Pat Curley wants to talk to me about the Twin Towers now. So, I guess I’ll take a break from my promised discussion about WTC 7 to talk about the Twin Towers for a little bit, at least in this one post.
Replying to this earlier comment of mine in the thread following my post Richard Gage’s slide show, WTC 7 section: Reply to charlienneb, patslc (Pat Curley) wrote:
Exterior. Columns. You know those huge things around the outside of the buildings, quite visible to the world, not hidden in some crawlspace.
Actually, the perimeter columns were not directly visible to the world. They were covered with, at the very least, fireproofing plus aluminum cladding. And, if I’m not mistaken, the windows were directly between the perimeter columns. Thus, one side of each perimeter column would be accessible from inside the building – possibly from crawlspaces between at least some floors.
The scenario I’m suggesting involves placing incendiary devices (possibly involving thermite) on the inner side of each perimeter column, possibly from within crawlspaces on some (by no means all or even most) floors. Their purpose would not have been to break the columns immediately, but merely to weaken them a few minutes before the collapse, at which time the perimeter columns would then break more easily than they could otherwise (thereby guaranteeing that the columns would in fact break at that later time). Thus it would not have been necessary to cut all the way through a perimeter column, or even most of the way through. Perhaps just a slight cutting plus some additional heating (beyond what the columns were already being subjected to by the fire) might have been quite enough for the perimeter columns, in preparation for a collapse, a few minutes later, that could have been caused mainly by breaking the outermost core columns (the ones attached to the floors).
Thus the incendiary charges could remain mostly concealed, although occasionally some bright shining liquid might leak out – as was, in fact, observed on the 82nd floor of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed.
You have to convince yourself they could be severed as is shown in numerous photographs, in some other manner than the obvious, which is that as the trusses failed they pulled in the exterior columns and broke them.
NIST’s hypothesis (at least for the initiation of collapse) does not involve trusses failing. Rather it involves floors sagging and thereby pulling on the perimeter columns.
Indeed it shows a section of the outer wall in process of being broken and pulled inward. This is not at all inconsistent with my hypothesis, which (1) would also involve floors pulling on outer walls and (2) would make the observed breaking of the outer walls easier.
Sigh. Except that they were “cut” (severed really) all the way; look at the photographs.
I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting, or perhaps I wasn’t clear. See above. Again, my hypothesis is that thermite (or something similar) was used not to break the columns, but merely to make it easier for the columns to break later.
The big question is whether a hypothesis like mine is necessary, or whether NIST’s hypothesis is sufficient. Kevin Ryan’s critique suggests that NIST’s hypothesis might not have been sufficient. Again, are you aware of any good countercritiques?
And then there’s the further big question of whether, once the collapse got going, Bazant’s hypothesis would be sufficient to ensure that it progressed all the way down, without a little extra help of some kind.