15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition

Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition

Would you believe that they "pancaked" like Hillary did yesterday?

Pancake Theory (FEMA/Aunt Jemima)

Would you believe that they "pancaked" like Hillary did yesterday?

I will believe they "collapsed due to controlled demolition" when you prove they did.

You may be assured for the rest of your living days, it will be this shit again and again.

The 9/11 Commision, officialdom and the establishment have left us with a conspiracy theory (eg: the 19 Arab hijackers whose pics we never see broadcast any more, for good reason) that is so leaky that new generations of folks will always be raising these questions until we see the sequestered evidence and get some solid answers.

I will believe they "collapsed due to controlled demolition" when you prove they did.

No you wouldn't. Be for real. You'd claim the proof is insufficient, or somehow flawed.

Reality, and what people believe is reality, more often than not differs. It's a fact of life.

I will believe they "collapsed due to controlled demolition" when you prove they did.

From the linked article:

The case of WTC 7

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3].

Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

The case of the Twin Towers

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.”

Other evidence unexplained

The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed.

Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance — thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12].

Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].

Conclusion

It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists.

Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

I will believe they "collapsed due to controlled demolition" when you prove they did.

No you wouldn't. Be for real. You'd claim the proof is insufficient, or somehow flawed.

When there is proof they "collapsed due to controlled demolition"....then we shall see.

In the meantime, I do not subscribe to ridiculous conspiracy theories.

15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition [Boldness Added].

…the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. [Boldness Added].

Definitions:
     1. Conclude: Formally and finally settled.
     2. Overwhelming: Very intense and hard to deal with.
     3. Intense: Having or showing strong feelings or opinions; extremely earnest or serious.

“Having or showing strong feelings or opinions” is simply “having or showing strong feelings or opinions.” not and that is not “conclusive”….IS IT?

You make no sense in your presentations. But then this is no surprise, you never do.

”Words have meaning.”

I will believe they "collapsed due to controlled demolition" when you prove they did.

Oh please! you won't even consider the overwhelming evidence that is presented here and elsewhere.

You've shown once again on this topic you are intellectually dishonest.

The believers of the official 9/11 narrative are the real "kooks".

*****

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

Would you believe that they "pancaked" like Hillary did yesterday?

No, that is physically impossible in the observed collapse or destruction time. The "pancake theory" was proposed by FEMA and destroyed by NIST, and officially rejected even as an "official" theory.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine....

There is the Europhysics News itself.

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Page 1 of the issue of Europhysics News states:

Europhysics news is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. The staff of EDP Sciences are involved in the production of the magazine and are not responsible for editorial content. Most contributors to Europhysics news are volunteers and their work is greatly appreciated by the Editor and the Editorial Advisory Board.

The article is on pp. 21-26. Page 21 is a basic cover page.

Page 22 of the issue of Europhysics News leads off with:

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

- - - - - - - - - -

The comprehensive study in Europhysics News

It is in no way a "comprehensive study." It is 5 print pages and a cover page. It may barely be a short story.

- - - - - - - - - -

The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University....

The Steven Jones stuff has been recycled for ten years. It is not likely to change any minds now.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2016/08/jones-co-beclown-european-physics-news.html

Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065

"Truther scientists" get article published in EuroPhysics News magazine

- - - - - - - - - -

Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University....

About former...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department. However, BYU discontinued the review. Some of Jones' colleagues also defended Jones' 9/11 work to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.

Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom. Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the school abandoned the review and Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.

And no, I do not accept the official theory.

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed…The building structure would still be there…However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”

To put it politely, Skilling believed ....

Putting it bluntly, "believing" something is a long way from "proving" something. File that away in your thick skull for all time.

"Skilling, who was concerned about a possible airplane attack, performed an analysis that proved the towers would withstand the impact of Boeing 707"

Isn't he the same guy who said the Titanic was unsinkable? The Hindenburg was safe? The Maginot Line was impenetrable?

That guy?

"The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds."

Putting it bluntly, "believing" something is a long way from "proving" something.

yeah, I forgot - you know more about structural engineering than thousands of engineers and architects and the designer of the towers themselves.

