But unlike those books - you forgot to include NIST's report among them, btw - it would actually make sense.

If NIST's investigation was wrong, then why do you keep on supporting it?

i'm sorry that i pissed you off and that i seem to disagree with you. you're right. the government really does want to kill 3000 innocent civilians. could you please tell me why they want to do this? i really would like to know.

Zaus, do you know how expansive the complex UNDER the WTC towers was? Massive parking garages, malls, powerplants...amazing amounts of fuel sources for a long burning underground fire. All it took was the fuel source and a source of oxygen. Much like the years long fires in deep underground coal mines.
It didn't require a nuke of any size...

So its a variant of thermate without the barium nitrate. Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either?
It still remains that sulphur is common, so its presence isn't suspicious.

I think you are confusing what happened in the fires prior to the collapse, which is what the NIST quote refers to, and fires in the debris pile after the collapse, which is what we were discussing.

Again none of that is from technical papers, all from quotes to the media, and before the facts were known. The Kausel quote is particularly telling - "softened or melted" - it could be that these guys thought that Joe Public was more likely to understand "melted" rather than the more accurate "weakened". It could also be argued that any ignorance they show is not of structures, but of how hot the fire got. Structures are not generally exposed to big kerosene fires, so it would have been out of their experience. I'm not trying to excuse them, but their fault in speaking out before they had the facts does not mean that they could not be relied on to study the cause of the collapse.

Excuse me, what have I said about your made-up quote incident that was was dishonest? You made up a quote, later repeated it, then were asked for the source, admitted you'd made it up, claiming it was a joke, and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying.

And where other than film CGI do you get computer simulations of Russian-speaking chipmunks? Quibble, quibble, quibble.

That's not what the people on the spot said, confirmed fires on 16 floors, phrases like "fully involved":
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires

You were caught being misleading again, by saying no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire. Once you start moving the goalposts, you get to the point where there is no precedent for any of the events of 911, and your argument from precedent collapses completely. Look, I can do it too: No buildings as tall as the towers ever collapsed before from any cause at all, including controlled demolition. Steel-frame structures are vulnerable to fire, however high they are, and you get nowhere arguing how like to the towers previous fire-induced collapses are.

Certainly looks to me as if Roberts' conclusions are compatible with Rodriguez' quotes. Let's leave the audience to make up their minds on this.
There's also this analysis of how Rodriguez has changed his story:
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

Last time I repeated a link you made some snide comment about it. This gave me the, perhaps deluded, impression that you were reading the links. It's Roberts again, near the top of this page:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged
and Roberts gives a BBC source.

It was accepted for an international engineering symposium, and published in the proceedings, so the organisers obviously saw it's merits, even if you can't. It lacks detail because it is an English summary of a paper in Chinese.

I do not think NIST is wrong.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was making a point of logic, invoking the false dilemma fallacy.
To make it more clear: the correctness or otherwise of the NIST theory is not evidence for the controlled demolition theory. Even if you prove that NIST is wrong, you do not therefore prove that CD is right. You have to prove CD on the evidence.

MY GOD!!! LOOK AT YOURSELVES!!!!

things wrong with the NIST report, anyone with a brain can see they are blatantly LYING to you, but...

The people choose to believe what they see and hear on TV, and if the experts say jump, you better believe the people jump and allow atrocities beyond human comprehension, such as this 7 year war.

take a look at this vid on youtube

And how is that any different from those who believe anything and everything they see on YouTube, where people are free to make any ludicrous assumptions and accusations they see fit to and then shut out anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint...?


Certainly there are also masses of people who take even the most remote and ridiculous theories presented to them on YouTube as gospel and flock to "the cause" and jump when the presenter says jump etc etc... aren't there...?





Cz

You have a point, CZ. Sometimes, YouTube seems so stupid, I swear I'll never click, again.

Anyway, I wanted to address Q24.

From Q24-



I refer you to Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Banovic, S. W.; Foecke, T.

See Chapter 6. This document would seem to support NIST final conclusions- good welds and metal qualities, but snapped perimeter columns with downward sheering through collapse. Remember, all these welds were unltrasound tested when they were installed. It supports NIST conclusions that the efficient welds held, which popped the perimeter columns.

Quote from page 285 (of 336)-

"NIST has documented about 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceeding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns."

