Of course, tens of thousands of people had access to the WTC buildings. They were giant office buildings for crying out loud. But your scenario requires some kind of un-“conventional controlled demolition”, meaning what exactly? Some super secret explosive with a thousand times the energy of C4? Something so powerful that a piece the size of a sugar cube is equivalent to a case of plastique? And so some proportion of those tens of thousands of people come bearing sugar cubes, wandering into your own office, and those of your colleagues, indeed into offices all over the building, stacking sugar cubes in corners or balancing them on shelves. Leaving them in the ashtrays by the elevators, and maybe behind the lavatories, because they are so powerful that they don’t really need to be placed in actual contact with the supporting structures of the buildings, right? And nobody notices, nobody comments on it, water cooler talk doesn’t mention the piles of sugar cubes in every corner of the building.
And of course all the hordes of people planting these cubes must know in advance to stay home on “the day”, right? And they must all be blithely uncaring about the fate of their fellow workers, right? Surely nobody would rat out the conspiracy, would they?
Then, on the appointed day and time, not too long after airplanes actually crashed into the buildings, all these carefully placed sugar cubes are somehow detonated by – what? Psychokinesis? Gravitronic rays? Plain old magic? Because nobody bothered to connect them all with the miles of wire or det cord that every other demolition actually requires.
This new and marvelous technology, both the sugar cube explosives and the wireless and receiverless detonation control system, are so super secret that they are used only for the public destruction of significant landmarks into which huge aircraft have been flown at cruising speed.
Color me unimpressed with your particular conspiracy theory. But highly impressed with your imagination.
“There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower”
Now when they say prior, they do not mean ‘no signals before collapse, ever’ they simply mean that just prior to collapse there were no spikes. Ergo no evidence of explosives was found in the seismic record.
Even without context this is pretty obvious. In context, where you realize that NIST is responding to people claiming that the seismic record showed spikes just before the collapse of the building.
And even accepting that the airplanes impacts were registered, how equivalent to a placed charge would that amount of energy be? Tell me how big a blip a synchronous explosion with x amount of explosives would create?
It’s not an error to omit blatantly obvious information that is irrelevant to the question. The question was about non-existent spikes indicating the use of explosives just prior to each collapse, not the impacts almost an hour earlier.
So, now I am asking how big a spike you’d expect to see, had there been explosions prior to the collapses? Also, assuming just for hypothetical sakes that explosives had been used to weaken a specific section of the core below the crash sites, how soon would this have been expected to take effect? Forget about the planes crashing into them, just for the moment, and try and explain what we’d have seen had this been the case instead.
ivan, just because you hit the reply button doesn’t mean you’ve actually replied. This applies not only to your “reply” to my post but all the others in this thread.
What’s contradictory about that? If anything, it hints that there needs to be a common understanding about what is meant by “collapse.” What most of us think of as the collapse is what the video and seismic evidence shows–the ‘bulk’ of the building (the floors and perimeter columns) falling to the ground. That occurred in less than 30 seconds.
Now, the whole point of this thread is that the cores of both buildings survived for a period of time after the ‘bulk’ hit the ground–long enough for photos and videos to see the core through the debris/smoke.
But the collapse of the remnants of the core is more like an ‘aftershock’ to the ‘big’ event of the bulk falling. We don’t tend to include the core’s collapse in our general thinking about the towers falling down, because that event was mostly obscured, not as violent, etc.
You can even see it in the videos (such as the one I linked in the OP.) Nobody at the time realized or remarked on the core standing up–because in their minds, the ‘event’ was over.
The common understanding of the collapse, then, is of the ‘bulk’ falling down.
A full understanding of the collapse begins with the sagging floors and pulling inward of the perimeter columns (occurring before the ‘event’ of the bulk collapsing) and ends with the last piece of the interior core hitting the ground–whenever and wherever that happens to be.
How bloody obvious to anyone that has a high school understanding of chemistry. In layman’s terms, thermite is made up of a highly reactive metal like aluminium and rust. If you think the presence of aluminium and iron in a skyscraper is suspicious, you really need to put more thought into your attempted gotchas.
This point of yours is really a copycat of the TWA 800, the guys that did not believe what the evidence told us originally did go to the extreme of stealing evidence, they did test that and found material that **could **had come from a missile…
Alongside material that also had come from mud and sediments close to New York city.
Nope, the most likely explanation remains that the materials came from the contaminated seafloor, I only can see the same result here, like the TWA800 researchers, the researchers of the WTC collapse can not ignore the reality of items that contaminate tests.