If you view official fairytale followers as ill-informed and/or lacking in evidence interpretation skills rather than 'the enemy' and see it as an opportunity to talk about the false flag operation on 9/11 then it is really not so hard.

You can only give an honest answer to an honest question. Your question deliberately latches on to one aspect of the situation while ignoring a much more important one.

I have not avoided answering your question. I have now answered your question several times - yes, specific details of both theories lack supporting evidence. However, such a yes or no answer is misleading, which is why I have also added some extra remarks about the way the general aspects of the conspiracy theory also lack supporting evidence where the general aspects of the "official" theory do not. I simply picked the collapse speed of the towers as an example of this.

I'm going to break my own rule - which was to disengage - to help you understand a point I believe you have missed.

You do not know what I currently believe vis-a-vis the collapse of either WTC 1, 2 or 7, much less what I believe about the collapse speeds. So, when I ask you a simple question, independent of any specific theory, I don't expect you to pick a theory of your choosing in order to avoid giving a simple answer.

Just on holiday.

OK I'll take a look.

Well, we are back to extreme accuracy in guiding the aircraft to miss your charges, and we have only your word that the fires would not have affected the charges, but the key fact here is the difficulty of getting thermite to work in the precision manner required of a CD. How do you ensure that your charges cut in the right order? If the wrong column goes first the building will start to tilt in the wrong direction.

Oh yes, that always happens, just ask any CD expert - sorry I forgot you are unable to ask for expert opinion.
On the one hand your thermite charges are "relatively small" and on the other they release so much heat that they are still detectable days later. This is the key discrepancy that I want you to address numerically.
My theory only needs a lot of flammable material from the building to keep burning in the rubble pile, which commonly happens when buildings collapse through fire.

It is not my problem that you fail to grasp the simple idea of a conservative assumption.

Let's have the details then.

The eyewitnesses gave differing estimates. The larger outline in the NIST diagram is consistent with the largest estimate, about a third, the smaller outline is consistent with the smallest, a quarter to a third. I haven't found that anyone said "a quarter", which is what you appear to be arguing.

Eh? Could you explain why your thermite is not hot? There is obviously a cascade of something hot.

It is hardly foolish when you follow that accusation with another rewording of "CD because it looks like a CD and CD because it doesn't look like a CD".
The only thing that looks like a CD is the final collapse of WTC7, and the similarity disappears when the extra few seconds of video with the collapse of the penthouse is taken into account.

Because scattering the light flammable stuff on top gives much less of a mixing opportunity than pouring the aluminium on to the flammable material.

It is fabrication when you theory requires a lot of invasive work on the building for which there is no evidence whatever.

There is no "evidence" against the "inside job" theory because it is set up to be immune to evidence. You say that a CD took place that was intended to look like a natural collapse, so from that point of view the things that resemble a CD are evidence for a CD, and things that don't look like a CD are evidence for how well it was covered up. Unfalsifiable.
If you want a statement of my point of view, rather than making up your own version of it, here it is "It looks like two aircraft flew into the towers, causing damage and fires. The subsequent collapse of the towers is consistent with this. I see no similarity with any CD before or since. Several other buildings were damaged by debris from the towers to the extent that they were structurally unsafe and had to be demolished. In one of these buildings, WTC7, a fire broke out which could not be contained. At a casual glance the final collapse of this building resembled a CD, but none of the events leading up to that collapse showed such similarity. The fact that a penthouse collapsed several seconds before the final collapse suggests a two-stage process in which the interior structure of the building collapsed first and debris from that interior collapse brought down the exterior."

I do not care what you believe, but a simple answer to your question would be misleading, which is why I qualified my answer.

To reverse the position, perhaps you would like to answer this simple question:
Have you stopped taking illegal drugs?

wow..debunking 101 ..accuse your adversary of being on drugs....i smell a rat whenever i read your drivel, about how building 7 came crashing down...from heat

Oh dear me. The standard of reading comprehension does not appear to be very high around here.

To answer this, flyingswan-style: grapefruit, but it must be remembered that China holds more dollar reserves than any foreign country you care to name.

