If I were innovative, as the perpetrators of the demolition were, I might encase the units in strong corrosion-resistant stainless steel or titanium, with high-temperature insulation inside (idea stolen from FDR black boxes ), obviously leaving open the side fixed to the steelwork, before setting them off by remote control synchronised through a computer.



Are you seriously disputing the possibility of an accurate remote controlled Boeing?

Autopilot systems can carry out everything including takeoffs, ascents, levelling, navigation, descents and landings. Therefore, it would appear all needed is a camera on the aircraft and a link between the onboard computer and ground control station (very possibly in WTC7).

There is a long list of unmanned aerial vehicles developed and operated by various countries (mostly the US) and looking over what some flight control systems are capable of, it seems piloting a Boeing by remote would be distinctly unremarkable.



Military Boeing 767s would have been converted to look like civilian aircraft and the civilian aircraft would have replaced the military aircraft – that is what a ‘switch’ is! As far as the airlines were aware, they had lost the planes and as for the military, they still had the same number they started with.



Operation Northwoods was not required in the end as the Soviet Union pulled their weapons operations from Cuba. We have evidence that the US Department of Defense thought it feasible to plan a false flag operation, involving switching of aircraft, hijackings and fake terrorist attacks, to create public backing for an invasion of Cuba.



So NIST covered more than a third of WTC7’s South face in their damage estimation as, in your opinion, they have some secret evidence which no one else has seen and that they do not want releasing to the public? Do you really wonder why people would find that unacceptable?



The deconstruction began in 2007, so is not an issue when discussing the debris damage only. I have already said, perhaps the damage to WTC7 could have been slightly greater, based on the worst case eyewitness reports we have, contradictory as they are.



I agree - only 3 out of 160 external locations mapped saw temperatures higher than 250^oC. I am sure this is what I have been saying all along, though you have been arguing for some reason.



Thanks for clarifying. It seems there is quite an amount of human intervention and guesswork in the computer models. All I know, is that if I input 250^oC at 157 out of 160 locations and 250^oC at two core columns, then my computer came back with 600^oC temperatures everywhere else… I would not be impressed.




So there is no zero zilch zip nada evidence from physical testing anywhere whatsoever that the steel at any given location saw greater temperatures than even say 300^oC. Even if it were the maximum 625^oC at points, unlikely as it is, this is interesting as the melting point of aluminium is 660^oC. Ruins the molten aluminium with debris argument somewhat?



There are likely opinions such as thermite which conforms with all the evidence, then there are ridiculous individual opinions for each feature - molten aluminium with debris, baking in the ground and airliner impact spheres. Yes, it is natural to be biased toward to the most likely conclusion.



But fire, according to the official story, apparently can!? If the thermite is all taken from the same batch, utilised in a consistent ratio to the steel and set off at the same time, it will at the very least be better co-ordinated than random fire.



The point is, Google “Madrid building bomb explosive secondary device” and absolutely nothing relevant is found. Now replace “Madrid building” with “Twin Towers” and I think you know what happens. Perhaps Spanish firefighters, police and eyewitnesses are just more aware than their US counterparts, in your opinion?



That is not my sole comparison, there are many thermite examples, I just chose to link the clearest one. The molten flow from the South Tower here is clear enough to visually confirm the justifications bringing me to the conclusion of thermite.



It was a steel framed high rise building. Upon sustaining damage, it did not collapse. Upon suffering a fire, it did not collapse. It is just another example to show that these unusual collapses only occur on 9/11.

Problem: the U.S. military does not have any 767's. They tried to lease some in 2002 (note that is after 911) but the project was frozen in 2003 due to investigation of corruption. None were ever delivered. Italy and Japan have some but didn't receive them until 2005 and 2006 respectively. It is unlikely any were even built in 2001.

I'm still not sure how you're going to send a signal to these devices. Fire/impact damage to wires and aerials.

I am saying you have no evidence for a remote controlled Boeing apart from one inaccurate test in 1984. Autoland systems are not remotely controlled, they are on-board systems that are guided from an array of transmitters on the ground. The aerials used are rather large and you would notice if anyone installed them in a city. GPS does not have the accuracy you want to hit an exact floor.

Frenat has pointed out one drawback to this theory. Another is that virtually every component of an aircraft has a serial number and a paper history. Switching identities isn't just a paint job.