The evidence is overwhelming - only deluded sheep believe the official fairy tale.

Putting it bluntly, "believing" something is a long way from "proving" something.

yeah, I forgot - you know more about structural engineering than thousands of engineers and architects and the designer of the towers themselves.

The evidence is overwhelming - only deluded sheep believe the official fairy tale.

I don’t know about structural engineering, but I know that "believing" something is a long way from "proving" something. I thought Imade that clear. It is regrettable that you have a problem with your comprehension.

From the dictionary:

Overwhelming
adjective
      1. very great in amount (especially of an emotion) very strong.

If you are to convince “deluded sheep” of something, then you need “proof positive” and not an “overwhelming” [great] amount of bullshit from an especially strong emotional source. And that is all you continually try to jam into the minds of intelligent people.

Capiche?

Capiche?

No comprende, pendejo.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.)

In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

sneakypete is still alive and well...

I'd ping Pebbles, but he'd likely ban me again. This place is dead.

sneakypete is still alive and well...

I've seen him over at 4um on occasion. He didn't get banned there too, did he?

Steven Jones

Long ago certified kook

I suppose to a simpleton like you, they must all be "kooks".

BTW - why don't you post your educational qualifications and your advanced degrees in engineering and/or architecture

Oh, you don't have any?

How did they know to plant the explosives exactly where the planes hit?

I've asked that question a hundred times. Along with many others like why would there be a need to fly planes into the buildings in which they knew were just going to be blown up with explosives?

All you ever get is it is irrelevant. There is no point arguing with kooks.

How did they know to plant the explosives exactly where the planes hit?

I've asked that question a hundred times.

Oh for pete's sake - they didn't need to plant them where the planes hit.

...why would there be a need to fly planes into the buildings in which they knew were just going to be blown up with explosives?

Seriously?

They needed to blame the attacks on Iraq and bin Laden.

Who would ever believe that a guy on a dialysis machine and living in a cave would be able to pull off something like that?

Use your head man!

Well, I do have an advanced degree in chemical engineering,

Bully for you. Unfortunately that is not relevant to the discussion, is it?

so I am sure I have a better grasp of engineering principles and mathematics than you do.

That really isn't the point.

How many buildings have you designed?

why would there be a need to fly planes into the buildings in which they knew were just going to be blown up with explosives?

Seriously?

They needed to blame the attacks on Iraq and bin Laden.

Who would ever believe that a guy on a dialysis machine and living in a cave would be able to pull off something like that?

Use your head man!

Seriously, I am using my head.

The ragheads had already tried to blow up the towers in 1993, so just blame it on them in 2001, No planes needed.

But really seriously, I'm done addressing this. I was really done with it 10 years ago.

It is quite obvious from any video that the collapse initiated at the point of plane impacts.

I'm sure you believe that. More's the pity.

High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such "squibs" can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.

Q:

What caused the "squibs"? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?

A:

The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue and consistency as pulverized solid building materials

The ragheads had already tried to blow up the towers in 1993, so just blame it on them in 2001, No planes needed.

The FBI Allowed the 1993 WTC Bombing to Happen (NY Times)

Deckard investigation:

To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”

Investigation complete. Nothing but controlled demolition could have brought down the buildings because Skilling believes it could not have been down by an airplane.

Those are the only two possibilities, airplanes and controlled demolition.

#8, citing to the linked article:

the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

#16:

To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”

To put it politely, NIST found the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile. it would have been very, very audible, even at a distance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476392&postcount=20 [post link]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311065 [Thread link]

#20

6th September 2016, 07:56 AM

Dave Rogers

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post

Does anyone who denies the controlled demolition explanation have any relevant information on how these demolition squibs could have been recorded during the collapses?

There is no "controlled demolition explanation". There are just some uninformed people saying "controlled demolition," suggesting lots of mutually contradictory qualifications, and pretending that constitutes an explanation. One thing they like to do is mis-use the term "squibs", a word meaning small fireworks or special effect charges, to denote the substantial and extremely loud shaped charges used to demolish buildings, which sounds are clearly absent from the audio recordings of the collapses on 9/11. However, some of them manage to convince themselves otherwise despite the absence of evidence, and in at least one instance have edited the required sounds into an existing video. Apparently doctoring evidence like this is a vital part of the search for truth.