To answer in the manner I've been trying to illicit from you: yes.

Throughout our exchange, you've repeatedly referred to the 'supporting evidence' pertaining to 'the general aspects of the "official" theory'. Could you set out the 'general aspects of the "official" theory' here for us to examine and list the evidence you believe supports each one?

Regarding accuracy of the airliner impacts, I have shown previously there is all manner of guided/precision technology that makes this simple. Please show that guided missiles and precision targeting devices are in fact a myth if you wish to claim remote aircraft cannot be accurate.

Miss the charges? I said, “notice there are none where the airliner impacted as these would have been destroyed or damaged along with the columns they were attached to.” You obviously did not “notice”.

Your “key fact” is once again implying that random damage and fire can cause a virtually symmetrical collapse but thermite somehow could not.



You use a computer to synchronise the order of the signals to the thermite/charges. If the planners are half competent, there is no reason the “wrong” column should go first.



You address numerically how oxygen starved underground fires could burn at 747^oC as seen in NASA images and higher still, causing steel to glow red hot and, in places as described by eyewitnesses, flow like a “foundry” or “lava”. The notion that simple fire could achieve this, especially with no calculations to prove it, is ridiculous.

A typical thermite reaction reaches temperatures of 2,500^oC. It will cut through steel (approximate melting temperature 1,500^oC) like a hot knife through butter. It will cause glowing red hot steel. It will cause molten metal under the debris pile to flow like a “foundry” or “lava”. That thermite can achieve this, even with no calculations to back it up, is without doubt.

You honestly do not consider that the seemingly unreasonable ‘fire’ version of events requires those calculations more than the very logical ‘thermite’ version?



Calculating that the main supports of the structure were impacted with more force than was ever possible, is not conservative. All B&Z have done is fix the calculations to give a desired result supportive of a preconceived conclusion, which may look good to the ‘popular opinion’ of a terrorist attack, but is not based in reality.



The few eyewitnesses who attempted to quantify the damage area were all ‘estimating’, so the fact that one used the word “about” is neither here nor there. The larger outline in the NIST diagram is approximately 38% of the face – in excess of that which eyewitnesses describe and in excess of the ¹/₄ - ¹/₃ description in NIST’s own study.



You are confusing the molten metal flow temperature (not analysed) with the widespread and relatively low fire temperatures (analysed). For the flow to occur as the NIST suggestion, high temperature (approximately 600^oC) fires would need to be present to melt the aluminium. There is no physical analysed evidence of temperatures this high. For the flow to occur as the thermite suggestion, no fire or high temperatures were required – only a fuse/detonator.



It is never “CD because it doesn’t look like a CD” though it can be “CD despite a few differences from CD”. A lot comes down to what your definition of controlled demolition actually is. Remember nobody has ever claimed this was a ‘conventional’ controlled demoltion.



The sudden onset of a virtually symmetrical, near freefall and total collapse with visible explosive squibs is all very much like a controlled demolition.



Every single fact pointing out a controlled demolition indirectly supports that a team prepped the buildings – three buildings in one day did not fall exhibiting the characteristics of controlled demolition due to random damage, fire and chance.



Immune to evidence? How about the official fairytale actually comes up with some evidence for starters and then perhaps we could test it.



You made up a statement for me so I did not think you would mind me doing the same. Your statement, while I am sure appealing to the average ill-informed person, conveniently neglects every single problem, contradiction and impossibility with the official fairytale we have discussed and at the same time skips over all the bizarre theories that you need for it to work, ie irregular damage causing virtually symmetrical collapses, Towers crushing themselves like the intact portion is not there, WTC7 interior disconnecting from the exterior and ‘hollowing out’ the building, amongst many others.

I must say I did not expect that answer, but it could explain a lot.

Certainly:
Aircraft hit the towers - eyewitness and video evidence.
Aircraft caused damage - eyewitnes, video, Purdue simulation.
Fires broke out - eyewitness, video.
Fires spread damage - eyewitness, NIST fire simulation.
Damage sufficient to start collapse - video of structures bowing, NIST experiments and simulations.
Collapse unstoppable - Bezant and Zhou calculation.