This is all an irrelevant quibble to avoid apologising over misleading me about the state of the Bankers Trust building. Whether the South face of WTC7 had three or six broken columns is insignificant compared with the fact that the Bankers Trust building was carrying less than half its design load when it caught fire, thus making it not remotely comparable to WTC7.

I haven't been arguing this fact, just whether it is significant for calibrating the fire model.

Just because you still fail to grasp the fact that you don't have to calibrate the model everywhere, doesn't mean the model isn't valid.

In a complex situation, there are a lot of things going on. Why shouldn't different phases - impact, fire, collapse, aftermath - leave different physical evidence? Saying that everything must be due to thermite is simply your confirmation bias.

That's asking a lot of a technique that has never been used in that way before.
What's random about a fire which starts at the impact point and spreads the impact damage? Its practically inevitable that the initial collapse will start at the impact location in those circumstances. With thermite, however, it has to work at the points where its detonation system is most likely to be broken. If your cascade is thermite, it takes several seconds to act and then there's a wait until the building starts to move - nothing like the precision sequence of a normal CD. You're arguing "CD because it doesn't look like a CD" again.

Or possibly no-one has put thousands of pages of Madrid firefighter testimony on line. You can only claim this if there is a similar pile of quotes for your quote-mining. Otherwise, you are constructing a fable without evidence again.

You mean that there are other thermite examples you could have used that look less like the WTC cascade. You're picking your evidence to confirm rather than test your hypothesis again - very unscientific. Have you looked for other hot cascades to compare? No.

Let's make this clear. Upon suffering a fire after much of the building had been demolished, thus unloading the structure, it did not collapse. Your use of the Bankers Trust for comparison has been busted.
There are plenty of examples of steel frames collapsing because of fire. Madrid for starters, and we've had three steel-framed warehouses in the UK in the last couple of weeks.

Quick question, Urban Legend:

Why do you use a clip of the WTC7 collapse that omits the initial penthouse movement?

Right you are frenat, I should not have been so narrow as to say “Military Boeing 767s”. Ok, think like innovative operatives and see where we can find a 767 shall we: -

1. We could purchase and operate a civilian airline as a front company, allowing ownership of a Boeing 767. Before disregarding the idea, have a quick read up on Air America, a civilian airline the CIA covertly owned for over 25 years.
   
   I am not going to research every single airline but as an example, Trans World Airlines, which flew Boeing 767s, looks interesting - they received a new owner in 1999 and made their last flight in December 2001 before being integrated with American Airlines due to bankruptcy. Also of interest could be Israir who own 2 Boeing 767s.
   
   
2. Is there a government affiliated organisation who we can borrow a Boeing 767 from? Ah yes, Blackwater fit the bill, owning a 767. The article linked mentions only one 767, though it is reasonable Blackwater could get together with Boeing (both being major government contractors) and decide they do not want their fleet made public knowledge. An interesting side note - the now vice chairman of Blackwater, Cofer Black, happened to be director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center at the time of 9/11.
   
   
3. Perhaps only coincidence but the sole 767 recorded passing through the Boeing Aircraft Holding Company, which is responsible for managing used aircraft, was delivered on 24/09/2001 – quite close to another date we know. Looking through the full production list of Boeing 767s, there are no less than 62 currently listed as ‘stored’ (as opposed to ‘active’), I would imagine at secure airport facilities and air force bases. Could these airliners be utilised for a number of weeks whilst out of service?
   
   
4. It appears anyone can own a Boeing if they have the money. The heads of state of Brunei, China, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uruguay all have private Boeing 767s. Roman Abramovich is listed as owning a 767. Even the billionaire founders of Google have their own 767 and have been rented a parking space by NASA! Perhaps we could just have a person ‘in the know’ (CIA asset) purchase a few?
   
   
5. If all the above somehow fails, the Boeing 707 could be used, being the base model for the E-3 Sentry in the USAF, and having only a 10ft shorter wigspan than the 767.

Problem solved, frenat.

As discussed, enclosed units will protect the devices not directly impacted. The signal to the detonation system of the demolition charges/thermite would be through remote/radio control. We have the technology to radio control rovers on the Moon and Mars, therefore it is naïve to think we cannot achieve something of a far smaller scale on Earth.