Originally Posted by steveupson

NIST has been very coy about trying to answer this question. At one point they were referring people to a debunking site where the squibs were claimed to be some kind of reverse explosion or some such nonsense.

They have never answered the question because there is no question to answer. Perhaps you'd like to post a link to this debunking site with appropriately added spaces here and there so it doesn't get filtered out. NIST did, of course, calculate the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile, and one could assume by extrapolation that a similar size of charge would be needed for the Twin Towers. If there had actually been a coherent question, the absence of any instances of such hearing loss on 9/11 would have been a perfectly satisfactory answer.

And of course, it's this critical deficiency in the evidence that caused one group of truthers, led by Steven Jones, to invent the idea that thermite can be used to sever compressive structural members and that this was done to demolish the Twin Towers. The best of their efforts has resulted in a set of data which, if skillfully misinterpreted, suggests that there may have been enough thermite in the entirety of the Twin Towers to raise the temperature of the steelwork by about two degrees (though in fact what they found was almost certainly paint).

Your question is, of course, a classic example of the complex question fallacy, in its purest form, because it tries to sneak a point past the responder by embedding it in the question. The point is rejected because it is simply untrue.

Much of this, by the way, was done to death here nearly ten years ago. When you've been here a while you'll be able to use the search function and find out more.

Dave __________________

Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476423&postcount=21

#21

6th September 2016, 08:10 AM

GlennB

Originally Posted by steveupson

The question is a simple one.

Is there any alternative explanation to account for the demolition squibs, and if so, where can I find it?

Do you understand the concept of the "loaded question"?

If you meant to say 'The phenomenon referred to by some 9/11 conspiracists as "demolition squibs"' then you'd be asking an unbiased question. Or you could say 'The so-called squibs'.

The building had a lot of dust and smoke in it, including on floors below the collapse zone. The onset of collapse increased internal air pressure and pushed some of that muck out of available holes, sometimes perhaps even creating holes in weakened areas.
__________________

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 6th September 2016 at 08:12 AM.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476519&postcount=26

#26

6th September 2016, 08:56 AM

LSSBB

Originally Posted by steveupson

Yes.

How about if call them the demolition explosions that some people deny are explosions at all, even when they see them with their own two eyes?

This is moving in the direction towards an answer to my question. How do you know this stuff? Where did you learn it?

Can you cite any reference?

What decibel level of sound is produced in a controlled demolition? The absence of such sound rules out explosive dependant controlled demolition. Therefore, demolition squib did not exist according to all available evidence for the events of 9/11.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11476526&postcount=27

#27

6th September 2016, 08:59 AM

Dave Rogers

Originally Posted by steveupson
In this (very familiar) usage, demolition squib refers to the small puffs of debris that are ejected by charges designed to take out specific structural members, as opposed to something meant to take down the entire building, such as a large car bomb like the one that was set off in the parking garage years ago by the blind sheik.

If you’ve been at this for ten years, you should know this. Why feign ignorance?

This is not a "very familiar usage" in general, it's a term made up by 9/11 truthers years ago and only common usage among that group. As far as I know, people who actually understand demolition don't use it, maybe because they have no need to distinguish between shaped charges to take out specific structural members (which they use exclusively) and large single charges to demolish an entire building (which they don't use at all).

Originally Posted by steveupson
Let me try once more to ask the question properly. How does one explain the demolition squibs as being caused by anything other than demolition charges?

No, you've still asked it improperly; you've embedded the claim "demolition" in the question. Maybe you should try again, and keep trying until you learn how to ask an honest question.

Originally Posted by steveupson
This cracks me up every time I read it. The reverse explosion theory :

debunking911.com/overp.htm

Now show me where NIST referred to this, as you claimed they did.

Link appears dead but article is in Wayback Machine, captured 23 July 2016.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160723113459/http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

This truther source includes a part, "The NAIL in the coffin of Jones' credibility." Good reading.

Originally Posted by steveupson
“But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off.”