In order:

Agreed - this is not an exclusively official position; it is supported by the vast majority of those who doubt the official position.
Agreed - if one accepts that the planes crashed, then one is bound to accept they caused damage.
Agreed - fuel-laden aircraft impacts will tend to ignite.
Agreed - fires tend to spread when fuelled.

Thus far, you have simply stated the obvious yet used up four line items in an attempt to support your assertion that the official account has a great deal of supporting evidence. With the exception of NIST's fire simulation, which is, by definition, a guess, nothing you have said rules out the vast majority of conspiracy theories.

Let's move on.

Disagree - please reference the work and the evidence upon which it is based.
Disagree - please reference the work and the evidence upon which it is based.

As far as these last two items are concerned, it is not enough to simply link to NIST and The journal of Engineering Mechanics and say, "read it yourself". I want to know specifics. For example, since you state that the 'Damage [was] sufficient to start collapse', I would like you to introduce the specific evidence that supports this claim. Clearly, best guesses are inappropriate. I would expect you to produce photographic images and video clips showing the precise nature of the damage cause by the impacts and subsequent fires. Alternatively, if there are too many to post here, pleae link to a gallery where they may be viewed.

If you cannot produce this evidence, just say so - coughymachine style, not flyingswan style.

All the while, bear in mind that none of what you've posted here has any relevance in the context of an alternative theory that accepts the towers were not demolished.

You have not in fact done this, all you mentioned was one rather inaccurate NASA test.

You are assuming that the damage is restricted to the path of the aircraft. The Purdue simulation shows debris flying about all over the place.

You have yet to demonstrate that a CD set-up would work in the circumstances. It's been a lot of claims but no evidence.

The cascade you claim to be a thermite charge lasts several seconds. If it takes this long to cut a column, split-second timing is impossible.

How do you think out ancestors first made metal tools? Enclosed fires are easily capable of reaching such temperatures.

If you think the heat released in cutting a few columns with thermite is going to make a significant temperature difference to a pile of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of debris, you have to provide the calculations to show it. Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

see above

If the main columns do not meet, then what else is going to stop the collapse? Their scenario is the most conservative because any other results in less resistance to the fall.

To my mind "about a third" implies an upper limit of around 41%, at which point I'd start saying "about a half". "Quarter to a third" implies a lower limit of 25% and an upper one of 33%. The figure which best fits both estimates is around 28 or 29%. The NIST diagram seems consistent with all this. However, the whole point is a quibble because the damage and fire theory does not require any specific number, just that the damage should be sufficient for the fire to spread it. All the eyewitness reports of the building being unsafe to enter, no longer straight, etc make the point that the damage was this significant.

There is the evidence from the simulations that the fires reached these temperatures. It's the materials samples that do not show the high temperatures, and this is as much a problem for thermite as for molten aluminium. If that cascade is from a thermite charge, then such charges are going to affect a wide region of the building.

This doesn't alter the fact that whether the evidence resembles a conventional CD or not, you take it as evidence for your theory.

The "squibs" are nowhere near where the collapse starts, there is no visible or audible explosion where the collapse starts, the symmetry is less that you claim - one building tilts noticably, another has one part leading the rest - near free-fall and total are to be expected from such large structures.

Circular logic again - you want it to be CD, so it must have been prepped for CD, so the absence of evidence for prepping shows how well they concealed it.

See my post to coughymachine above.

You may not like these aspects, but the world's engineers seem to accept them. Does this fact suggest anything to you?

There is plenty of visual evidence of the tower faces bowing. Try the links from here, the first page I googled:
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingD...Explosives.html
There is a great deal of material in the NIST report, but the parts most relevant to the initiation of the collapse are experimental testing of how the floor truss structures responded to heating and computational simulation of the response of the structure to the demonstrated behaviour of the trusses. You may like to claim that these simulations are "guesses", but the methods are standard tools in engineering. These days all structures of any complexity are designed with their use.
For the second point, I gave the reference to B&Z earlier. It's only a short paper, so I'm very tempted to ask why you cannot read it yourself. To summarise, they picked the situation in which the collapse was most likely to be halted and showed that even with that assumption the structure would be greatly overloaded.