After having linked all manner of deadly accurate guided and/or remote weapons systems, descriptions of autopilots and flight control systems, a long list of UAVs and even a Boeing which flew 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted flight as far back as 1984… it would be pure foolishness to claim remote Boeing 767s were impossible in 2001.



I provided numerous solutions above for the one drawback (if it can even be called that) frenat pointed out. Yes I agree that altering the aircraft would be an arduous task, though well within the capabilities of people who know what they are doing. The job was made slightly easier as the drone airliners did not need serial numbers changing – as I understand it, the 9/11 crashes were the first where not a single identifying serial number has been confirmed.



The fact NIST indicated over a third of WTC7’s South face was impacted in their debris damage estimation figure is a separate issue to the Bankers Trust building. Again, if you are suggesting NIST have some hidden evidence they are basing this on and keeping hidden from the public, do you really wonder why questions are asked?

Regarding the Bankers Trust building (separately from the above), I am not about to apologise for your bias in arguing a point before checking the facts.



If the large majority of hard physical evidence indicates temperatures below 250^oC, then I will take that over some NIST tweaked computer model to fit a preconceived conclusion. You missed the important question: -

Even if it were the maximum 625^oC at points, unlikely as it is, this is interesting as the melting point of aluminium is 660^oC. Ruins the molten aluminium with debris argument somewhat?



Occam’s razor – "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

Whereas the official fairytale would use three individual (most entities) and unlikely theories (assumptions) to cover the occurrences I mention, thermite simply and comprehensively accounts for all the evidence in one go (the simplest solution).



This is a joke right? Let us assume we each have a steel pole to cut through. You have unlimited kerosene and office contents. I have high grade thermite. Who do you seriously think is going to cut through the pole first? Mine will be cut in 60 seconds. You would be standing there waiting all day (perhaps eternity)!



No, other thermite examples that although look similar, are not so clear. The thermite in the South Tower is cascading through air, therefore I used a thermite experiment that also shows the reaction flowing through air.

I cannot find any other cascades matching the South Tower’s within the boundaries we are looking for, ie lava and casting forges you suggested are no use. Please let me know if you find anything more relevant.



Warehouses are not comparable - though if we did have multiple warehouses stacked on top of one another, I am sure the collapse of a structure near the top would not bring the whole pile down completely and at near freefall speed. Only upper sections of the Madrid building collapsed… which just serves to make NIST’s bizarre “global collapse ensued” assumption stand out even more.

I see no problems solved. I see lots of random and wild speculation with no evidence whatsoever. Even if you had a 767 purchased elsewhere with a different source it would still have to go missing. If replaced by the civilian airliners like you suggest you would run into a different problem of serial numbers you haven't addressed. That would be the replacement 767 from the airliner not having the same serial numbers as the one supposedly used. This would get noticed by maintennance at some point. Unless they're all in on it. Then you have the many people that would be necessary to repaint this plane. They would have to be in on it too. How many hundreds of accessories are you suggesting? Wouldn't it just be a lot less complex and smarter to just hijack the civilian airliner and crash it? A lot less people involved and a lot less wild, random speculation.

And using a 707? Are you somehow suggesting they could have substituted a 707 and have it mistaken for a 767? You're kidding right? Do you even realize that the 707 has 4 engines and not 2 like the 767? It is also not a wide body aircraft and is shorter than a 767. Nobody would mistake a 707 for a 767 and if you are somehow suggesting that they could have claimed it was an airline 707 then you don't know that the 707 hasn't been used as an airliner in the US since 1983.

Thanks for the humor though.

Perhaps you do not see the evidence as you are looking for the wrong thing? You see, I am not trying to describe exactly what happened on 9/11; I am merely highlighting the many possibilities available.



Temporarily missing yes. If the airliner belonged to a CIA front company or wealthy individual asset, why do you see that being a problem at all?



These serial numbers on the airliner parts - how many are there and where are they located? Can you provide a reliable link on this as I am having trouble finding the details. Is it inconceivable that a dedicated team could re-serial an airliner? If so, would the CIA who possibly own the airliner even care if the serial numbers were not correct?



I would think dozens at most, rather than hundreds. Obviously if the airliner is CIA owned there will be a long lead time to prepare. If these workers were Mossad and/or high level CIA/military, I cannot see there being a problem with keeping the operation quiet.