As for some metal having some heat corrosion evaporation, see pages 286-285 (of 336). Quote- "Two facts have led to the conclusion this floor truss rod was heated above the Austentite-3 line: the high ductility displayed by the material under load and 2) the constituents observed in the microstructure were significantly larger than observed for other A 242 rods." The study indicated the cause was not a long-duration heating process (as found in debris pile fires), but rather consistent with the fires in the towers. For images, see pages 318-324 (of 336).

Q24, if I may quote-



Hearsay and speculation.



How would the islams get truckloads of thermite in the building, and later, actually hit in the right spot of each building? It was surmised, early on, and correctly so, that no other explosives or bombs were slipped into the building, past the security. They would have been caught with their obvious crews and demolition materials. Lots of materials. It's a myth from the internet!

I refer to-
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Gayle, F. W.; Fields, R. J.; Luecke, W. E.; Banovic, S. W.; Foecke, T.; McCowan, C. N.; Siewert, T. A.; McColskey, J. K.

page 180 (of 184) (section 9.4.5) Fire Temperatures Reached by Exposed Steel

refering to the under-representative samples from the WTC-

"Annealing studies...show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time for the recovered pieces."

And, see page 180 (of 184) (section 9.4.6) Time Dependant Deformation of Perimeter Walls Due To Fire and Load Redistribution.

"Hanging floor slabs on the 82nd and 83rd floors...and the positions of these slabs changed over time...progression of failure..."

Q24-

You mentioned WTC 7, and the suspicious steel samples. First, for whatever reason (need to know, lack of identifying steel stamps, trucks from NYC hauled it off to recycle or even make reef barriers with) there is no clearly unambiguous WTC 7 samples. Rescue efforts were said to be one problem, along with serious negligence, and a general scene from hellvita.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7



and a WTC overview report from the same Journal of Metals-

The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation Journal of Metals Volume 59, Nov. 2007

S.W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, and F.W. Gayle are with the Metallurgy Division and J.D. McColskey, C.N. McCowan, and T.A. Siewert are with the Materials Reliability Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Dr. Banovic can be reached at (301) 975-8822, or e-mail swbanovic@nist.gov

you sir live in a land of fantasy and have no clue of what you are talking about-- nothing in that quote was heresay and speculation-- for one fire cannot melt steel,next concerning molten steel found at the scene... it is undeniable-- there is video of firefighters staring into an opening in the debri glowing like the sun that includes audio describing the "foundry" like conditions of the steel-- just google wtc meteorite and you find images of a huge mass of fused concrete and steel that prove extraordinary temperatures

what the hell are "islams"?

bush's cia carried out the 9/11 inside job in case youve been living in a box

I guess I get a little sick and tired of internet know-it-alls walking all over the graves of those that died that day. They blame the wrong people for what happened. I refuse to even consider that nonsense.

So, the other alternative remaining is to refer to the die-hard islamic fundamentalists, anti-U.S and anti-Israel middle easterners. That is all that is left- with any semblance of reason.
And, they planted no explosives, evidently.

Just because the "truthers" are wrong about 9-11, and sling inuendo,etc., does not surprise me.

Either I am supportive of the true happenings, or you are. I choose the experts, thank you.

It is you who have a diminshed appreciation of what happened. Please prove that anything points to this being a conspiracy by law enforcement agencies of the U.S., or other U.S. government agencies.

Mine is not fantasy land, but the light of reality.

Please debunk NIST, and all its interim WTC reports.

I would ask- where were those planes going as they flew to the WTC? One from the north, and one from the south. I can not know what they were exactly planning, but it seems they wanted to topple those towers, if possible. They certainly seemed out for maximum effect.

They would get the towers when there were a lot people in them, and possibly have them topple over. Why would they do that, knowing the buildings were primed with thermite and explosives? Why go to contradictory efforts?

Why would there be thermite, if the plan was to topple the towers?

Therefore, the actions of the terrorists imply they intended to topple the towers, and kill many tens of thousands of nearby people. Not, drop the towers straight down. Although, they probably hoped to do as much damage, in any event.

They hit the towers in the most vulnerable area. The base would have deflected their entrance into the structure, and the upper few floors would not have initiated collapse. This indicates they probably knew a lot about the damage they intended, by their sole weapons- airplanes.

No, aluminum is present in his samples. And the sulfur is suspicious, because the ratio (2-3%, IIRC) of sulfur found in the WTC samples is the same ratio found within the control (test) samples of thermate



Whaat? You really need to take another look at what NIST said...