I am an engineer. Whether the towers were CDed or fell as a natural result of the impacts is an aspect that I feel I am qualified to discuss. Other alternative theories are not.

I know Q24 is going to come back to you in detail, but I would like to know the source of this please.

I have seen plenty of bowing perimeter columns. All they prove is that the perimiter columns bowed.

What I would like to see is clear photographic or video evidence of the severed core columns and the extent to which the fire-proofing had been dislodged. This specifically because you stated that the 'Damage [was] sufficient to start collapse.' Just asking for specific, incontravertible evidence of said damage.


Which might explain why you were unable to free yourself from the notion my 'theory' demands that the towers were demolished when asked to respond to my earlier, simple question.

Clearly, if I ask you to confirm that neither theory is supported by specifics, and yet I speak as someone who accepts the collapses were initiated in the manner described by NIST, there's no point in qualifying your answer with some mumble about the free fall speed claim.

In and of itself, this means nothing. It's rather like me arguing that the standard methodology for conspiracy theorists when making a claim is to harvest quotes selectively and present them out of context. Thus, by dint of it being standard practice, it must be valid.

And, by the way, this seems to me to be broadly analogous to what NIST's simulations do.

NCSTAR 1-5F, Chapter 6. Plenty of locations with temperatures above 1000 deg C.

You obviously don't appreciate how bowing and load carrying capacity are connected, nor how the bowing matches the computed structural response to the fire.

Obviously there is no video evidence from deep within the building, but there are eyewitness statements such as Brian Clark's that are consistent with considerable damage:

Simulations obviously have some latitude when all the specific details are not known, but if a simulation matches all the available data, such as observed fire locations, measured temperatures of steel samples, availability of flammable material, etc, then it is likely to be close to the truth. It may not be exactly right for the temperature at a particular location well inside the building, but it is unlikly to be far wrong in factors like what percentage of each floor saw temperatures at a given level, and it is these more general results that are important to the overall response of the building to the fire.

I'd be lying if I said I did. However, 'the computed structural response to the fire' (bolding mine) takes us back to best guess and away from incontravertible evidence, which is what I'm asking you to present.


Now that's a shame, because I can't see for the life of me how else you can back up your claim that one of the core pieces of 'supporting evidence' pertaining to 'the general aspects of the "official" theory' is that the 'Damage [was] sufficient to start [the] collapse'.

I'd hate to think we're going to end up discussing NIST's guesswork to cover this point off as well. Your lengthy exchange with Q24, which I have no intention of replicating, shows that this is ultimately fruitless from the point of view of establishing facts to support either theory.

This supports my position as much if not more than it does yours.

I'm asking for incontravertible evidence and your talking about approximate computer simulations based on partially observed, unobserved or immeasurable and unspecific factors and probabilities.

There you have the whole core of it. I'm an engineer, I use these sorts of methods to earn my living, they incorporate all the relevant physics and engineering theory, I know how well they perform. If you don't have this background, you have no appreciation of how convincing the evidence for the "official" theory is.

What an interesting reply. A kind of hand-waving/appeal to authority hybrid. On this basis, why do you engage in discussion with anyone who isn't an engineer?

I don't have to be an engineer to realise from our exchange that you do not consider yourself accountable to the same evidentiary standards as those who challenge the official version.

So I guess, having established that neither side of this debate can be supported by specific evidence, we've run out of non-engineering things to talk about.

Basically, because I've long had an interest in why people believe weird things, and also a lot of the stuff that the conspiracy side comes up with I find very funny. Mind you, I expect the death ray/hologram aircraft bunch embarrass your side as much as they amuse me.

In truth, I'm mortified. I'm mortified for two reasons: Firstly, I think they're absurd (and this is after actually taking the time to explore them); and secondly, because, even if they're right, they attach an aura of stupidity as far as the agnostics are concerned to those of us who challenge the official account.

Emphasis mine.

Tut tut. Now I know you're not lying here, but you did, perhaps deliberately, allow me to believe you were a structural engineer, when in fact this is not so.

