I have just read the report, twice actually. The whole case rests on fire weakening the structure, in fact just one beam, causing the entire collapse. This is still where the problem lies however because whilst there were small fires, there still seems to have been enough heat generation to cause the global collapse. As has been stated several times on this thread, and supported by ample evidence, no structural steel buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire. The fire we had in Madrid (less than two years ago) in one building was incredibly intense, fuelled by chemicals etc. It burned for nearly 24 hours, yet the structure remained standing. The other consideration is still that WTC7 fell within its own footprint, I find within the stated theory how that can be justified.

Just my opinion

This has indeed been stated an enormous number of times, mainly by conspiracists. The trouble is, it simply isn't true. Engineers write technical papers about it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...ac416855431d6bf
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fst/23/3/23_208/_article
In view of the height of the WTC towers, it is hardly surprising that all examples are of much shorter structures, but the basic situation is that steel frames weaken in a fire and this can cause a collapse. Here are some examples:
http://www.kingspanpanels.com/Resource_Cen...e-Collapse.aspx
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
and see the bit about McCormick Place about half-way down this link:
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...000f932a8c0____
Even the Madrid building, which was partly steel and partly concrete, saw the collapse of the steel part:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
Note that although the conspiracy side usually quotes a long fire duration, like your "nearly 24 hours", major structural collapses occured much earlier after the start of the fire, in less time than WTC7 burned for.

As for buildings progressively collapsing more or less into their own footprint, this link gives a few examples:
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

Why do you say there were only small fires at WTC7? That's not what the people who were there say:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires

1. You said, “Remember that when the wall failed, the rest of the structure was already damaged and weakened by fire.” Yet there is no evidence the 47 core columns, of which most were untouched by the impact, were severely weakened by fire.
   
   
2. Then you said, “What do you think the wall above the failure is going to do if not drop?” This is an assumption the wall must ‘drop’ if weakened sufficiently. I would ask you to take a look at the North façade where the wall did not ‘drop’ despite being mostly severed. This was due to loads being transferred to adjacent columns. Ah but, you say, the adjacent columns were teetering on the brink of collapse themselves in the case of the South wall… go back to 1. above.

So yes, absolutely nothing of the official story is substantiated. That means the alleged damage levels caused during and after impacts, the hyped fire temperatures, the estimated widespread removal of fireproofing, the supposed load redistribution areas, speculative sagging of floor trusses and simultaneous complete failure of every major column across the collapse level due to this are all completely unverified. At best you could claim to have a theory, though many would say simply a fairytale.

It would be correct to say clearing up a few questions wouldn’t be enough to verify the official line or disprove the controlled demolition theory. If every single question were answered though, there would come a point where the suggestion of an inside job became untenable. Although at the moment the roles are quite the reverse; where the official story is buried under unanswerable questions and evidence for an inside job is greatly apparent.

Here’s an equally good example of an unfalsifiability as the examples you raised: -



You ask for the evidence… you are supplied with the evidence… you make excuses for the evidence – therefore, by your own definition, you are maintaining an unfalsifiable theory.



I will never see the relevance of battery fires when the level had already been covered in kerosene and ignited. I’m also completely unconvinced that 1,000^oC temperatures can be reached and maintained in real-world office fires – the examples you provided appear to be for laboratory conditions of fuel and oxygen supply giving maximum achievable temperatures. In the observed random and oxygen starved/fuel rich fires of the WTC, temperatures must be lower.

Bringing up your favourite Windsor Building fire is not a good idea for the official story, particularly in regard to fire temperature. “At their peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 Fahrenheit), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid's firefighters.” Let’s have a look at those peak 800^oC fires: -



Now THIS is an extreme fire, THIS is severe structural weakening, THIS is the cause of a partial collapse. There is nothing in the WTC event suggestive of these temperatures (indeed NIST would have us believe far higher temperatures were reached) or level of weakening, yet the sudden onset of a near freefall ‘global collapse’ occurs. It isn’t hard to spot the anomaly.



You’re clearly delusional if you think ‘evidence’ has been presented as an alternative to thermite. The only alternatives raised are highly contentious speculation.



The plan was to put a battery, aluminium and office combustibles in a container, douse it all in kerosene and ignite, then watch for any glowing orange molten metal. I’m not trying to recreate the flow, just see if I can get a bright glow to the metal from a battery/kerosene fire. I could tip/pour it all out after an hour though if that would make any difference. My prediction: big charred mess, no thermi… um, molten metal.

Although stringing together a chain of events that may or may not be plausible, any detail of the actual collapse process including explanation of the near freefall drop is absent. Just a few sections I picked out: -

• “The subsequent collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), which was not directly struck by airplanes, is more of an enigma.”

Here, from the start, Gilsanz indicates the building collapse is unusual, ie not what anybody expected due to the alleged damage or observed fires. Regardless, the rest of the paper forges on toward a pre-conceived conclusion in much the same way NIST do – not exactly good science.

• “The following analysis shows that, although there were several phases leading to the global collapse of WTC 7, the building likely would have remained standing if not for the failure of one critical column.