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

Why do you think NIST cites the melting point of steel, and the maximum temperatures reached by hydrocarbon fires?!? To explain why the fires did not melt, and could not melt, any of the WTC steel. Period. NIST is not making a distinction between the fires before and after the collapses!! Where do you get the notion that they did?



So right after you try to come up with a bunch of excuses for them, you want us to believe that you're not trying to excuse them? That's a good one.

First of all - as I've already told you - this errant claim has absolutely nothing to do with them 'not knowing the facts'. The only facts they would have needed to know were already well-established facts, long before the WTC collapses!!

And now you come up with another, even worse excuse - you're actually suggesting that they may have LIED, just for the benefit of "Joe Public"!! How ironic, after bleating on about my situation!! I guess you do approve of lying, as long as it's done by your "experts"? You even invent a totally ridiculous excuse to try and justify the lying - perhaps they thought "Joe Public" was more likely to understand what "melted" means, rather than what "weakened" means!!! Oh yes, I'm sure they were concerned that "Joe Public" would be stumped by such a technical term as "weakened"!
Come on, now. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you come up with this kind of tripe?

That bring us to your third excuse - that they were ignorant about the temperatures reached by these fires, because they were "big kerosene fires", and they had no experience in dealing with such fires.

In other words, you want us to believe the most qualified "experts" to find out what caused the collapses have no experience in dealing with the (theorized) primary cause of the collapses?!? What a joke!

The WTC fires were hydrocarbon fires, which cannot melt the steel. Even a schoolchild knows that kerosene (or gas) quickly burns away in a fire. The jet fuel burned away within minutes (or seconds), and became normal office fires. Your "experts" wouldn't / didn't know that!?! And neither do you, it seems.



As you've shown yet again here...

"admitted you'd made it up, " - this is blatantly false. I've told you over and over that I had to explain that it was a joke.

You are being dishonest. You just keep on saying that I "admitted" to it, or that I "had to admit" to it. As in - I was caught lying, and so I "had to admit" to it. That's pure BS, as I've told you many times - I needed to EXPLAIN that it was a joke, because it had been misinterpreted. Get that through your head, once and for all.

"claiming it was a joke"

Yes, I was (am) indeed "claiming that it was joke". Because it was a joke.

And you have no valid basis to dispute my word on that, as I've proven to you. The only lying going on here is being perpetuated from your side.

"and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying."

I've been watching the network coverage videos of that morning. Some things stand out.

The North tower was hit square on near the top 15 floors, from the north. The wind was from the NNW. Once the initial fireball was done, the fires were blown into the building, and spread very quickly. The fire on the west side starts as a small smoking hole and grows laterally to the south very quickly. The fire was being blown into the building and spreading upward and downward. By the time of the collapse, the downward spread was 10s of floors. The furnishings in the building provided much fuel. Acre sized floors fully involved. This heat was capable of weakening the damaged steel structure, be the flames deep orange or white hot.

The South tower fires also grew quickly. More external damage was caused on the east side by it's off-center penetration. This impact was also at a notably faster speed. Both planes impacted at speeds well above "cruise" for that low altitude.

The molten stream is visible in a couple of the videos. Were this indications of thermite, why was it the only visual siting? How would this charge and it's associated wiring have survived being right at impact level?

The term explosion is used innumerable times. In the lobby of the North tower, on plane impact, at collapse. Numerous false reports also come in...car bombs at the state department, explosions at the Capitol, car bombs in the streets. It was chaotic.

If it was a government operation, when was the event conceived, and by whom? When, where, and how were the explosives/thermite/thermate planted? By whom? What aircraft were used? Were their missiles aboard?

If a nuclear device was employed, why was no radiation detected? Why did any explosives planted at the base not initiate collapse there?

I just find too many questions and contradictions in the CD story. It seems too complex and impossible to keep concealed. The calls from the aircraft seem to indicate that the "pilots" were not particularly smooth in their flying, to say the least. But they were able to get the planes to their targets (the tower 2 flight was turning pretty hard at that speed to make the hit). They were "good enough" to accomplish their mission.

The air defense "standdown" arguments are just plain ignorant, pure and simple. This is an area I know something about.