As I said earlier, if I were planning the 9/11 false flag operation, I would not be leaving to chance that some suicidal lunatic patsies could successfully hijack the two airliners and crash them into the Towers. If the patsies back out, fail with the hijackings, miss the targets - operation over, years of preparation lost and no "new Pearl Harbor". Not wanting to take that chance, it would be far smarter to have everything, including the remote flown Boeings, within your control.



It is just a suggestion, though perhaps you are underestimating the ability of the military and their contractors to adapt/modify equipment to needs. The dimensions of the 707 and 767 appear quite similar and with the one poor quality video clip of the airliner striking the North Tower, could you really tell the difference? No.



I can imagine you would laugh, as facing up to the truth and considering the switching of aircraft is quite possible scares you.

No, the identification marks were not just painted on the steel...

On page 7 of NIST NCSTAR1-3B, it's noted that "..all structural steel pieces in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were uniquely identified by stampings (recessed letters and numbers) and/or painted stencils"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf

Here's a core column, with identification stampings, on page 12 of the same report....



The stampings would still be intact if the steel had been exposed to fire temperatures above 625 C.

There is much more evidence for thermate than sulfur. Furthermore, your suggestion that the molten metal was created by steel "baking in the hot rubble pile" is not only false, it's impossible. The microspheres found in the WTC dust were not from the rubble at Ground Zero.....

Dr. Jones found these microspheres in WTC dust that deposited in an apartment about 100 yards away from one of the towers. They contain Fe, Al, S, K, Mn and other elements in small percentages. Iron is a major component of these objects. The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten
droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story. Some of these microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur. The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...hemistryWTC.pdf

The chemical signature strongly indicates the use of thermate, along with other supporting evidence. The absence of barium is always held up as "proof" that thermate was not used. In fact, the absence of barium does not automatically preclude the use of thermite/thermate. Barium nitrate is commonly used in military-grade thermate (Thermate-TH3), but it is not a required ingredient for all types of thermate.

All of the debates started by the GCT's over the absence of barium serve as diversions from the most important point - that the microspheres are valid evidence which falsifies the official (NIST) collapse theory. As noted from the link above...

The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story.

The GCT's don't want to acknowledge the fact that the physical evidence (the microspheres) has completely destroyed the official (NIST) collapse theory. Instead of accepting what we do know to be false (the NIST theory), they only try to find things that they believe are flaws in the alternative theories, such as the lack of barium.

It may help to muddle the issue at times, but it will never wash away the fact that the NIST theory has been proven to be false.

No. You provided no evidence. You instead provided speculative alternatives that while they may be possible, are needlessly complicated.


Your suggestions are making things needlessly complicated. Why need patsies? You can't find a few people willing to die for your plan? Hundreds of people will go through the actions necessary to make it happen and keep it quiet, but you can't find a few williing to carry it out and die? If you're still hung up on the remote control, why couldn't it be installed on the airliners destined to go missing? Why make it more complicated than it has to be?


As already mentioned. In addition to it being a narrow body plane and shorter than a 767, the 707 uses 4 engines and not 2. It can't take off with 2. That's a huge difference. You really think people wouldn't notice that? If you are suggesting they instead used much more powerful engines that have never been used on the 707 before in order to only use 2 then you run into the problem that there are none designed for this purpose. Even if you had some then you have to test them. Yes, they would have to have a lot of testing to determine how it would change the flight characteristics. You wouldn't want to trust your remote control plan to a plane you weren't sure exactly how it would react would you? Then you still have the 707's that have to go missing. Again, needlessly complicated.



Hardly! What is funny is the unecessary complications you are going through. It's like a giant Rube Goldberg machine.

I will leave the argument of what I did or did not provide to the bolded section of the quote above. Accepting the possibility is half the step to accepting 9/11 was a false flag operation.



I do notice you fail to address any issues regarding an airline CIA front company and the possibility of aircraft serial numbers being altered or whether this was even necessary.

Why need patsies? Well they are not needed other than some fake hijackers and Osama Bin Laden. In my plan I would not be entrusting anything to patsies. Find someone 'in' on the job to die in its implementation you suggest? Not likely. Even if there were such an unstable person I would not be trusting them with my years of preparation and "new Pearl Harbor".