The idea that a structure of this size relies on one critical column to fend off near freefall, global collapse appears ridiculous. For the virtual symmetry and speed of collapse to occur as with WTC7, this must involve many columns across a level being simultaneously destroyed; never mind just one.

• This sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact façade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a “controlled” collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC 7.

Of course there was an internal failure of the structure, though it seems unlikely (as many people including FEMA have stated) that this was the result of random, sporadic office fires restricted to the lower levels. Also unlikely is an interior column weakening at a low level being able to break all connections from fire point to the roof without immediately visibly affecting the exterior walls. Neither does the idea a low level section of column may be weakened, conclude that the column all the way up to roof level should fail - load redistribution of the upper structure through adjacent columns should prevent this.

The author then openly admits the collapse looks “controlled” before wedging his square peg in the round hole before him. Looks like a controlled demolition but must be a ‘natural’ collapse – again ignoring the logical and supported conclusion before our very eyes.

• A collapse mechanism analysis performed for the removal of column 79 produced a deformed shape with a kink in the roof of the east penthouse, as captured in actual videos and photos taken that day.

Did he just say the “removal” of column 79 recreated the kink? If the computer analysis removed the whole column then I could imagine a kink produced. Please do tell how gradual heating applied to a short length of lower level column may result in its “removal”.

Not to forget, apart from the above points, the paper also includes an image of the faulty NIST damage estimate we have discussed.

If you believe all this, perhaps you could send it to "Structure Magazine". You keep saying that it is impractical for you to ask a structural engineer if my theories are valid, and here's one who puts forward similar theories. You can ask the folks at "Structure Magazine" with an e-mail - how impractical is that?

This isn't me you're accusing of entertaining ridiculous ideas any more, it's a qualified and very experienced structural engineer, publishing in the magazine of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations. But of course, you know better...

There you go again, saying you can weaken a wall indefinitely and it won't collapse. What evidence do you have that the north wall had less residual load carrying capacity after the impact than the south wall had after it had bowed inwards?

Evidence? There are pictures of floors sagging and walls bowing, of course the fire was hot enough to weaken a structure. You are the one with a fairytale - an aircraft can crash into a building without damaging the fireproofing, a visibly bowing structure isn't on the point of failure, a structure subjected to loads an order of magnitude greater than design won't collapse...

I looked at all your evidence and in every case there was less to it than appeared at first glance, like the Mossad agents' disappearing explosives. Here are a couple of links that cast doubt on other of your claims:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

The relevance of the batteries is that they are a plausible and confirmed source for the molten cascade. Unlike your displaced thermite charge or NIST's aircraft aluminium, there is nothing hypothetical about a lot of batteries at the exact point that the cascade came from.
It is hardly my problem if you don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.
The link I gave said that a test fire reached 1300 deg. This wasn't some random website, either, it was the British Standard. Of course you know better...
You are also wrong on the effects of ventilation on fire temperature, see here:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...steelComposite/
"The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. "

And did Javier Sanz measure those temperatures or just guess?
As for that spectacular picture: are you a photographer? If so, what difference do you think taking the picture at night had on the apparent brilliance of the flames?
How many times must you be told that the Windsor Building had a concrete structural core? Or don't you understand why that made a difference? Since I checked all those tilting buildings you provided pictures of some pages back and didn't find a single steel-framed one, I guess you don't.

I presented evidence that one molten cascade looks much like another. Of course, you implying that a thermite charge isn't "highly contentious speculation" does rather betray your confirmation bias...

I though the whole point of doing it your way rather than mine was to model what actually happened. It's got to be able to flow, and as you've got a much smaller fire that will cool down quickly, try tipping it after a minute rather than an hour.
How were you going to short the battery? Don't forget to charge it first.

I'm not quite sure what the aim of sending an e-mail would be other than to let the publication know of my dissatisfaction. Why don't you send an e-mail to Journal of 9/11 Studies?



You should know by now that the 'authority' trick doesn't work on me - crap is crap wherever it comes from.

But as you bow to authority, let me say in large parts it isn't me you have been arguing with, it's everyone from qualified and very experienced fire experts, physics professors and engineers, through to ex-forces personnel, ex-CIA officers and even the former President of Italy, who all know the 9/11 story we have been sold is not good enough to say the least. But of course, you know better...

Please quote where I said a structure can be "indefinitely" weakened without collapse. Do you keep creating these strawmen as you can't argue with what I'm actually saying?

The question you ask above is one that I have posed twice previously without reply: -



If you stopped employing double-standards for a moment you would see this is a question both sides need to address. Though I would have thought it quite obvious why severed columns would provide less load carrying capacity than bowed columns.



The above is all wrong wrong wrong. Using the vague term "weakening", this doesn't equate to sudden, virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse of structures. Saying impacts can damage fireproofing doesn't support that large areas of steelwork were stripped. The "structure" as a whole wasn't visibly bowing; only a limited section of "wall" was bowing and no this does not automatically indicate 'global collapse' is imminent. Where is the evidence that the relatively mild, short duration fires in the core (indicated by NIST) could bring these main columns anywhere near to their over-designed load capacities?