So, fully involved, multi floor and growing fires that weakened, not melted, the already damaged steel structure. Fires that, aside from the exterior shots, we cannot see. We can see the smoke, voluminous and billowing upwards and outwards vigorously, indicating great heat overall. Then tower 2 falls, and it is not symmetric. The top tilts, starts down and continues over, the assymetric dust cloud is clear. Material and fire is explosively ejected as floors containing 12 acre-feet of air are compressed to nothing in a fraction of a second.

If it was a government conspiracy, the timing was lousy. The "Bush administration" consisted of a relative handfull of folks that were new in place, with the vast bueraucracy of the Clinton administration still in position. I can't see this operation happening without both involved.

Steel framed buildings had never before collapsed due to fire. But neither had they been hit by 500mph heavy airliners into 100+ story towers. This was unprecedented, any comparisons with previous cases fall short. Their collapse came as no great surprise, at least to many.

Just my thoughts...

I said aluminium oxide, which is a major product of thermite combustion. Aluminium on its own, like sulphur, is too common a building component to be significant.
Same proportion of sulphur in the debris as in thermate? Does that mean the towers were made of solid thermate? Where does Jones get these ridiculous arguments from?

Try to understand what I'm saying instead of going off on irrelevant tangents. That NIST report was about what happened in the pre-collapse fires. The "anomaly" that you were trying to put forward in your post #459 "the molten metal", I took to refer to the reports of molten metal in the debris piles. As far as I'm aware, no-one has actually produced any evidence of what sort of metal this was. Long-duration fires in the pile could easily melt metals such as aluminium or lead.

I've said I don't excuse them. I was just speculating on why they said what they did.
Structural engineers have expertise in designing structures, they do not necessarily have expertise in fires. Your schoolchild seems to be remarkably knowledgeable about fires, as our resident layman in technical matters, q24, took a lot of convincing that 1000 deg C was a normal temperature for an office fire. A kerosene fire will burn as long as there is kerosene available, and that depends on how much was there to start with. If there is a lot present and the fire can only reach a small area of interface with the liquid, it can burn for a long time.
In any case, when NIST got down to their investigation, they brought in the fire engineers to analyse the way that the fire behaved and the structural engineers to analyse the way the structures would be affected by such fires.

I asked for the source of a quote you attributed (twice) to NASA and you said "me". Squirm as much as you want, that is admitting you made it up. You appear to have great difficulty grasping that fact, but there it is. Whether or not it was a joke, and the lack of any obvious humour is not a point in your favour, is irrelevant to the fact of the "making up".

its still true , and not heavy airliner hit these building at 500mph , because there wasn't any airliner hitting these building that day , and the only big 'planes' show on tv , were just big black strange shape things , somewhat looking like planes for some , but were nothing less than TV fakery , yes that's right , this 9/11 fraud had full complicity of the major medias , and the planes shown on tv were faked video to make people believe that airliners hit the builsings , while in fact , these buildings have been hit by something else (if they have been hit at all) , probably missiles.

This is one of the reasons why I can hardly take threads such as these seriously...

Ingrained, absolutely inconceivable CT mindset exemplified...utter, incomprehensible nonsense...

'No Plane Theories" only hurt the Truth Movement..

No, steven jones hurt the truth movement, as a famous nazi propaganda agent once said, if you want to know what the people are thinking, and steer them to defeat, lead them.

Who controls the mass media, radio, TV, newspaper, snf damn near everything else... ? Very large corporations, and as your brain may permit, you realize you cannot just walk in and "get on TV" with your own opinions, or get on the radio, or get in the newspaper... Money is at stake, if the people knew the truth they would kill these monsters parading around being our friends while they screw us and MAKE US LOOK TO THE REST OF THE WORLD LIKE... Slaves, uneducated, partially Tar-Tar Sauced... Slaves to the Elite.
Then, the small insurgence of Real People(not the ones on Reality TV folks) who can make their point on Youtube are there fighting the most important battle of our time to shock the sleeping ones from their dreams, and along with it all the Dis-Info to discredit the truth and confuse the populace that knows not but explores seeking to answer the question...
"How did the World end up like this?!?"

A moment for out beloved commander and chief, the honorable Tar-Tar Sauced President George Bush... The laughing stock of the entire planet. Sure he's funny... and he's a warmongering son of an Oil Barron... Gee bunch of money in that business, is that why they pushed the gas gussling Hummers and SUV as the cornerstone of good soccer moms and macho family men still humping the american dream(and getting burned without knowing...)

