Thermate is thermite with additives that make is burn cooler, slower, and splatter more, it's used as an incendiary weapon, not for cutting. It would be hard enough to cut vertical columns with plain thermite, using thermate instead would make it even harder with no added benefit.

Steven Jones did not find thermate, he found sulfur, which is just one of the additives. He didn't find the other main ingredient, barium nitrate. The sulfur he found was present in huge quantities in the drywall, he's making a huge leap to declare that sulfur is evidence of thermate.

Your stupid and incredulous claims are unfounded! You are quick to place the blame on the American Government and give the real perpetrators a free pass. I am sure in your mind the American Government bombed Pearl Harbor using the Japanese Navy as a disguise. You are being duped by your own self-interest in making the government look bad.

My Father always said you can reason with ignorance, but not stupidity.
Believe as you wish, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise.
Have a nice life
Regards.

EXCELLENT EYE WITNESS TESIMONY
this video is an awesome reference when it comes to eye witness testiomny although there have been at least three major small clips that have emerged since this was completed that further remove any doubt

historical record proves that not only was the target and date known but a skeleton crew moved into place to dramatize the severity and increase casualties

I did not really make any claims; I just linked to a lot of facts. It took me 6 months of studying 9/11 before I accepted the event as a false flag op... that is hardly being quick to place blame. Your assumption of "blame on the American Government" is too broad as I believe only a handful of government and other influential figures within the US, plus intelligence agencies home and abroad need be involved in an inside job. I have no opinion on Pearl Harbor. I have no interest in making anyone 'look bad'.



I am quite open minded so of course you can convince me otherwise sirfiroth - simply present logical and likely alternative explanations for everything pointing 9/11 out to be a false flag op. Though I would say by the negative way you are taking what are obviously revelations to you about 9/11, it might be best for you to give forums like this one a miss.

The contradiction I spoke of in your theory is basically, when talking about the penthouse, you find it acceptable that the grouping of columns and structure below can collapse independently of the main building. Then when describing the main building collapse, the simultaneous failing of columns across the building required for the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse, is due to loads transferring one after another across the entire structure. It is a contradiction to say the penthouse can collapse independently through the building then claim it is natural for the rest of the main structure to collapse as one piece. Why does the entire building not fall piecemeal? Or put another way, if piecemeal collapses are possible, then why would the rest of the main building fall at once in its entirety? You are using one rule for the penthouse and another rule for the rest of the building.



By my argument there is an awful lot of difference between WTC1 pulverising itself and ejecting debris through the air and a small percent of internal columns failing within the confines of WTC7.

Now you are claiming that not only did the columns all the way up to the top of WTC7 beneath the penthouse somehow tear free of the main structure but they also chopped themselves into pieces as they did it. But there is more, the steel columns then ‘bounce around’ at the bottom of the ‘tunnel’ they have burrowed through the building. Now the official story is relying on the bouncing qualities of steel and further, massive steel columns, bolted together and secured by horizontal beams forming a strong framework, acting like toothpicks!



It seems having no mental picture of how a structure works applies better to you than to me. After all, you claimed the Bankers Trust building may collapse if it caught fire, whilst I claimed it had no chance of coming anywhere near to collapse. It is evident whose mental picture was clearest, is it not.

As far as I can tell from reading up on the Bankers Trust building, the damaged area had not been reinforced in any way since 9/11, with only netting being placed to cover the ‘wound’. I would say the fire was bad – 7 hours to extinguish, at least 3 floors ablaze, 250 firemen on site, 2 of those killed and a further 16 injured.

Perhaps the Bankers Trust building did not collapse as the date was not 9/11 and the building was not rigged for a controlled demolition?

what an eloquent translation of thoughts that were eluding me due to utter frustration...bravo

No, you are still trying to reconcile your flawed understanding of structures with my statements. The speed at which damage propagates can vary enormously, from a slow one-element-at-a-time to an almost instantaneous collapse. The former is what is happening with the slow spread due to fire, with load redistribution not actually overloading the next critical element until the fire weakens it, the latter once the damage gets to the stage where each load redistribution results in one or more of the remaining elements being immediately overloaded. A collapse can affect only part of the structure if the horizontal elements connecting it to the rest of the structure are overloaded before the columns in the remaining structure - what you call "tearing away".