Now why could remote control not be installed on the actual 11 & 175 flights you ask. As we touched on - is this achievable, requiring full access to the airliners, time to prepare and test flights, right under the noses of AA and UA? Seems unlikely again. This is why an alternative airliner belonging to an inside party must be used.



As I indicated above, you are failing to address the more pertinent issues, whilst at the same time disproportionately picking at this point of possible 707 usage. If you read my list of suggestions on where a 767 could be obtained, you will see the 707 adaptation idea at the bottom - a last resort should all else somehow fail. As mentioned, I do believe it possible for a 707 to be modified (including engines) to look like a 767 when viewed from a distance travelling at 500mph yet also think it far more likely actual 767s were obtained for the inside job.



I have thought the situation over many times and remotely flown aircraft, switched with those leaving the airport, are the most simple and failsafe solutions to how this aspect of the inside job could have been carried out. If anyone can think of an alternative, simpler and low risk method that does not involve use of the suicidal or lunatic, I am open to suggestion.

Microspheres from the dust has already served to invalidate the NIST collapse theory. But it is much more significant than that...

The microspheres can only be created through processes involving extremely high-temperatures. This means various types of high explosives/incendiaries were involved.

It proves that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.


At this point, it seems to me that most (or all) of the other 9/11 issues being debated need to be put in proper perspective.

How can the rest of the official story be defended, when the towers' collapses have been proven to be controlled demolitions? To me, it's completely irrelevant to continue squabbling over the size of the hole in the Pentagon, etc. It's now gone past that point - we've already established that it was an inside job.

Has this ever been debunked?

The three excuses I have heard from the official fairytale for the molten iron spheres are as follows: -

1. The samples taken by Steven Jones were contaminated and/or from a source other than the WTC site
2. Cutting of steel during the clean up of the site caused the molten iron
3. Formed in the airliner impacts (due to heat and friction I guess)

None seem entirely convincing for various reasons. It is when these iron spheres are put alongside the flow of molten metal seen from WTC2 and the extreme hot spots in the debris pile, plus the many eyewitness reports of explosions and of course the virtually symmetrical, near freefall speed of the Towers' and WTC7's collapses amongst many other things, that the body of evidence for thermite/explosives is very strong in my opinion.

I'm a little cautious about the 'weight of (circumstantial) evidence' angle. Yes, something very hot was seen flowing from the towers. Yes, there were hot spots in the debris pile for some considerable time. Yes, many eyewitnesses report hearing multiple explosions. Yes, the buildings collapsed at a counter-intuitively rapid rate. But the debunkers, backed by the 'authority' of NIST can wriggle out of any suggestion that these observations are indicative of CD or, at the very least, introduce enough doubt.

However, if these iron spheres can only be formed under certain circumstances (and if there is no way the mainstream version of events can account for such circumstances) then this seems to me to be a legitimate line of enquiry.


I'm going to dismiss point three as it seems rather improbable. However, explanations 1 and particularly 2 are sound and need to be addressed.

Have they been addressed by Jones or anyone else to your knowledge?

No matter what evidence is introduced, NIST, the mainstream media and other debunkers will always produce an excuse, no matter how improbable or extreme, to counter. There will never come a point these people will hold their hands up and say, "ok you got us". As you say, even when the official line is flat out incorrect, they will always be able to introduce doubt to divide casual observers.



Jones pre-empted the questions in this paper from Journal of 9/11 Studies. Below are the relevant excerpts from the section "The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres". Regarding how/where the samples were obtained: -

“The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.

In this way, the dust represents a snapshot of the WTC collapse, for the dust came from the
collapsing Towers and was collected before much clean-up began. Even though the Towers were some distance away, too far for any significant debris from the clean-up operations which were just beginning to accidentally contaminate the apartment, yet they were close enough for the windows to break due to the debris of the South Tower collapse and for the apartment to be filled with collapse generated dust.

Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail. Later, I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists. These samples have been analyzed using electron Journal of 9/11 Studies 77 May 2007 microprobe methods, both WDS and X-EDS. The analysis continues to the date of this writing. The dust contains a great deal of information regarding its origin and is proving extremely useful as we puzzle out the meaning of 9/11.”