Yes, you have to watch out for flyingswan's misleading use of this 'engineer' and 'my fellow engineers' thing. We recently discussed that many years ago a small section of the course he undertook did cover building construction if that counts for much. We also then discussed that flyingswan has had no dealings with high-rise steel framed structures and there being bricklayers with more experience than him of building matters.

I once worked for a construction firm that specifically did deal with high-rise steel framed structures. Now my time there was limited with the company becoming insolvent, but perhaps I should start giving my opinion as a ‘construction professional’ of sorts.

Oh, so much to post and so little time to do it.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I've mentioned in several posts over the course of this and other threads what my qualifications are. I had a two-year general engineering course followed by a year specialising in aerospace. Fact is, the course would have got me a job as a structural or any other type of engineer, as the exams at the end of the second year were accepted by all the UK engineering institutions.

After reading your posts to this thread, no one would believe you.

It does not matter what you believe - the fact is that I am giving my opinion as a former construction industry professional so long as you give yours as an ‘engineer’

If you remember, as well as referencing the NASA demonstration of a remote Boeing which had 17 years worth of improved technology to implement by 2001, I linked a list of UAVs and pointed to guided missile footage here and here, one with the precision to repeatedly strike a building doorway and the other which can, up to the last moment before impact, remotely change its trajectory in flight.

I have provided evidence this is all possible - now you need to debunk that the knowledge exists if you wish to claim remote aircraft cannot be accurate.



I indicated how tertiary explosives and thermite cannot be initiated by common igniting substances. I further suggested how the detonation system may be electric or chemical, with damage or fire rendering them inoperable rather than setting off the charge. I even went on to say how the enclosed demolition units may have been fireproofed in many ways if it was thought necessary.

I have provided evidence of the possibilities - now you need to debunk that this technology exists if you wish to claim a demolition setup could never work under the circumstances.



The length of time the initial charges take to cut the columns is not important so long as they are synchronised. I would not put much faith in the timing of the visible thermite charge as it had obviously been damaged/displaced by the airliner.



Well that is not numerically proving your case, but regarding early smelting systems, you do realise these still must be setup in a particular way and supplied with the correct fuel and oxygen mix? Simply dropping steel in a pit with regular combustibles and setting alight is not going to cause high temperature steel corrosion or produce the effects of a “foundry” or “lava” described by eyewitnesses.



I would think the quantity of molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower before its collapse, multiplied by the number of core columns would be a sufficient amount to produce the evident high temperatures. Perhaps you could do the calculations.



As I explained previously, stopping the falling debris is not the same as halting the collapse and less resistance in areas does not make a complete collapse more likely. As a basic example, destroying a tree trunk brings down all its branches but destroying the branches does not bring down the trunk.



To my mind, you are defending NIST’s stretching of the truth on the basis of one eyewitness using the word “about”, when in actual fact all eyewitnesses were only giving an estimate. If the point is a ‘quibble’ you will be happy to accept the possibility that only three external columns of WTC7 were damaged.



Thermite would largely be affecting the core of the Towers of which NIST analysed a paltry two samples.



There are many characteristics of the collapses resembling controlled demolition, eg sudden onset, virtual symmetry, freefall and complete collapses. Where the evidence does not resemble a conventional controlled demolition, ie no audible explosions immediately prior the collapses, this is not evidence for a demolition, rather it is simply explained in very logical ways.



Not circular logic – accepting controlled demolition, the structures must have been prepped – that is deductive logic. In certain situations this must be the case, ie if someone is found with a bullet wound then we must assume they were shot.



It is more a case of the official fairytale theories being nonsensical rather than me not liking them. And the “world’s engineers” do not support this nonsense – only a fringe of engineers have even commented. In some cases, such as the ‘hollowing out’ of WTC7, this was by admission all your own work.

After taking a long look at the above I cannot hide my disdain - we have discussed the exaggeration of NIST’s WTC7 damage estimate but these fire models are on a whole other level of overstatement. NIST absolutely knew any sort of collapse would require these temperatures so that is exactly what they supplied the official fairytale with.