Yes, that's exactly what's seen; an ejected plume of material whose intensity increases visibly over a measured period of time. This can only be explained by "the physical phenomenon we refer to as pressure," to quote someone recently trying to sound intelligent, created by the collapse of the building pressurizing its contents. The air in the top of the building is entrained with the collapsing debris and pressurizes the lower, as yet still standing, part of the building, and broken windows allow it to escape. This is why, of course, these ejecta plumes were not seen before the start of the collapse, i.e. not as the cause of the collapse, but after the start of the collapse, i.e. as a consequence of the collapse. It's also why they weren't accompanied by the deafening sound of demolition explosives; there were no demolition explosives.

Dave

__________________

Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11487306&postcount=527

#527

12th September, 07:36 PM

LSSBB

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger
I was also going to ask Tony if concrete is pulverized into tiny particles in a controlled demolition because of the explosives or because of gravity, but it looks like he doesn't want to talk about the article. That's a shame, since I had a couple of questions about the next paragraph, too:

But first, we'll need a CD hypothesis to seriously consider that actually accounts for what we see and don't see, hear and don't hear. Rational people can quickly reject the ones that have been offered so far for lack of evidence, which should be abundant.

And, why do you try to poison the well by falsely claiming that NIST "began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires?" I remember at the time, the structural damage was thought to be the most significant factor. The plausible hypothesis that the fire was worse than a normal office fire because it was fed by generator fuel was also examined and rejected. And regardless of how "predetermined" the conclusion was, no one (especially including yourself and cadre) has given any plausible cause other than fire. Again, instead of just pissing on NIST, what hypothesis do you wish us to consider that can't be immediately rejected by what we already know?

NIST actually researched CD and dismissed it, correctly, due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives.

NIST found the size of charge required to sever a single core column of WTC7, and found that the sound produced would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within half a mile. it would have been very, very audible, even at a distance.

That's why conventional explosives weren't used for that task.

Thermite melts rather than explodes. Hence the thermite residue found in the wreckage. DUH!

due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives

NIST rejected the blast scenario because they said no audio record of a blast with sufficient decibel level existed.

So you're operating with an absence of evidence here.

The quite nearly symmetrical collapse free fall of the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC 7) continues to confound explanation that excludes direct human agency.

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, asks:

How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

***

Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity … started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse ….

Thermite melts rather than explodes. Hence the thermite residue found in the wreckage. DUH!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[7][8][9][13] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[88] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[89] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[90]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[91] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[7] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[7][92] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][55][91][92][93][94] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[95]

Most important, thermite is too damned slow. The floor supports need to be removed simultaneously all around to get a straight down drop. Thermite ain't gonna get it.

Duh!

The quite nearly symmetrical collapse free fall of the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC 7) continues to confound explanation that excludes direct human agency.

The absence of evidence may be proof of something that did not happen. It does not identify the mechanism of what did happen.

Direct human agency allows for other theories, not proven. Conventional demolition is one theory.

7WTC looks like it could be a demolition job.

1WTC and 2WTC do not. They are destroyed from the top down, and largely reduced to powder, dust, or unidentifiable tiny pieces. I have no viable theory to offer to explain what my eyes see. I do not find the official stories persuasive.

************* Load of BS, coverup propaganda ************

************* Load of BS, coverup propaganda ************

Just,

************* Load of BS ************

The anonymous dude uses thermate. He says, "I'm no explosions expert."

The massive columns needed to be cut or melted. They needed to all be made to give way at the exact same time for the building to fall straight down.

He does not address how he ignites his thermate. To collapse 110 stories of 1WTC or 2WTC would require carefuly synchronized thermate cutters cutting the beams at the exact same time, or the building would collapse on its side.

As poster Nina Hallman pointed out 3 days ago,

Just think about it a little longer please. The steel would NEVER weaken symmetrically, ergo the towers would never have collapsed into their ground lines. This is absolutely impossible.

As I said:

Most important, thermite is too damned slow. The floor supports need to be removed simultaneously all around to get a straight down drop. Thermite ain't gonna get it.

The video does not even address this issue.

It almost makes one wonder why demolition experts don't use thermite or thermate, as they do not use kerosene fires on the top of a building to bring them straight down.