Regarding possible contamination of evidence from clean-up operations: -

“It has also been suggested that thermate may have been used at ground zero (GZ) during steelcutting operations for clean-up there. However, no documentation whatsoever that thermate was so used has been provided, and so for this suggestion to be seriously considered, the proponents will need to provide documentation for the use of thermate and disclosure of the composition – including KMnO4, S, etc. In this way, we can compare the alleged thermate use with what is observed in the dust. What is thoroughly documented is the use of oxyacetylene torches in the cutting of the steel at ground zero.

Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just about a week after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten-metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there. This is a compelling argument against “accidental” contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues.)

In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected. (On the other hand, the fast-moving dust clouds on 9/11/2001 traveled for many blocks and certainly would have carried small residues with them, for example, residues from thermite cutter-charges used to help destroy the Towers.) Furthermore, iron rich spheres were found in the WTC dust several blocks away from GZ43 in large numbers which essentially eliminates the possibility that these spherules could be due to thermite used at ground zero.”

In my opinion the iron rich, once molten spheres are yet another strong piece of evidence forming part of the larger picture supporting thermite/thermate used in the initiation of the Tower collapses.

The official collapse theory - along with the entire official 9/11 fairy tale - has been shred to pieces by just the microspheres alone.

All of the criticisms and questions I've seen regarding the spheres have been addressed and invalidated.

Thanks Q24 - interesting stuff.

So, to the debunkers out there:

If you were satisfied that the sample was from the collapsing towers and if it could be shown that it was not contaminated by the clean-up operation (or by any other means), what would your view be about the presence of microspheres, given the very specific circumstances under which they are formed?

They would say something farfetched like: -

I would "listen" to the physics prof emerit from BYU and then look at the big picture and see how it applies to the eye witness testimonies and the videos of the collapses

I have no problem with small molten spheres forming in the construction of the buildings.

I have no problem with small molten spheres forming in the course of maintenance work on the buildings.

I have no problem with small molten spheres forming in the initial impacts.

I have no problem with small molten spheres forming in the collapses.

I have no problem with small molten spheres forming in the post-collapse clear-up.

Small molten spheres form whenever metal is worked, welding, grinding etc. The impact and collapse gave plenty of opportunities for metal objects to grind together. I can't believe that there have been several posts while I have been away in which this has been treated as something unusual or far-fetched.

Do pay attention. It was the samples showing high-temperature sulphur corrosion that I suggested were formed in the rubble pile.

Do pay attention. I did not claim that. I suggested that damaged samples would lose their identifications. In other words, the identification is on only one of the several bits that formed the original undamaged piece and the remaining bits have no identification.

We don't fly aircraft into Mars rovers, or set fire to them. You have still failed to provide an answer: what signalling techniques could survive the conditions?

This is still a fable without evidence. Unless you provide evidence to back it up, I see no point in discussing it.

On checking back to the original NIST diagram, I see that there are in fact two overlapping areas labelled "roof and upper level damage" (six columns) and "approx region of impact damage by WTC1 debris" (4 columns).

Well, it seems neither of us checked backed on the WTC7 damage diagram. However, your failing to mention the demolition status of the Banker's trust building while simultaneously arguing that it was similar to WTC7 was misleading. Using the fire in a half-demolished building as relevant to my statement about the possibility of a collapse if it had caught fire on 9/11 was misleading. The only reason it would not be misleading would be if you genuinely didn't realise how big a difference it made, which given the general ignorance of structural matters that you have shown is of course quite possible.

Why? Who says that NIST analysed a sample from that region?

That's the best one yet, you bring up all sorts of fanciful ideas with no evidence to back them up - remote-control aircraft, a CD that is carefully crafted to resemble progressive fire damage, an ignition system that can survive impact and fire - and then have the chutzpah to invoke Occam's Razor.

As to describing what happened, I feel like someone who has been to see a stage magician, then started speculating about which effect was due to misdirection, which was sleight-of-hand, which was specially prepared equipment, etc, then you come along and say "I think he can really do magic, that comprehensively accounts for all the evidence in one go".

I don't need to cut it, though. I just have to weaken it a little.

You assume that the cascade is thermite, therefore you look for examples of thermite and pick the best. That is a classic case of confirmation bias. If you want to find steel-making videos, there's a guy on youtube called steelmanjules who has several.