Where do these large regions showing 1,000^oC fires come from? What could possibly be burning in the Towers to attain these temperatures? Office contents like paper, wood, textiles, computers? Even if there were fuel to create this sort of temperature it would be in isolated areas and short-lived. Enough of my supposition; here are the facts: -

157 out of 160 panels recovered from the Towers and analysed by NIST showed no temperature greater than 250^oC. Some of these panels are taken from the very areas NIST’s models are describing 1,000^oC temperatures.

Firemen who reached the lower region of the impact zone in WTC2, directly below where NIST are indicating ‘infernos’, stated, “we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.”

Visual evidence shows that rather than raging fires within the Towers, the fires in WTC2 seemed to be dimming before collapse and indeed the thick black smoke indicates oxygen starvation and inefficient burning. In stills taken from video evidence, a person is seen waving from the impact hole in WTC1 and, looking back into the hole there is no evidence of severe fire at all.

So the relevant questions are: -

Do you believe analysis based on physical evidence?
Do you have faith in firefighters on the scene?
Do you trust your own eyes?

… or do you surrender all of that in favour of a computer model, at best based on human input thus open to failings and at worst tweaked to support the preconceived conclusion of blinkered individuals?

Operations such as burning, welding, sawing, brazing, grinding, and machining, which result in the generation of airborne particulates, may present hazards to the respiratory system.
SHORT-TERM (ACUTE) EXPOSURE: Excessive inhalation of metallic fumes and dusts may result in irritation of eyes, nose and throat. High concentrations of fumes of iron-oxide, zinc, lead and manganese may result in metal fume fever. Typical symptoms last for 12 to 48 hours and consist of a metallic taste in the mouth, dryness and irritation of the throat, chill and fever.

Your link doesn't work, and the snippet you posted (above) offers nothing that supports your argument.

I've yet to see anyone demonstrate / create microspheres with the same chemicals, in the same proportions, and is the same in all other properties as the WTC spheres.

You're claiming that the WTC spheres are commonplace within the industries you've cited. It's up to you to provide the solid evidence for that claim. A post that cites a few comments about how metallic fumes are hazardous to one's health, isn't even evidence.

There seems a general problem with links on this forum, I've frequently had them work initially, then stop working although the original page is still there. If you really want the link to the product spec, try adding "heicowiregroup.com/files/1010070821SteelWireProductsNilesStillwater2007.pdf" after www.

These common metal working methods are hot enough for metal fumes, but not hot enough for molten microspheres? What do you think the "airborne particulates" mentioned are?

What's burning is indeed building contents. What do you think was burning in the Madrid fire? Any building fire? Why do you think oxygen-starved fires are cooler? The temperatures depend not just on what's burning, but also on how fast heat can escape, and if oxygen can't get in, the chances of heat removal by convection are also reduced.

Could you give an example of a sample taken from a 1000 deg region?

The woman in the picture is right on the edge of the fire. The WTC2 fireman quote is from a level at the bottom of the damage zone, just touched by one wingtip. These instances say nothing about conditions at the heart of the fire.

I've already said why I trust computer modelling techniques - I earn my living by applying them, I've seen how far they been developed during my career.

An airliner is much slower in responding to control inputs that your UAVs, etc. You have produced no evidence that one could be remotely controlled to the accuracy you want.

You've claimed a lot, but you have failed to show that any of this would work.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of burden of proof. You are claiming something unusual, it's up to you to prove it.

So you now claim that the cascade looks like a thermite charge, but to bring down a building a thermite charge would actually have to act in a considerably different manner? You have got another unfalsifiable claim there.

For a start, it's already alight before it's covered. However, I cannot imaging that a fire in a pile of rubble that big isn't going to get the right conditions for a continuing high-temperature burn in plenty of places. This is commonplace, even the debris from the small hotel fire that I mentioned a whiles back was too hot to approach for three days.

Finally an admission that it was all based on guesswork. Perhaps you could withdraw the claim until the calculations are done.

The towers didn't have tree-like structures. The columns were stabilised by the cross-beams, and without that stabilising structure they would not stand.