We now have an entirely different problem... Oil cannot be bought with American Dollars, your money will soon not be able to buy Gas, as only Euro's and Yen is still valid as currency for Oil now, unlike the last 30 years, where ALL OIL had to be bought with american currency.

This means impending depression, but again we find ourselves screwed, on a front most people dont see coming at all... Corn. Cash Crop Corn. Its really bad for you, like KFC all natural biodiversity is completely lost to the obsession of one single food source(which is genetically modified, grown with poor nutrient quality, and PUMPED FULL of miracle grow and an array of other unnatural compounds to increase the size of the yield(and throwing that poor nutrient quality out the window)), "high-fructose CORN syrup" is a good example of processed and re-processed sugar, but here is where it gets... BAAAAAAAAD as the sheep will say in about 2 years if not sooner.

Ethanol.
Ethanol is made from corn, thus the oil industry will need... more corn...
So now, Corn already grown to feed the populace, will be used to fuel our vehicles. This is not "Environment Friendly" it is the plan of the Elite to cause not only the Great Depression times 3, but also add in a bit of famine, already outside the united states(ya'know, out there in the WORLD) many middle-eastern counties have stopped shipping out their food, and have gone to the extreme of even rationing it off as they slowly dwindle in supply.

Get ready for Hell! Its coming to an Earth near you!

You can plant this one directly on the AGW crowd. and the desire of many to profit from it's dubious claims. Ethanol is a proven energy waster, but the global warming folks just love it. "Big Oil" could care less, it's just another blend, difficult to transport, that is government subsidized.
BTW, Zaus, who determines the price of oil? Saudis? Big Oil?

I am glad you now see that there were explosions prior to the WTC collapses.



I agree that some explosions would, no doubt, be due to the fires and collapses. There are though a number of important features which lead to the conclusion that these explosions were separate events aside from the impacts: -

1. If you read the excerpts and follow the links from the post I made here, it is apparent that explosions were occurring on many levels far below the impact zones leading up to collapse, including right down to the basement. How was this possible so far from the fires?
   
   
2. Reports of “secondary devices” were sourced from both the CIA and the Chief of Safety for the FDNY. Firefighters on the scene reported explosions and one of them, Christopher Fenyo, said, “At that point, a debate began to rage because… many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point.” Why did trained firefighters not believe these explosions were due to the fire?
   
   
3. This WTC7 explosion in particular sounds very much like a shaped-charge. I have listened to other explosions including electrical transformers, propane tanks, firefighter training videos, even land mines and fireworks factories. None of them matched the loud sharp explosion from WTC7 like the shaped charge does. Can you find an example that matches the WTC7 explosion equally well?
   
   
4. Of course after all of the above, the WTC buildings then collapsed virtually symmetrically and at near freefall speed; the results that could be expected of a controlled demolition setup…

Taken altogether, these are some of the points strongly suggestive of planted rather than ‘natural’ explosives in the buildings.



So what? So the people who “dreamed up” the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document, the plan for which a “new Pearl Harbor” was required, are the very same people who had come into power in the Bush Administration 6 months prior to 9/11 – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others.

If a group wrote a letter saying they wanted to rob a bank, and then 6 months after members of that group take up security positions within that bank, a major heist takes place, are you not going to want them all in for questioning?



The document contains no evidence of high or consistent temperatures sufficient to cause the WTC structures to collapse. Of the truss sections you gave pictures for, the report states as a possibility, “this rod was not at high temperature for an extended period of time”. The corrosion of these truss sections was not of the same type or severity as those FEMA described as “very unusual” and NIST failed to investigate.

Also in the report is this gem of a conclusion: “From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”



Sunofone answered this – the fires alone could not reach the approximately 1,500^oC temperatures required to melt steel. It has been speculated that the debris pile accidentally created a forge-like situation and ‘baked’ the steel underground. As a forge requires a specific setup with the correct fuel and oxygen mix, I find the explanation unlikely.



The ‘islams’ certainly could not have rigged the WTC buildings for demolition. Marvin Bush was a former board member of the company that ran parts of security for the WTC though, and with the potential for security and maintenance insiders, plus Mossad agents known masquerading as removals men, I see possibilities.

If I have missed anything you posted merril, it is because I didn’t understand some of the points you were trying to make.

You have been proven flatly wrong that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not verify their members. You have utterly failed to support your claim that the UK engineers, David Scott in particular, are fakes.