As I've said above, I'm suggesting that the first collapse spread upwards rather than outwards in this way, and that the fall of the inner part of the building did sufficient damage to the lower part of the outer structure to bring it all down as seen in the video. The outer structure falls almost simultaneosly because it was damaged almost simultaneously by the same initial collapse event. If you think that this is not possible, I suggest that you find some support for that opinion. Not just more of your own ideas, but something more qualified. I've been suggesting for several pages that you ask a structural engineer if my ideas are reasonable - why are you afraid to do this?

Why do you think that the initial penthouse collapse would only involve a small percentage of the structure? How do you imagine that a collapsing structure is not going to end up in pieces? This is what I've been talking about all along - overloading, failing, collapsing, they all mean that the bits are getting broken. It is exactly the same principle as the WTC1 collapse and pieces are going to be ejected sideways in exactly the same manner. The only difference is that in WTC7 the initial collapse is hidden because the outer walls are still standing.

And perhaps the building wasn't as badly damaged as WTC7. I still don't see how my "wouldn't have been surprised" is falsified by what happened.

When did you claim that?

You're right. The 9/11 conspiracy has been a dramatic success! GWB's popularity is at an all-time high. The world loves us. We detered anyone from every even thinking of harming us again. America has setup new colonies around the world, exploited cheap and conscripted foreign labor. The Bush family is the undisputed monarchs of the U.S.

A brilliant plan.



(that's sarcasm for those who don't get it)

Didnt read every post...just going to debunk this one entirely.


The WTC7 had several diesel fuel tanks that helped power generators along with a steam line that did the same.



Now what does fire to when it comes into contact with a lot of diesel fuel? Geee....I don' know, aye!....

it doesnt burn concrete or melt steel-- you should probably read the thread

Read the thread and find out how it doesn't need to burn concrete or melt steel.

fire from dispersed jet fuel cannot induce the type of integrity failure recorded on three seperate events on 9/11--it has been admitted the buildings withstood the impacts and common sense is all that is needed to conclude that the collapses had to be assisted by explosives to drop at the rate of ree fall-- again i will ask you to post the data that you accept as theoretically possible that will obviously come from a structural engineer as you love to tell everyone how they are not qualified to make certain assuptions please enlighten us with the expert and his/her data concerning the freefall collapses-- im still waiting

***

Re posting by the14u2cee of Jun 22 2007, 12:12 PM:

You state, "The one simple fact that most of the conspirates [sic] are forgetting is there has to be between 500 and 2000 people if not more covering up and lieing [sic] about what they ****REALLY**** know is the so called truth."

1. What are you basing this figure on? First, intelligence operations are carried out on a "need to know" basis. Many people participating in an actual staged terror event will not know their actual role. So again, where did you determine the number of people in the know to be "500 and 2,000"? Here is an actual calculation for you:

Based on data available to anyone who cares to look at Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s web site, a team of TWELVE demolition experts would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for controlled demolition. Building 7 would take three additional weeks, for a total time for all three buildings of roughly six months. This demolition team of twelve men would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings: Securacom [Stratasec] was in complete charge of WTC complex security during 2001. NORAD stood down, but with the hijacking drills and exercises going on that morning of September 11 chaos was prevailing for most of FAA and NORAD - so this suggests only another TWELVE people in the know. Clearly aircrews were involved to some degree; that estimate depends on your theory (0-4 planes, one shot-down plane, so on). That's 4-20, call it TEN. If faked phone messages were sent that's another SIX. The government obviously knew (Bush's goat book appearance, Cheney's hijinks in his bunker) - put that figure at TWELVE. If one entertains the speculation in the film September Clues that elements of the US Media were complicit (Operation Mockingbird) then the additional number of conspirators increases by roughly another TWELVE. Add TWELVE more for logistic support behind the scenes and another TWELVE pulling the government's strings. Everyone else, no matter how many, could have been kept ignorant by being told cover stories in line with the "need to know" compartmentalization of information. That makes NINETY-FOUR people.

Ninety-four, not 500 or 2,000.

2. And here is another calculation for you: WTC buildings 2 and 7 fell at free-fall speed. The relevant classical physics equation is: Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared), (S = gt^2/2). This is the standard classical physics equation for any free-falling body ignoring air resistance. WTC 1 and 2 were about 1,355 feet tall. Using the English system (feet) as units, their free-fall time is given as:

t^2 = 2S/g
= 2,710/32
= 84.7
t = 9.2 seconds

The math shows 9.2 seconds as the calculated free-fall time for building 2 (ignoring air resistance); building 2 fell in 10 seconds according to the official 911 commission report. Using the same equation gives 5.97 seconds (6.0 seconds) as the calculated free-fall time for building 7 (ignoring air resistance); building 7 fell in 6.2-6.7 seconds. Building 7 of course is the building whose very existence [and free-fall collapse] the official 911 commission report completely ignores so there's no official collapse time. But NIST still is puzzling five years later how to explain building 7's collapse. That is, without invoking controlled demolition. These complete, symmetrical, free-fall collapses are physically impossible without controlled demolition. Otherwise, you're suggesting upper floors fell through lower floors as though those lower floors weren't there, as though they offered all the resistance of thin air.