To get your three columns you must stretch one eyewitness to the limit and ignore all the rest of them. Depending on where the columns lie relative to the limits of the damage, you could get three columns only damaged, but it is not the most probable scenario. On the other hand, you could also get four broken columns with only 22% of the face damaged.

However, it is all a quibble because the witnesses say the building was unsafe and out of vertical, and that is all the data the damage and fire theory needs.

Either way, there is no evidence that says "thermite" while ruling out "hot fire". You cannot claim that the lack of evidence for high fire temperatures is in some warped way evidence for thermite. Lack of evidence for one is equally lack of evidence for the other.

The onset wasn't that sudden, look at the times that the walls started to bow, some 20 minutes before collapse. The other factors are not unique to CD, but simply what happens when a structure is grossly overloaded. You may think that your attempts to explain away the lack of explosions is "logical", but to me it looks like an unfalsifiable theory in action.

And precisely what in your analogy corresponds to the bullet wound? What can be caused by CD but not by anything else?

I work with other engineers and this was all a hot topic of conversation at the time. We looked at the evidence and we speculated about the exact circumstances, but we didn't see anything suspicious about the collapses. I expect the same was true of other engineering organisations. You only put the effort into "commenting" - I presume you mean writing a paper - if you have something new to add or if you disagree with the consensus. The only papers I've seen come into the "something new" category.

As to my WTC7 theory, wheter it's right or not, no-one on this board has come forward with an engineering argument against it.

The thread is far too long for me to go looking for this. Could you set your WTC7 theory out here or else link to it please?

I think that most people are able to deal with fears and accept them as part of life...But for others, this burden is too great.
As a result, they ignore the real fears and instead create massive new things to be concerned about.

Enter the conspiracies....

The government isnt a benign entity born of social contract, its a vast, fanged beast with the most evil of agendas. Its simply more comforting to believe that either their evidence is better, or those disproving their claims are in on the conspiracy. Thus, the elaborate explanation of a simple event occupies the part of their minds that would otherwise be flooded with insecurities about everyday life.

And while true structural engineers, metallurgists, and avionics experts world wide just blow them off as ignorant fools they still truly belive in their hearts that they are right and everyone else is wrong.(!)

The hoax, if true, is fooling a vast cadre of experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web sites.




How this can make sense to anyone is beyond me.

To summarise:
Building damaged by debris from North tower collapse, fires break out and become uncontrolled, building reported unsafe. These are prime conditions for the fire to spread the damage, which it has plenty of time to do as the fire burns for hours, helped by a large supply of diesel fuel stored in the building. Eventually the damage reaches the point where it initiates a collapse of a part of the inner ring of the building structure (the building basically has an inner and an outer ring of columns). This collapse propagates up through the building, and when it reaches the roof the penthouse disappears into the building. This is a key piece of evidence that my theory explains and CD can't. The collapsing inner structure spreads as it falls (look how far the towers' debris spreads) and somewhere lower down on the building it either breaks through the outer structure or falls on beams that pull the outer columns inwards so that they break. With the outer structure damaged low down, the upper part of the outer structure falls as seen in the video.

if the building was made from wood i could see that theory working...i've yet to see a convincing theory on how building 7 was razed to the ground! with no plane hitting it.....

Happens all the time, just that most of the steel buildings brought down by fire make less of a headline. There have been at least three warehouse fires followed by collapses in the UK in the last few weeks. Only the one where firemen were killed made the TV news.

Could you set out the specific nature of the damage, with particular emphasis on the degree to which it compromised the structural integrity of the building?

I've read plenty of firefighters eyewitness accounts of external damage, and seen images showing the southwest corner damage and the 'gash', so there's no need to re-post them again. I'd like to see any video or photographic evidence you have, or any eyewitness accounts from firefighters within the building, which show or describe the internal trauma.

I have three further questions:

Could fire alone have brought this building down?

How much of the large supply of diesel fuel was stored, consumed and recovered?

Is it your view that it would be impossible for a controlled demolition to have brought the building down in the manner observed?

