible to achieve, and then say that it is what happened. Wow!

After watching the videos over a hundred times looking for an indication of failure at the collision site, and it just isn't there, you will never be able to tell me that it was. And if it had failed there, the lower portion would have collapsed first, rather than as in a controlled demo where it begins on the top floor, and quickly cascades downward.

You have destroyed your own argument.

[editor-surveyor]

PS:
Where is the greatest moment, the top or the bottom?

At the ground level, obviously. Yet initially the greatest destruction was just a few floors below the top.

Draw us a diagram of what could cause that.

Osama knew damn well that just the planes wouldn’t do it, but he also knew what would: a shift of mass above the damage, that would turn the upper portion of the building into a giant lever acting on the weakness.

[Moseley]

FRIEND, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN FROM THE TOP DOWN????

Controlled demolitions destory the BOTTOM floor, and have the upper floors fall down into the lower floors.

You describe as a controlled demolition something that has never been done in the history of mankind.

No controlled demolition in history has ever started with the top floors and cascaded downward. No one knows how to do it. If you tried to hire someone to do it, you could not find anyone who knows how.

I am sorry but you need to get your eyes checked. There are many videos from many different angles, and maybe you are not seeing a clear view.

However, the very first motion occurs in the gaping hole. The top of the gaping hole begins to move down toward the bottom of the gaping hole.

Meanwhile, evidently you do not understand your own theory.

Controlled demolition blows out the BOTTOM LEVELS of a building, so that it will fall down roughly into its footprint.

YOUR theory requires the impossible. You reject a natural cuase of collapse. Therefore, you require that the collapse must be caused by explosives.

But that is impossible. Because the explosives BELOW the impact wound COULD NOT be timed to the split second to account for what we see.

NOTHING MOVES until the mass falling from above hits each floor.

This is explained by natural collpase.

It is IMPOSSIBLE from a controlled demolition.

Natural collapse causes each floor to collapse under the weight from above. Therefore, nothing moves until hit from above.

Controlled demolition would blow out the lower floors TOO SOON, because split-second timing for thousands of demolition devices could never be achieved.

So we would see floors MOVING BELOW the falling mass.

But we don't.

There was no demolition in the World Trade Center.

If there were, we would see movement BEFORE the falling mass hits the floors below.

But we don't.

[editor-surveyor]

"Controlled demolition blows out the BOTTOM LEVELS of a building, so that it will fall down roughly into its footprint."

That can only be done if there is nothing nearby. - If there is any close hazard the top floor is split, and the walls charged to fall inward onto the split floor, and any interior support columns between the top floor and the next floor will be charged to be taken simultaneously with the exterior walls. A subsequent set of charges will be set for the exterior walls of the next floor. that is normally all that is needed to do all of the building unless it has a complex shape. The falling mass of the upper floors takes the rest with them, being drawn inward by the reinforcing steel.

If you start at the bottom, the building will often fall to one side or another and spread. That is ok if you have no obstacles, and have the right to the use of the adjoining property. If you cannot draw the walls inward the process is unpredictible.

A building the size of the WTC would never be allowed to be demolished by either method anyway. It would have to be dismantled by cranes. Ive never seen more than six stories dropped without a crane.

[Moseley]

"Controlled demolition blows out the BOTTOM LEVELS of a building, so that it will fall down roughly into its footprint."

That can only be done if there is nothing nearby.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANY controlled demolition is problematic if there is another building nearby. Explosive demolition is usually reserved for buildings that are not close to any other buidling.

However, top-down demolition would be WORSE in terms of damaging nearby buildings. The reasons that controlled demolition is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS from the bottom -- NEVER from the top -- are

1) It is more CONTROLLED. The key point of controlled demolition is CONTROL.

Explosions at the top of the building, high above the ground, are LESS controlled.

We see with the WTC twin towers how debris rained down for 3 blocks in all directions. Collapse at the top of the building is LESS controlled and causes GREATER damage to surrounding buildings.

Controlled demolition -- that is with CONTROL involved -- means blowing out the lower floors, and NOT the upper floors. That way the upper floors fall down INTACT as a unit, instead of shedding debris all over the area, with concrete falling hundreds of feet.

They want the upper floors to fall without shedding debris all over the place. So the upper floors need to fall INTACT down onto the lower floors. That is more controlled.

However, demolition experts do spend weeks or months with welding torches -- including thermite -- and other tools, cutting apart the structure of all the floors.

Part of controlled demolition is chopping apart the key elements of all the structure on all floors.

That way, when the upper floors crash onto the footprint below, the building comes apart. The structure has already been compromised by chopping apart the structures with welding torches and the like for weeks or months before demolition day.

2) It is infinitely harder to do.

It would require incredible split-second precision, when there is a much easier way to demolish a building.

3) It is NEVER necessary or desirable.

That is why never in the history of humanity has anyone ever demolished a building from the top down. There is no reason to ever do it. It is harder. It is never necessary. And it is more dangerous.

NO ONE would ever try explosive demoition from the top down, because there is no reason for doing it. It is much harder to accomplish and much more dangerous.

You also have to considder that because no one ever does this, no conspiracy would every TRY something THE FIRST TIME EVER with the entire world watching.

[editor-surveyor]

You need to contact the CC Meyers Co. to let them know that nobody does what they do.

[Moseley]

All professionals who demolish buildings publicly state that it is very obvious that there was NO controlled deomlition of the World Trade Center buildings.

Why is it that those who actually perform controlled demolition professionaally all LAUGH at the idea that there was any controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11?

You apparently think that the WTC twin towers collapsed looked like a controlled demolition because you falsely believe that it is possible to demolish a building from the top down. That may explain your confusion.

Never in the history of mankind has any building been demolished from the top down.

CC Meyers Co. does not rain debris on other buildings 3 blocks in all directions. That would be incompetent.

The key to controlled demolition is CONTROL. If explosives go off at the TOP of a building first, then debris will rain from a great height all over the area. NO control. The demolition crew wants the top of the building to fall down INTACT to have more control. They do not want it to come apart and rain debris all around the area from a greaight height.

That's why demolition always involves blowing out the BOTTOM floors so that the building collapses down into its footpring.

No one in the world has any expeience in destroying a building from the top down. There is no way anyone would attempt it for the first time in human history with the entire world watching.

[editor-surveyor]

I don’t for a moment think that Osama wanted a ‘controlled’ demolition. What he wanted, and got was a deliberate demolition.

You’ve got your mind wrapped around a chemera.