I cannot confirm if that is what the verification “boils down to” for overseas members. We have seen in the case of David Scott, not only are records of his credentials held but additional information such as the engineering firm for which he works and also a number of exchanges between himself and AE911T have taken place.

Speculation with no basis is nothing more than fantasy, flyingswan. If you find any evidence that any of the 350+ professionals registered with AE911T are not who or what they are supposed to be then the verifiers of that site will be happy to investigate your claim.

Sorry but your first idea that, “The only samples that came from areas with predicted high fire temperatures were also the samples that showed evidence of heating above 250 deg” is false. There are a number of samples from simulated 1,000^oC temperature regions that in fact show physical evidence of fire exposure below 250^oC. There were only 3 perimeter samples from 16 in the WTC1 fire region that through physical analysis indicated temperature between 250-600^oC. In the long thread you gave the excuse that the fireproofing must have been intact on all the others.

My assertion that there is no physical evidence of widespread and high fire temperatures is undisputable.



The expected base case impact for WTC1 showed minimal debris reaching the south side so there would unlikely be widespread damage to the fireproofing. And if the level of supposed sagging was dependent on the fireproofing being removed, by including fireproofing in the laboratory tests, how did NIST hope to prove their theory?



I am saying that the human input parameters and adjustments are questionable, not so much the computer model itself. Yes very good, you have no problem with NIST’s collapse initiation simulations being beyond reality.

I am well aware there are two sides to this – first the failure of the ‘official’ investigation and second the multitude of evidence showing the controlled demolition. I am glad you grasp that the NIST investigation is wrong.



They are the same pictures I have already seen from the NIST report of floors directly in the WTC2 impact zone – not surprising that these floors failed. I am looking for evidence that fire caused sagging of the floor trusses in WTC1.



Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero - "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said. You think the beams were aluminium? Jeez, no wonder the buildings collapsed.



It’s irrelevant – the fact is the fires could not melt the steel so there had to be an additional energy source. I am unconvinced the ‘lumps’ you keep referring to were a part of the WTC2 thermite flow rather than just building debris.



Using your blasé attitude, why did NIST bother with any evidence or even an ‘investigation’ at all, eh?



You get invited to the WTC by a maintenance/security inside man – I bet Marvin and Larry knew a few. You put the prefabricated explosive/thermite units in the back of a van, marked “Urban Moving Systems” if you like. You drive into the basement. You take the units straight up the elevator to the relevant shaft/service area. You strap/fix the units to the core columns. You do this at night. Planning and caution would be required but it is “plausible”.



God there is no hope with you, swanny… no acoustic evidence? There is plenty of witness and video evidence of the sound of explosions. Then why should there necessarily be seismic evidence of explosives when you know very well the ’93 WTC bombing was not seismically recorded? Don’t say explosions should have been heard immediately prior the collapses – they were initiated with thermite. Don’t say explosives should have been discernable during the actual collapses. I am not suggesting the evidence should have been analysed and tested at the WTC site but it should all have been preserved; not hastily shipped overseas and/or recycled.

Jones does not have access to the debris to test for explosives though he has found evidence indicative of thermite.



The width and depth of the cut would be dependent on the jet/nozzle/ejection system design, not the size of the unit.



There is not “just a stream from the hole” but the violent reaction is dispersing the thermite across the entire car bonnet and up in the air. If you look at the WTC2 thermite flow you will see it creates a similar spray of thermite which disperses as it falls. The actual thermite flow is difficult to estimate and therefore it cannot be claimed to be too big for a thermite charge.



Because heating of the steel due to fire is gradual there must also be gradual deformation of the structure. Fire cannot on a building have such a sudden effect without prior visible widespread distortion… controlled demolition has no such problem.



Do you think the misplacement of the WTC1 impact was a mistake or intentional? I don’t think anyone could make such an obvious mistake. I think it likely that after tweaking the simulation figures as far as possible to give maximum chance of collapse, the upper block was still not enough to ‘crush’ the lower intact structure. It seems it was necessary to alter the impact location to make the simulation work as was demanded.



How very disappointing - after all your talk of how complete structural progressive collapses are quite well known, expected even, you cannot describe the phenomenon in the case of WTC7. It’s quite obvious you won’t put a process or timeline to your theory because it will not stand up to scrutiny.