Basically, according to flyingswan, despite video evidence showing otherwise, WTC7 suffered a progressive collapse, spreading from the initial damage area due to heating of the steel. At some point, most of the structure interior had hollowed itself out from top to bottom, all with no visual external evidence other than the penthouse movement. The penthouse and structure below 'burrowed' down and 'bounced' outward, simultaneously striking the perimeter of WTC7, causing the virtually symmetrical, near freefall, total collapse witnessed. Yes... according to some, that was just the 'shell' of the building we see collapsing.



Though nothing like in the way the Towers had an inner and outer tube. The WTC7 columns were more evenly spaced throughout the building, breaking up the open spaces, and it is unbelievable the inner structure on the whole east side failed without affecting the adjacent façade.

This computer animation shows how WTC7, which the official fairytale says fell like a pack of cards, was built.

I believe I have presented more than enough evidence of well known systems in use today to validate both the remote airliners and demolition setup. Although not being able to debunk any of the technology I have suggested, some people would rather bury their heads in the ground than accept the possibilities. Without repeating the arguments over, this is as far as we will get with it.



Of course the visible thermite charge in WTC2 was acting differently to the others – it had been displaced/damaged by the airliner and was being released outside of the building.



So because you can ‘imagine’ the right conditions for steel melting high temperatures in the debris pile the official fairytale must be true? Imagination, fairytales and still no calculations.



No, thermite which burns at approximately 2,500^oC can easily explain the high temperatures, melted steel, “lava” and “foundry” effects without any ‘imagination’.



The Tower cores (trunk) could survive up to a point without the perimeter and adjoining floors (branches), therefore to assume that all impact forces go into the cross-sections of the columns is not giving the structure as a whole the best chance of survival. I am not saying once the upper block starts moving that it should be instantly stopped by the intact structure below, but that it should fall around much of the columns, be forced outside of the Tower footprints (path of least resistance) and slow, likely stop, the collapses.



Exactly as NIST have done.



Good – end of story as far as the truth is concerned. Why did NIST show the extreme maximum but not this possible minimum?



I am unconvinced that the walls were bowing due to being overloaded so long before the collapses. This is not visually evident in any video footage.



It was an example rather than an analogy, though I guess the bullet wound leading us to believe the person had been shot, would be the collapse of the Towers with the many features of controlled demolition. The sudden onset of virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapses, in all cases before and since 9/11 has been caused by controlled demolition and nothing else.

As an example, the figure below is taken from NISTNCSTAR1-3 (Analysis of Structural Steel) and shows the WTC1 east face. In this report it states that only 3 of the 170 exterior panels had evidence of temperatures higher than 250^oC and that none reached temperature higher than 600^oC. Here I am focussing on the two green panels which NIST recovered (circled) which cover floor 94: -




NISTCSTAR1-5 (Reconstruction of the Fires) then states regarding floor 94, “Initially, severe fires were observed on the east face, and then steadily spread around the floor”. The below figures show the fire on the east of floor 94, 15 minutes and 30 minutes after impact at approximately 1,000^oC: -




So flyingswan, are you still sure that NIST used the physical evidence to validate the fire models? If so it is going to be quite amusing seeing you try to reconcile the above images.

The south side of the building faced the tower debris piles, so it is hardly surprising that there is a lack of photo and video evidence from that direction. The one photo I have seen appears to show a large hole emitting a lot of smoke, but because of the smoke the exact size of the hole is not obvious. That is why I prefer to go by the witness statements, and as I said, the fact thet the building was considered unsafe and out of vertical is much more important that the exact size of the damage. For witnesses inside the building, the best is in fact Jennings account. Very few people were still inside the building to observe the damage.

To answer your questions:
Fire can bring down an undamaged building, but you need a much smaller fire to progress damage. A Madrid-type fire could have destroyed WTC7.

I don't have this to hand, suggest you look for it if you want to know.

I don't see how a CD set-up could work after a prolonged fire, so highly unlikely, and I don't see any logic in CD for the penthouse to collapse at the time it happened, it is again something that could damage the rest of the set-up.

Burden of proof. It is not up to me to prove that something is impossible, itself an impossibility, it is up to you to prove that it is possible. You have not given any example of a precision-controlled airliner, a CD set-up that can survive an impact and fire or a thermite CD - all fables until you come up with the evidence.