What is the difference between my casting doubt on your alternative theories and you casting doubt on mine? How does the inside job end up as an unfalsifiable theory by your reckoning but the official fairytale somehow does not? You are applying double-standards again.



Ok so the molten flow is mostly melted lead batteries now it seems you claim. There is everything hypothetical about random office fires, batteries or not, causing a thermite resembling pure glowing orange molten metal flow. There is nothing hypothetical that thermite appears this way.



You know better about the Windsor Building fire than the head of Madrid's fire department now?

As well as showing intense 800^oC fire, the picture also demonstrates the severe distortion a steel frame can endure prior to collapse and further, that partial collapse of areas will occur rather than 'global' collapse. For sure there is no indication a controlled demolition immitating collapse would have occured even without the concrete reinforcement. It is also interesting to note the paper linked below describes - "Though the sizes of the steel columns at the outer walls were small and thin, they had almost no fire protection and were easy to lose the strength." Would even a partial collapse have occurred with reasonable fireproofing?

Collapse Mechanism of the Windsor Building by Fire in Madrid



The point is that you believed a shorted battery would create 'unimaginable thermal effects' and produce an orange molten flow. I am suggesting adding other fuels that were known to be present to give the theory more chance of success. I would fix a steel rod across the terminals to short the battery. I can keep the fire fueled and monitor the debris for any molten metal throughout. You are predicting a suggestion of that observed at WTC2 will be visible. I am predicting a charred mess. We will see.

From the start of this thread you have been needling me for not being a structural engineer and I have been challenging you to go ask a real one if you don't believe me. For some obscure reason (scared? perish the thought) you have been very reluctant to do this, claiming it would be impractical. Now we have a real structural engineer putting forward similar ideas to mine. His publication is only an e-mail away, so why don't you contact him?

I don't bow to authority, I just say that you are trying to argue technical questions from a position of total ignorance. You don't appear to have any inclination to actually learn anything about the subject, you obviously don't believe what I say about it, so who would you believe? The answer is obvious - you believe people who confirm your pre-held opinions, and disbelieve people who don't. The problem with this technique is that you have no way of telling who is actually right.

I think I have a better grasp of structural engineering that the average physics professor or President of Italy because I actually have an engineering degree. Why do you think you know better than the average structural engineer?

You said "Then you said, “What do you think the wall above the failure is going to do if not drop?” This is an assumption the wall must ‘drop’ if weakened sufficiently."
If my assumption is wrong and there is no sufficient degree of weakening that will cause the wall to drop, then a structure can be indefinitely weakened without collapse

The north wall obviously had some residual strength, as it did not collapse immediately after the impact. It would have more or less retained this strength, as the fires were mostly on the south side and there is no evidence that sagging floor trusses were pulling it out of vertical. On the other hand, the south side began to visibly bow. This is a sign that it is losing strength, and the more it bows, the less strength it has.
So you have one wall with enough constant strength and a second wall with initially enough strength which it steadily loses. No contest which goes first.

I really don't see why I should explain this all over again. If you don't understand now you never will. However, the basic reason is that there is a combination of impact damage and fire. The impact damage redistributes the loads unevenly, so some structural elements get loaded highly, to the point where they do not need much in the way of weakening through heat or extra applied loads to fail in turn. This is a classic situation that can lead to collapse.
Every time I explain this combination of reasons, you quibble about individual ones. I know the fire alone would probably not have caused a collapse, but the fire isn't alone, it's acting on a damaged structure. Similarly, it doesn't have to be "large areas of steelwork stripped", because a column only has to be heat-weakened at one point to fail.

I am applying perfectly reasonable standards. If your claims do not hold up, they are not evidence. I asked for any reports of unusual activity in the buildings that could be evidence for your CD team. If the best you can find is one individual claiming his building was powered down for one day, while other people say it was only his floor, this is hardly evidence for a team prepping the place for CD. Not forgetting that even the conspiracists favourite CD expert says it would have taken many months to set up the towers, not a day. Plus this applies to only one building, what about the other two?

Contrast this with your "sudden" collapse which is contradicted by the pictorial evidence of bowing walls. All you could come up with against that was a suggestion that NIST had tampered with the pictures. That is a typical reaction from someone with an unfalsifyable theory.

So the facts are that the room full of batteries was there, the building was damaged and on fire, and that shorted batteries can actually get hot enough to vapourise. Against this we have a purely hypothetical displaced thermite charge, which would have to mass hundreds of kg to give that big a cascade. One hot cascade looks much like another, so is no evidence by itself for thermite, and this one appears to be cooling to a silver or grey colour at the bottom.

I just want to know how he measured the temperature.

So you still don't understand the significance of the concrete structural core. As to shortcomings in fireproofing, the WTC towers had aircraft flown into them and WTC7 had no water available. The Windsor Building collapses may not look like a CD, there are, however, reports of explosions:
http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html

I could point out that it is a whole room full of batteries that are predicted to have the 'unimaginable thermal effects', not a single battery. A smaller scale experiment obviously has a much bigger ratio of heat escape area to volume of fire.
Just don't forget to charge your battery.

With all the undeniable, hard, solid, smoking gun, clear proof presented here.
Isn't it time to make us of it and someone have the guts to file a case against.........uh? