Thoughts on the technical side of the wtc collapses
First up, I'm not an engineer. However, I'd like to stimulate a bit of discussion on a technical aspect because I haven't seen it discussed in this context.
A common comment is that all three towers fell due to controlled demolition. The implication being that the collapses were identical. Of course they weren't. The first two [wtc 1 & 2] were subjected to a much more complex process than the third [wtc7].
I'd like to look at wtc 1 & 2 for two reasons:
1. A lack of supporting explanation could be a source for debunking fun.
2. A good supporting explanation would be yet another obvious smoking gun [apart from squibs, etc].
It appears that the normal way to pull a building is to break it off at the base then cut it rapidly floor by floor from the bottom up. This process is visible in wtc7 and all the comparitive examples.
I believe that the perpetrators used the standard technique on wtc7 a. because it wasn't going to be hit by a plane and b. the original plan was to say that it was dropped due to instability caused by collateral damage [I cite Silverstein's video statement re 'pulling' the building].
It would have been critical for the perpetrators to make the wtc 1& 2 collapses look different - they were collapsing due to structural failure from heat damage, not being pulled. It would have been obvious to them that the sight of precisely timed squibs racing up the side of the buildings would destroy this fiction. A way to mask this was employed.
The huge plumes of dust and smoke that rolled down the sides of the buildings came very close to doing the job. You have to look very closely to see the squibs.
We've heard from Rodriguez re the 30th floor and the IT guy on the 100th floor about construction noises on floors that were untenanted. It seems logical that, being unable to predict the exact location of the projected impacts, the perpetrators would have mined a series of empty floors with more than just the steel cutting charges. The mined floor would be used to cut off a large, intact section of the tower above the impact and turn it into a huge pile driver.
If you take a pile of fluidised fine powder and drop a dense weight into it, you get a splash very similar to the descending cascades of the towers [For the practical-minded I suggest trying a pile of newly tipped out portland cement and a brick - stand back when you do it].
Here's the bit where I'd like a reality check from the engineering guys.
Here's the process I think they used:
1. Chop the basement - white smoke at street level
2. Weaken the main bearers - thermate
3. Wait to see where the planes hit and dial up the nearest 'mined' floor below it on your computer controlled demolition sequencer.
4. Wait for the fires to develop so it looks real bad - in the case of the south tower, starting to topple due to asymmetrical impact
5. blow the mined floor and start the squibs but do them in reverse order - top to bottom!
Result - the top section of the tower, still intact, drops into a newly fluidised matrix of cement dust and various bits, throwing out the huge plumes we saw and hiding the progressive squib shots. The largely intact top sections would have disintegrated when they hit the bottom and, viola! A pile of dust, very few visible squibs and a process that could be argued to be quite dissimilar to a controlled demolition.
The one flaw in this process is that, once known, it can easily shown be to be a man-made phenomenon. Hence the massive establishment effort to prevent serious enquiry.
[Stop press - please refer below to post from 'consciousness' and my reply for a correction to the above theory].