I have been arguing all along that these other examples are not comparable. Madrid had a concrete core to the structure, for example. You are the one who keeps bringing up other buildings and saying the towers should have tilted, or whatever.

Just out of interest, what evidence would you accept in support of a CD hypothesis, and how would you suggest such evidence might be collected? I accept, by the way, that video evidence and eyewitness testimony is insufficient.

Bear in mind that we're approaching this from a CT perspective, in which case government and government agency sources are automatically invalidated.

Extremely high temperatures are required to create these microspheres.

The collapse spewed out some dust into an apartment that was about 100 yards away from the towers. The microspheres were found in that dust.

You do have a problem, because you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that these microspheres could have been formed through any of your proposed scenarios.

However, since you believe this is not an unusual phenomenon, then you should have no problem in showing us the evidence for it, right?

? What are you talking about? You posted someone's comment..

"From what I have quickly searched, there were traces of barium found in the WTC dust. Saying that, I do not believe barium is necessary for a thermite reaction. It seems barium is an optional extra, used by the military in thermate –TH3, as described here from Wikipedia - “Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.” I really do not think the perpetrators of the controlled demolition would require the ignition temperature lowering so I see no problem with lack of barium."

And you replied with...

"If you'd checked a little further, you'd have found that sulphur is also added to thermite to get thermate. I suggest you take that one up with all the conspiracists who claim thermate was used. Fact is, the only "evidence" for thermate is sulphur, which is hardly uncommon."

I replied to your comment with...

"There is much more evidence for thermate than sulfur."

What does high-temp sulfur corrosion in the rubble pile have to do with it?

You specifically suggested that higher temperatures would have removed the identification markings...

"There is a report NCSTAR 1-3C on steel failure. Read the section on metallographic analysis. This describes the tests that can be made - paint test gives less than or more than 250 deg C, metallurgical tests only give data on what happens above 625 deg C. There is nothing in between. To calibrate the computer model, you therefore check if it gives above or below 250 deg at the required points. If it is correct in this, its predictions elsewhere can be trusted. You may think they should have examined pieces exposed to higher temperatures, but there is the point that it could be very difficult to find where in the building such pieces were installed. The less damaged pieces would be much more likely to retain their identification marks."

I am paying attention. Perhaps you should also.

Re-read your own post. You also replied to my comment with:

The only mention I made of processes in the rubble pile was a reference to sulphur corrosion in post #585.

I think I've answered this before in this thread.

Edit to add: post #328.

Basically, some traces of explosive residue (sulphur being much too common to mean anything), detonation systems, etc. A worker in the building who noticed the CD set-up being installed would be something.

Not evidence, but I'd be less likely to dismiss the CD idea if I had some explanation of how to overcome the objections to CD that I've mentioned, such as time-scales, fires, impacts, etc which are nothing like any CD.

Go to the nearest workshop and check the dust on the floor.

No but we do send the Mars rovers 80 million or so kilometres through electromagnetic waves, radiation and the vacuum of space where they are controlled from Earth and successfully transmit information back. How do the transmitters within the Mars rovers ever survive these extreme, strenuous, unearthly conditions they are exposed to? No regular transmitter could ever hope to survive or function. But the Mars rovers are designed for their purpose. The italics answer your question.



As I explained to frenat, as we know the official fable is unfeasible, I am providing evidence of possibilities in how the inside job was accomplished. Even frenat said that I, “provided speculative alternatives that while they may be possible”. And as I said then, “Accepting the possibility is half the step to accepting 9/11 was a false flag operation.”



Yes, the larger area covering 6 columns – I would very much like NIST to release the secret information you think they have justifying this. Especially as it is this larger marked area only that covers columns 69, 72 & 75 which are integral to the NIST collapse theory.



You are trying to mislead me in saying ‘half-demolished’ when in fact only the upper 15 floors had been removed. The Bankers Trust building at the time of the fire was still an approximately 120ft tall high rise that performed exactly as expected due to damaged external columns and fire.



NIST do. In their Analysis of Structural Steel – “Furthermore, a number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact and fire damaged regions of the towers, including four exterior panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located near these areas.” This means not a single piece of steel physically analysed by NIST, including those at the impact zones, reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium.