I can just imagine…


“It was a tree, honest… the government told me so.”

the wtc complex had been a white elephant from the very beggining-- its contruction was subsidized with tax payers money and it never achieved 70% accuracy and always had to be subsidized just to operate-- faulty materials resulting in the oxidation of key supports as well as the massive clean up required to remove banned asbestos fireproofing doomed the towers early on-- a corrupt military industrial complex operating in tandem with a controlled executive,judicial and legislative govt hi-jacked in the early 1900's by european financial robber barons that instituted the federal reserve and removed the gold standard from the american people,faked every world war and killed jfk were responsible for the 9/11 inside job-- the same cia that murdered jfk that is run by the offspring of the largest crimianl american financier of the nazi regime and hitler is the same cia that created the illusion that is alqueda and pulled off the 9/11 inside job-- confusing wargames,standdown orders,planted demolitions,trillions announced missing on the morning of 9/11,a natural gas pipeline in afghanistan worth an est 8 trillion that all of our bases are situated around,a convienent distraction nearby in their installed puppet saddam also used as a scapegoat to fool the masses with the manufactured oil scarcity which is just a last ditch effort to cull the ignorant cattle as much as possible before internet,solar,wind and hydrogen technologies SET US FREE

you are the one spitting on the graves of the dead by aiding their killers -- the towers were not meant to be toppled-- only used as a motive for war-- that is why they fell into their own footprint pulverised into dust -- for gods sake just look at the collapse of bldg 7 --no plane hit it --

in conclusion there is a sophisticated infowar taking place as we speak people like lll are planted to make absolutely unfounded remarks while associatiing themselves with the truth movement for the sole purpose of being ridiculed and the whole movement ridiculed as well by association-- do not be fooled by these careful plots-- there has not been a true republican or democratic representative since at least the 1900's ---WAKE UP

Now I know you're making them up. Who on earth is Graham Scott?

it is not , and unfortunately its what happened , the major medias were 'in' , and that's why it take so long to discover the truth about it , because they're foggin the play by spreading false information to cover their own outrageous implication in this horrible story.



no , it hurt the corrupted medias , and it eventually hurt your intelligence , when you will see that there was no commercial airliner hitting these building , because the 'planes' shown on tv are nothing like 767 , while they are filmed with professional materials , and professional crews , and yet you need crappy amateur footages to see some planes ? give me a break .

Perimeter samples in areas where the insulation was likely to be intact will of course not get as hot as samples were insulation is likely to be damaged. What on earth is unreasonable with that?

Neither do you have any evidence that the NIST fire predictions are incorrect. They certainly fit with the visual evidence of how the fires spread and the temperature predictions are reasonable for office fires. You are making a strawman argument here that the fires are somehow implausible without samples of every piece of steel from the fire region.

You have already admitted that the base case underestimated the impact.

They did runs at less than and more than the actual impact. Comparing the results, I have no problem with a "best fit" intermediate run being likely to give the same collapse mechanism as the more severe case.

I've already had to explain this point to turbonium, but if you really have such difficulty with logic, here goes again:
I do not think NIST is wrong.
I was making a point of logic, invoking the false dilemma fallacy.
To make it more clear: the correctness or otherwise of the NIST theory is not evidence for the controlled demolition theory. Even if you prove that NIST is wrong, you do not therefore prove that CD is right. You have to prove CD on the evidence.

My, those goalposts have a good turn of speed.
There are extra pictures, not from NIST, where you can see the amount of floor sag increasing during the fire for WTC2, but you still deny that it can happen in WTC1.

He didn't say the steel was itself melting, he said something was dripping from it, and that could have been aluminium. If you have any actual evidence of molten steel, I'd be interested to see it.

So they failed to mention something that was irrelevant to their remit and had already been publicised elsewhere? This has no bearing at all on NIST investigating the causes of the collapses.
In your reply to Merril, you imply that temperatures of 1500 deg are needed in the debis pile. As there is no evidence of molten steel and sulphur corrosion occurs at much lower temperatures, this is incorrect.

You believe the building is empty at night, you believe all the security and maintenance staff are in on the conspiracy or incompetent, you of course have proof? Make up as many of these fables as you like, they are not plausible. Even Danny Jowenko says they are not plausible, and he was thinking in terms of HE, not your enormous thermite charges.

Given that you have failed to demonstrate that a thermite demolition is even possible, why should the investigators have considered such a convoluted theory?

If he hasn't access to the debris, where did he find his evidence?
Once again, sulphur is a common component of buildings, it is not evidence of thermite. Thermite produces other substances in much greater amounts than sulphur, and Jones has failed to find them.