As you say, "Try and put some of your money and effort to good use and do something positive for the 9/11 victim's [sic] and there [sic] Families [sic]".

Your serve.

***

Re posting by MasterPo of Aug 25 2007, 12:31 PM:

One thing about sarcasm, (which you mention using) is one doesn't have to argue rationally. Just imply. So what's your point? Plainly stated? That Bushco wanted to be popular? That was their master plan. And their failures as leaders and their proven record of lying also disprove their ability to be culpable in false flag terror? New theory of geopolitics you have there.

But then maybe you're making a different argument? Again, what's your point.

My point is that Philip Zelikow, the appointed head of the 911 commission, has an academic background in creating what he calls "public presumption" and "public myth" - ideas assumed to be true but not known to be true that nevertheless drive national agendas. Zelikow also wrote a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) titled Catastrophic Terrorism, in which he plainly states that had the 1993 bombing of the WTC complex succeeded then the US would have become a militarist state abroad with draconian Precrime destruction of civil liberties at home. THAT is the man chosen to head the 911 commission.

My next point: NeoCon Douglas Feith wrote white papers for years arguing for the invasion of Iraq. Feith headed the OSI and OSP (Office of Strategic Intelligence and Office of Strategic Plans) whose entire function was to "cook" intelligence to justify preemptive war on Iraq. Feith then used his influence as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (number three position at the Pentagon) to award "no-bid" contracts to his old business clients Northrup Grumman and Lockheed-Martin.

My next point: A recent US government report shows that every day for the last four years about ten million dollars worth of oil a day has been unaccounted for from Iraq. That comes to 14 billion dollars "missing" since our occupation.

Next point: Paul Bremer, formerly the US special consul to Iraq, "lost" nine billion dollars of twelve billion dollars of US taxpayers' money he was entrusted with by the US Treasury. What happened? When he returned to the US the president awarded Bremer a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There are plenty more points, but perhaps you'll think on those, and other readers too, when wondering why we went into Iraq.

The reality is pretty plain, MasterPo.

No, that's what common sense says.

Withstood the initial impacts, yes. But the impacts plus the structural damage plus the burning fuel plus the buring internals, not.

An engineered structure like the Towers is all based on each piece resting and relying on the other. One piece looses it's integrity and strength and it all collapses. That's basic engineering. Sure it's designed to withstand some damage. But not of such magnitude. We know the terrorists choose those flights because of the huge quantities of fuel the planes would be carrying.

Common sense clearly concludes that the force of the plane's impacts, plus the internal structural damage the impacts caused (knocking out pillars and supports etc), plus the burning fuel, plus the burning of the internal materials all adds up to the inevitable structural failure. Don't be lured by fictional images from movies and TV that show a burned out skeleton of the towers after some disaster or cataclismic event. Maybe in a regular fire without a massive impact or explosion that might happen.

BTW, if you look at the news footage you can clearly see the South tower bent at the point of the impacts well before the towers fall.

you dont have a clue about what you are talking about-- here are real experts that have never had their analysis questioned-- i challenge you to refute these presentations
ret BYU PHYSICS PROF STEVEN JONES DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

IRAQI WAR VETERAN AND DEOMITIONS EXPERT TORIN WOLF DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

Care to guess at what entails "readying" each tower? From what I understand it means significantly cutting support beams and wiring them up with explosives. This, of course, would render the buildings unsuitable for use of any sort and would be cordoned off from the public.



These, of course, are 12 men who would have to be not only demolitions experts, but also willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people. Unless you would have us believe that these people innocently believed the towers were scheduled for demolition. But then of course they would want to blab about it to everyone they knew, so a government gag order would have to be imposed. That's when they would know that this was a hush-hush operation and it would be very likely that the demolition would happen when innocent people were in the buildings. Now we come full circle. This team of 12 people were willing to murder thousands of innocent people. Is this what you would have us believe?



Provide proof of this claim. I'm of the understanding that Securacom was only one of several companies who secured the WTC.