First off, the sudden onset of a virtually symmetrical, near freefall and total collapse, in no way resembles ‘progressive fire damage’. As for Occam’s Razor – I indeed am giving the simplest answer to cover all of the evidence surrounding 9/11. Whereas you believe the fanciful idea that random fire and damage can cause the above characteristics, throwing in an aluminium/debris mix, steel baking in the ground, bouncy columns and hollowing out buildings, I support the simplest conclusion that controlled demolitions took place.



The above completely falls apart in relation to my argument when we consider that rather than being ‘magic’, thermite is quite real.



You are being misleading again by stating ‘a little’ – clearly the WTC buildings had to be weakened an awful lot to collapse the way they did. But still, will you with your kerosene and office contents weaken the steel pole first, or will I with my thermite?



Well you have that completely backwards. You see actually, at first viewing the molten metal coming from the South Tower, I wondered what it was. Upon coming across the suggestion of a thermite reaction I looked up some videos and agreed that it did indeed look just like thermite. At the present I have yet to see another suggestion which covers all the aspects of the molten flow.

It is absolutely useless referring to steel making videos, casting forges or lava flows as you have done, as we know the temperatures in the Towers were not hot enough to melt steel. If you can find an example of glowing orange/red molten metal (metal that we know was present in the Towers) at temperatures certainly no higher than 625^oC then I am listening. Until then, you have nothing disputing thermite.

Explosive residue and eyewitnesses to the setup?! If you did not notice, due to the quick clean up and NIST refusal, there has been no investigation or analysis into whether explosives were used. Then what are you expecting for the setup - men wearing flashing Mossad badges trudging through the buildings with red sticks marked ‘dynamite’ under their arm and detcord trailing behind them?! Do you understand what ‘covert’ is?



I have described how the setup could have taken place using the cover of maintenance and/or security teams. With official identification and working in the Tower cores, service areas and empty floors, they will not be questioned. I can give a real life example of this where we had a maintenance team at my work. Five men arrived in the building and ripped out half of our kitchen including the walls. Asking around my colleagues if anyone knew what they were doing, I was met with “dunno” and shrugs of the shoulders. Being curious I asked the maintenance men myself who replied they were fitting new boiler pipes. Ok, that was that and I went back to work. Nobody else even batted an eyelid. These men could have fitted anything behind the wall if they wanted with no one being any the wiser.

I have pointed out how the many explosions witnessed after the airliner crashes, in the basement, in the lobbies, on multiple floors up to the impact zones, were to weaken the structures. The fact this is a covert operation explains the use of thermite to initiate the collapses, preventing a string of audible explosions immediately prior to collapse. I have explained how the devices around the impact zones could have been protected to ensure their survival through the fires.

All of the objections you raise have been completely answered, it is your blinkeredness that prevents you accepting the possibilities. I do not believe you are utterly devoid of initiative and innovation so perhaps if you put yourself in the position of having to plan the covert controlled demolition and actually attempted to find solutions, you would see that not only was the inside job possible, but also likely.

You can leave me out of this. I've left this subject alone since then because I've realized you don't care about accurate quoting or facts and are likely insane and because I've been laughing too hard at the exact statement of yours you just quoted. It was obvious you missed the point of what I said. If you are going to quote me then use the entire quote in context. I said you "provided speculative alternatives that while may be possible, they are needlessly complicated." The key words are italicized. Sure there are other "possibilities" but one has to look at how likely they might be. Just speculating that something happened doesn't mean it did or could. It is "possible" that it all was carried out by invisible ninja elves that live in my back yard. It is "possible" that none of it ever really happened as the Earth and everything on it were created out of nothing last week and the whole of 911 is just memories created for us at that time. Possibilities mean nothing without some facts to back them up. Not a single one of your speculative alternatives had anything to back it up saying perhaps this is what they did. All you did was say "look this group that may or may not be related to the whole organization responsible has a similar jet, perhaps they could have switched their jet with the real one". Nothing to back it up whatsoever. As far as being needlessly complicated, no person in their right mind would jump through some of the hoops you propose simply to crasha jet into the side of a building. Somebody somewhere would say "hey why are we doing X,Y,Z, and A when all we really need to do is X?" And your insistence that a 707 airframe from the military could be altered to appear like a 767 is laughable. It shows you know next to nothing about the airframes involved.