Most of the thermite will go straight through the bonnet and carry on down. Any bits splashed about will be even smaller in size than the main stream. You keep arguing for thermite, but you appear to have no idea how it works. In particular, check how much of the target metal a thermite charge will remove.

For a column cutter, if the jet sprays out to give the width, it wont have the strength to give the depth of cut. You have to scale both.

There was gradual deformation, the floors sagging and the walls bowing. However, a wall can only bow so far before it collapses rapidly.

I've no idea what they did, there is not sufficient information in the summary. However, this is irrelevant to whether a progressive collapse will occur with damage at the WTC1 level in the building, because this is confirmed by B&Z and the Seffen paper. Given the similarity of the two collapses, the WTC2 case alone is sufficient to show that an engineering simulation of a "natural" collapse looks like what actually happened.

Oh very funny, try reading my post again. I cannot describe the collapse in every detail, but that doesn't mean that it can't have happened. If lack of complete detail was an argument, then I could rule out CD just as easily because you cannot produce a charge layout and sequence either.

Nist this, Nist that, 9/11 commission, The News said Nist explained it...

Well then...


Allow me to remind you we went to war with afghanistan(secretly for opium), and back then it was "get osama! get them terrorists!"
then Al-qaeda became(?) linked to Iraq(?) of which we put the dictator in power back in Desert Storm and the old Bush War BS(?), and likewise... NO weapons of mass destruction were found, only the weapon of mass distraction were used, on the US citizens...
Most Blatant Lie's Ever Told, as can be seen with this...

Bush: The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people. - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

And then...

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. - Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. - Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they're still hidden. -
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003
I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003
We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.- Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003
It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. - Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003
I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [SEE NEXT QUOTE].- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
This is about an imminent threat. - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: Well, of course he is . - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003


Youtube, molten steel from south tower
I do say thats visual confirmation...
And from "Waste Age" '02 D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime
and a quote "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains"
Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. states:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe states:
"When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted..."


Given that you ignore evidence why should anyone take you seriously?



Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis by K. A. Seffen from the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge quotes:

" …it is clear that the initial loads imposed by both parts falling onto the undamaged buildings beneath were exceptionally high due to the unforeseen preceding events, and that damage was bound to propagate into the floors below: this is the initiation phase. It is also clear that both collapse modes were progressive, as indicated by film footage: there was the sound of each successive impact of floor upon floor and a matching sequence of lateral ejection of debris. Therefore, it is valid to consider the behaviour formally in the proposed terms.”

There were sounds of each successive impact, There were also sounds of explosions and other important factors (unusually melted steel, angularly cut beams, lack of temperature to melt steel, and so on). Seffen seems to not care about these factors because taking them into account would force him to choose a different model...

“Accordingly, the assumption of progressive collapse enables a continuum viewpoint, which permits a simpler formulation compared to, say, a finite element analysis...”
Cmon, seriously...

"A frivolous but useful analogue is the inflation of a rubber party balloon”
Yes, quite frivolous. But then, the model of progressive collapse is a frivolous analogue so, do the math, what do you think?
Then its all over from here on out:
“The precise variation does not matter”
Why exactly would that not matter?
“The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally; any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected; and the final stage of collapse after the crush-front reaches the base is discounted. However, the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward. Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae ....”

Oh yes here we go... one cannot include all the elements involved with the collapse (such as "any impulsive action between successive floor impacts") of the WTC towers because if you did, you would not be able to obtain the solution that Seffen has devised by ignoring them. Something to Note:
“ the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward”. Then we are told that obtaining "the solution" he has already decided he must obtain – is “essential”.

If he would incorporate some additional “features”, he would not be able to get to the conclusion that he has been instructed to get... Pure BS.
More info here, from a scientific journal peer reviewer and doctorate of Mathematics.

AND THEY STILL HAVE NOTHING ON WTC 7...

Well spotted – obviously I meant David Scott.



You are the one with a strawman argument here whilst you go off on a tangent about insulation. My assertion comes down to, as NIST said, that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.” The physical evidence therefore is not supportive of the ‘official’ story or the NIST fire simulations… simple as that.

I am not suggesting every single piece of steel should have been analysed; only that some (any!) evidence of consistent high temperatures should have been found. For instance, core columns from the collapse initiation zone would have been of immense value in determining the precise cause and process of failure. I