By your calculations, which are obviously guesstimates. Still, 94 people who were willing to take the lives of 3,000 innocent people.....for what? 94 people. How many people did it take to expose President Clinton in the Lewisnky scandal? 2, by my calculation. You're suggesting that not one of 94 people would be willing to expose the government? Not one of these people would be consumed by guilt and just have to come forward? Not one of these 94 people would seek a massive muti-million dollar book deal to spill the beans?



According to whom? Building 7 took somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 seconds to fall. Look up the seismic data. Better yet, count out loud from the second the penthouse begins to fall. And don't forget that internal collapse counts factors into global collapse.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Stephen Jones has never had his analysis questioned?

Maybe you should do a search for him on this forum. Every time his name is brought up he is questioned.

Nope. the commission report says it took about 10 seconds for the first debris to hit the ground but not for the full collapse. Video evidence directly refutes 10 seconds for building 2. Why would you believe the Government for this (although it is not what they really said) when you think they are lying about the rest of it?

This site has an analysis of the collapse times.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

That is all very good and confirms you are using separate ‘rules’ for the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse. Official story has to make the physical evidence fit to certain rules, so how do we do it? Change the rules mid-collapse.



Ok, you believe the force of gravity acting on a failed column is enough for it to tear free of every single horizontal support through some 40 floors.



So those columns below the penthouse chopped themselves up, bounced around the bottom of the tunnel they made, simultaneously striking the outer structure on all sides with enough force to cause a virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse of the main structure.



I have actually been ignoring you for several pages as your idea is plain unrealistic. It is not so simple to collar a structural engineer willing to sit down and go over this for a couple of hours with anyone who asks. Do you suppose I should phone around construction companies asking if they have a structural engineer spare for a couple of hours who can assist me free of charge with a random query? Or maybe a retired structural engineer who now teaches at a university? I can just imagine the conversation now – “Are you one of my students? You’re not? Then why the hell are you phoning me!?”



If the East penthouse collapse had involved a large percentage of the building, I would expect to see the centre of the roof and the East wall fall along with it. What percentage of the internal structure do you believe was ‘hollowed out’ by the penthouse collapse?



We are not talking about a collapsing structure though, we are talking about a limited number of columns below the penthouse failing. With columns bolted together top and bottom and secured together by horizontal beams, forming a strong grid of steelwork, the weakening of said columns at a low level in the building does not mean the entire structure chops itself into bits during any collapse.



I can hardly believe that someone who professes to understand buildings just came out with the above. Flyingswann, the collapse of WTC7 was absolutely not like the collapse of the Twin Towers and the two cannot be compared if we are going by the official story. The Towers were ‘crushed’ by the top of the falling structure, whereas WTC7 simply fell.



You thought the Bankers Trust building may have fallen on 9/11 if it had caught fire. I believed the building had no chance of falling had it caught fire. When the building, already damaged by the collapsing Towers, did suffer a severe fire, it did not fall. That is all I am saying on the subject. Just remember to add this as another precedent to WTC7's situation.

the integrity of the analysis has NOT been questioned-- if you can provide a structural engineer(only because you have implyed that structural eng would be "more" qualified than a physics prof which is rediculous as a background in physics is practically a prerequisate for being a structural eng-please dont hesitate to recruit a physics prof willing to accept the challenge though) that teaches at a university or who has taught at one in the past willing to debate or rebut prof jones paper please do so as jones retired shortly after authoring his analysis for the sole purpose of having all the time necessary to deal with the uneducated and outright liars

Q24, I have set out my picture of the collapse of WTC7 as clearly as I can, but you show no sign that you understand what I am saying. I am using the same "rules" throughout - my basic engineering understanding of how structures work. Read it again: I am not saying that "a failed column" causes a substantial section of the interior to tear free, you clearly can't picture what would happen as this interior collapse occurs, yet you dismiss my arguments on the basis of "what you expect" not happening.

You ask me what percentage of the interior structure was involved in the penthouse collapse. I would guess at least a quarter to a half of the inner "tube" of the building to bring down the whole penthouse at once. This is certainly enough to resemble the towers collapse. As to being "crushed by the top of the falling structure", where do you think the original collapse-initiating failure was? Somewhere at the levels of the damage and fires would seem likely, leaving the structure above that level to fall and crush the structure below.

I presume you are now withdrawing your claim to have predicted the results of the fire in the Bankers Trust building. You asked my opinion on the matter, but you never gave your own.


You are still trying to argue structural engineering from a position of complete ignorance of the subject. If you will not take the trouble to educate yourself, and you clearly do not believe pericynthion or myself who have rather more expertise in the subject, what is the point of continuing this thread?

The key question here is : what does it take to convince you that you are wrong? Your answer appears to be "nothing will". I suggest you check out any text on the philosophy of science for the value of an unfalsifyable hypothesis.

My point is that if 9/11 was a grand conspiracy by GW, Chenny et. al. it's sure been a whopping success - not!

I understand what you are saying, it just happens that I disagree with most of it. You are saying that: -

WTC1 debris, including external steel columns (unsubstantiated), broke through the façade and into the interior core (unsubstantiated) of WTC7, cutting several structural columns (unsubstantiated and highly improbable). Fire, started by the falling debris (unsubstantiated), reached temperatures high enough to one by one severely weaken structural columns below the penthouse (impossible). This damage and fire weakening caused up to half of the interior of the building to collapse (unsubstantiated and highly improbable) with no immediate external effect except for the penthouse collapse (highly improbable). During the collapse, structural columns up to the roof level broke apart (unsubstantiated), bounced around the lower level of the building (unsubstantiated and highly improbable) and simultaneously damaged the North, South and East walls plus the remaining internal structure (impossible). Despite the very irregular damage, the entire remaining building was then overloaded and descended virtually symmetrically, vertically, at freefall speed to the ground (impossible).

Meanwhile, Mossad agents celebrating the Tower collapses and arrested with a van full of explosives were innocently passing by (highly improbable), explosions witnessed before WTC1’s collapse were a mistake (highly improbable), explosions captured on video were falling debris (highly improbable), Larry Silverstein did not convey his message in the clearest way (highly improbable), CIA offices and emergency command bunker in WTC7 were just chance (highly improbable) and all the features of a controlled demolition were simply coincidence (impossible).

So you see flyingswann, all you have are unsubstantiated ideas with most of them improbable or impossible. Looking up the definition of “FAIRYTALE” you will find - “An interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse”. I can think of no more fitting word to describe your ‘picture of collapse of WTC7’.



In post #169 of this thread, I stated “the towers should not have fallen at all.” In another thread, even as the Bankers Trust building was burning, I stated “Q24 placing his bets now that the building does not collapse.” I thought you would have picked up that my whole problem with WTC7 is that the building should not have collapsed. Did you think I raised the subject of the Bankers Trust building in your support? Did you think I was agreeing with you that the Bankers Trust building would collapse? I know, you know, anyone following the thread knows, that you were way off the mark with the Bankers Trust building.



As I am correct, a better question would be: what does it take to convince you that you are wrong? I can dispute your fairytale all day long. You cannot with an open mind dispute that a controlled demolition would cause the collapse of WTC7 we see.

Just for the sake of sh*ts&giggles let's assume you're 100% correct and all the 9/11 conspiracies about it being a GW plot, Israel helping, all Jews warned to leave the towers, remote control planes and cruise missles, controlled demolitions etc etc etc are true.

All the blame for this is being layed at the feet if Islam and arabs.

So where is the Islamic and arab communitties rising up and yelling from the highest hill tops "Hey, we did not do it! We are being framed for this!!!"????????

I am defend by the silence in this regard.

I have a question solely for Q24 here: Suppose you are correct about every claim you have made concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center Complex, why then, is it much more improbable and unsubstantiated to believe that it was in fact a Terrorist Organization, the same one who commandeered the planes into the towers, who also in fact infiltrated positions within the personnel at the WTC before the attacks, secretly planted demolition devices within the buildings, and set them off at the time of the plane crashes, then it is to believe that the United States Government itself plotted these attacks?

Q24, basically, all of that "improbable" and "impossible" stuff is just your opinion of how structures work and how they fail, based on your non-existant study of the subject. This one alone:
would imply that fire in a damaged structure could never lead to a collapse. I admit that there is a lot "unsubstantiated" about how badly the building was damaged, but I don't see anything I've said that is inconsistent with the evidence. In particular, the lack of reported explosions before the collapse and the way the penthouse went a few seconds before the rest of the building are the key facts that fit my theory but not CD.

I asked the question first. If you cannot give an answer, you have a belief with no rational foundation.

For me to consider changing my mind, I'd like some rationale for how the penthouse collapse fits in with the CD theory, I'd like to see some evidence for explosions immediately preceding the collapse, I'd like some witnesses who worked in the building and noticed the building being prepped, I'd like to know how a CD set-up would function after being exposed to several hours of fire, I'd like to know why the firefighters thought the building was dangerous before the hypothetical CD.

do you speak arabic?

if your answer was no then you have absolutely no idea what is being yelled from any hilltop-- compound this with the FACT that bin laden was a CIA asset code named "tim ossmand" who once lived in false church virginia and would have surely further confused the situation

edited for personal reasons...

ROTFLMAO!!!

Thanks, I needed that.


Don't you think in today's political climate where bashing Bush is the new great past-time if there was any (credible) source in the arab trumpeting that it wasn't islamic arabs who did 9/11 then CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Oprah, Rosie etc etc would be all over it? Or are Rosie, Oprah, CNN et. al. also on the Bush family payroll?

I like that phrase – “sh*ts&giggles” You have to stop thinking of this as a GW plot though as that gives the man more credit than he is due. Elements of the US government (of which GW is only one member) assisted by intelligence agencies in the US and abroad would fit better.



As discussed in the “9/11 hijackers still alive” thread, we do have the men named as hijackers who came forward protesting their innocence that were surprisingly reported in our media.
Link here.

Not reported in the Western media is an interview Osama Bin Laden conducted with the Daily Ummat newspaper in Pakistan, in which he states "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.” The fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA thus likely infiltrated at the top levels by their agents would well explain the silence of other members of this organisation.
Link here.

In a letter to GW, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration?” This was from a head of state with nothing to lose by stating these things. I wonder how many other heads of state believe the same but choose to remain silent?
Link here.

Prior to and shortly after the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident (Osama Bin Laden) in any crime.
Link here.

So it is not all that silent if you look for news not widely reported in the Western media.

There are two main reasons: -

1. Supposing a terrorist organisation somehow managed to infiltrate WTC security and rigged the buildings for controlled demolition, why then go to the elaboration of hijacking and crashing planes into the buildings? Why would terrorists disguise a controlled demolition? Terrorists would not care by what method the buildings came down or who knows. So if terrorists were in a situation, primed for a controlled demolition, far simpler to just set off the demolitions and mission accomplished!
   
   The perpetrators though needed this distraction of crashing planes to disguise the controlled demolition. They needed it to stave people off from the only logical conclusion a controlled demolition would bring, the second point below.
   
   
2. Terrorists do not have the ability to carry out what would have been a well planned and highly covert operation. With questionable backgrounds and without high ranking security insiders they could not gain access to the WTC buildings. Terrorists would likely not have the expertise to carry out a controlled demolition and even if they did, would have trouble obtaining the required amount/type of explosives within the US. Only select expert groups with inside networks giving good access/cover could carry out a controlled demolition covertly – a ragtag band of men living in caves in the Middle East would not fall into this category.

No, the correct thing to said is we had men coming forward protesting their innocence. It hasn't happened since September of 2001. All complaints ceased when the FBI released their final list with pictures. The only complaints came before that. That shows to me that once the official list came out with pictures that any confusion about who they really were ended. If somebody thought they were still being falsely accused why wouldn't they continue to complain? Maybe because they realize from the official list with pictures that it is not them being accused? Plus, if some hijackers had any chance of still being alive and therefore were not involved, why would Saudi Arabia publically admit that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

Contrary to your belief, I have done much reading/study on the subject and know what is/is not reasonable. These 2 reasons for starters, lead me to believe a collapse due to fire severely weakening the steel inside WTC7 was impossible: -

• In 2004, NIST tested floor models used in the WTC buildings, heating them in places to 700^oC. In no test did a collapse occur. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf
  
  
• Also 2004, NIST carried out an analysis of the structural steel from the WTC Towers. Specifically taking columns from the fire damaged area they found that 157 out of 160 locations mapped saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.
  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandM...ysisofSteel.pdf

As well, an important note I think people miss – the heat of fire within a building does not indicate the heat at which any structural steel reached. For a fire burning to heat structural steel to the same temperature, would require a constant source of fuel and oxygen directly to the relevant area over a prolonged period.



The problem is, you are not working on any evidence! Your whole idea of the collapse process is unsubstantiated, even the NIST studies above disagree with you. Based on video evidence of the building collapse characteristics, everything about it is clearly saying controlled demolition.



They are seriously the main things holding you back from accepting a controlled demolition took place? It seems you are so contented with your fairytale, you have put a mental block on answering the questions you raise above when really they are not difficult to answer.

The penthouse collapse fits in perfectly with a controlled demolition, where a sequence of explosives go off around the building weakening the structure before the main charges at the base of the building bring the structure down.

Evidence is there of explosions going off early at WTC7 in the original post of this thread and in this video, you just choose to disregard it. I believe these would be the explosions to initially weaken the building before possibly thermite/thermate reactions (which do not ‘explode’ as such) weakened the rest of the structure to collapse. The perpetrators of this controlled demolition would obviously not want loud explosions going off immediately prior to the collapse as that would completely give the game away!

Regarding the controlled demolition set-up reaction to fire, I earlier said - Tertiary explosives, also called blasting agents, are so insensitive to shock that they cannot be reliably detonated by practical quantities of primary explosive. That is to say - cannot be detonated by airliner impacts/fire. Then, rather than using a conventional detonator which could be set off by impact/fire, a chemical or electrical detonator is used

As for witnesses who worked in WTC7 noticing the building being prepped – you do understand the meaning of a covert operation? I have previously explained how the cover of a maintenance/security/removals team possibly working through night hours would raise no suspicion.

The firefighters thought the building was dangerous partly as the earlier explosions had weakened the structure and more importantly as some members knew it was about to be imploded. Watching this footage, how could anyone seriously predict, “keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon” without foreknowledge. In this same report, someone even says “the building is about to blow up”. Not “fall”, not “collapse”, but “blow up”.



So you did ask first It would be an awfully long list of things you would have to prove to convince me the official story is true. Then even if you convinced me, I would label 9/11 the biggest coincidence of all time.

Regarding WTC7 though, if you can show there were extremely high temperature fires in the building (1,000^oC+), being constantly fed and which continuously heated sections of numerous columns on the whole East side of the building and that virtually symmetrical, freefall collapses occur from irregular damage, I would be impressed.

Oh, and a reasonable explanation of those Israeli Mossad agents arrested in New York for celebrating the implosion of the Twin Towers with a van full of explosives would go a long way to convincing me too. You failed miserably at explaining that away in your last attempt.

No, as far as I am aware the FBI did not revise their list, removing from it the men who came forward. Neither did they alter the dates of birth or occupation which also matched that of the men who came forward. The profiles released of some hijackers matched one person but then the picture was of another individual. A clear case of false/faked identities. But perhaps best saving all this for the "9/11 hijackers still alive" thread.

So that is your understanding of how fires affect structures? Look at what the NIST studies are actually studying: in the first case the effects of damage to the fireproofing on the steel and in the second measuring data points for validation of the collapse modelling. Neither is saying anything about fire alone causing collapse or the maximum temperatures actually reached in the fires. You still completely miss the point the I and Pericynthion have been trying to make for most of this thread: load re-distribution due to structural damage makes the structure vulnerable to further damage due to fire. The fire does not have to reach any specific temperature for this to be true, the remaining elements of a damaged structure can be carrying loads very close to their ultimate, so a small reduction in strength due to heating can be enough to cause fauilure.

Up to now, you have been arguing that it was a CD because it looked like one. I produce a list of points showing how it differed from a CD and you come back with this preposterous slow-motion CD theory, unlike any real CD, with the explosions spread over hours to mimic a collapse due to damage and fire. As I said, your beliefs are immune to evidence.

I am not claiming that such temperatures are necessary for a collapse, though with the quantities of diesel fuel in the building there may well have been. I have explained at length how the final collapse came to resemble a CD - a real one, not your new slow-mo job.

You keep bringing up these Mossad agents, but you have signally failed to explain what you think they were doing with their explosives. If they were part of the CD operation, why weren't the explosives already in the buildings?

NO we have weighed the evidence contained within the videos of the collapse and compounded it with the eye witness testiomony,prof steven jones conclusions and the fact that there is an ensuing cover-up-- you sir have failed to provide rebuttal from any scientific or academic source-- put up or shut up-- you cannot account for the collpase of 110 stories of concrete and steel falling without resistance end of debate PERIOD!!!!!

Yea, there's a pilar of honesty, integrety and objective study for the truth that's beyond reproach.

did you not watch the 9/11 segment of zeitgeist? rice and bush were both demonstrated to be liars by the repititous mantra of "no one could have envisioned flying planes into tall buildings" yet later had to admit they were actually running that exact scenario that day!! why would cheney through rumsfeld have removed shoot down authority in the weeks prior to 9/11? BLDG 7! molten steel! FREEFALL COLLAPSES!,fake binladen tapes,put options,anthrax,insurance scam and BILLIONS and BILLIONS in nobid blood money to the architects of death and debauchery

What scams? Paying out life insurance to the families of the dead? Yea, I see. All those families wanted their husbands and wives to die that day just to collect the insurance money. The biggest organized insurance scam in history. Gotcha.

oh i guess ghosthunter never heard of larry silverstein??-- he used to own that 47 story bldg that collapsed in 7 seconds on 9/11 but you see just 90 days before 9/11 he actually bought both twin towers and then insured all three buildings with a "terrorism clause"(huh?!? a conspiracy on its own as no insurance company in their right mind would insure a building damaged by a bomb already by the fbi in 93' under the trump of terrorism) which instantly propelled larry silverstein to the top of the worlds richest men list on 9/11 as each tower paid out 3.5 billion as a seperate event each meaning larry silverstein profitted 7 billion dollars with the events of 9/11-- that the insurance scam i was referencing

This is assuming of course that Silverstein was corrupt enough to mastermind this whole operation AND the government was willing to help. Now think about it: How likely would that be?

I wrote this post for another thread...but I wanted to quote myself and put it
here as well.....because all this about 9/11 conspiracies...is going from the
ridiculous to the insane.

In my opinion.

why couldnt he be just another bird caught from the same stone that had bigger(390 billion and growing) intentions

yeah the "terrorism clause". One of the buildings had already been attacked years before. Why then would a terrorism clause be unusual? Of course you're implying that the insurance company was in on it because they did insure them? Plus the fact that a terrorism clause is not even really necessary as it would normally be covered under a standard policy.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html
Then there is the fact that Silverstein didn't get $7 billion. The latest rulings have been about $4.6 billion in money paid. And of course all that money has to be used to rebuild. He can't just take the money and run. So how much does it cost to rebuild? $6.3 billion at last count and that will probably go up. Negative $1.7 billion doesn't sound like much of a profit to me. Maybe negative numbers are good where you come from? And then there is the fact that he has had to pay out $120 million a year on rent for the property for an area that is not taking in any money because there are no buildings there.
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
But the biggest kicker is this. He tried to buy less insurance at first and had to be talked up!

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
Buying less insurance than he could have? Does that really sound like a guy that knew what was going to happen and was out to make a profit?

Pay attention, sunnyboy, it's WTC7 we're discussing. WTC1 and WTC2 were the ones with 110 stories.

I do not see that makes any difference to the facts. Fact: WTC floor models did not collapse when heated to 700^oC. Fact: 157 out of 160 steel samples taken from the collapse initiation zone saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.



I am not sure what all the “I and Pericynthion” talk is about. Pericynthion has only made 3 posts in this whole thread and disappears when his theory is questioned.

I agree, load re-distribution and fire may weaken a structure… but they do not make high rise steel framed buildings imitate a controlled demolition, collapsing totally and virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.



So you believe 100^oC fires progressively moving through a building would be enough to cause a complete collapse so long as a single structural column had initially been removed? For this to be true, you would have to believe that WTC7 was teetering on the edge of a collapse as soon as the light debris from WTC1 had struck.

Here is a totally theoretical question for you flyingswan but put yourself in the position and answer it seriously – if you personally were given the means to make a cut through any 2 structural columns in a building the size and design of WTC7, then given enough hydrocarbon fuels to light fires around all of the remaining columns, do you seriously believe you could cause a collapse as seen on 9/11?



It is not slow-motion but spread over a period so as not to make the controlled demolition obvious. The only preposterous thing I see is that you believe fire can cause this collapse over a period of time but explosives/thermite cannot achieve the same thing.

You did not produce a list of points showing how the collapse differed from controlled demolition at all. You came up with one single good point of where it differs and that was the lack of audible explosions immediately prior to the collapse as seen with other controlled demolitions.

Now suppose for a moment you are in charge of creating a strategy to bring down a building without anyone knowing it is a controlled demolition. Are you going to make the setup identical to a conventional controlled demolition, complete with a string of explosions immediately prior to the collapse? Answer: No.



No, I am claiming such temperatures are necessary. These 1,000^oC+ temperatures would be required to heat the structural steel columns to a point where they lost enough strength to collapse. Also these temperatures during the fire are the only way to explain the 727^oC debris pile of WTC7 shown in NASA images taken 5 days after the collapse.



When you build a house, do you order to site only the exact number of bricks needed? When you have painted your walls, do you have paint leftover? When you carpet your floors, do you have any cut offs? When tiling your bathroom, do you have spare tiles? Could that perhaps be why every last explosive the Mossad agents were found in possession of was not in the buildings?

Failed to explain what I think they were doing? Let us see, Twin Towers exhibiting characteristics of a controlled demolition, Mossad agents celebrating the collapse, Mossad agents arrested with van of explosives… oh I just cannot figure it out so hmm yes, I think they were on holiday.

The acting dumb thing over this is not working for me flyingswan, so either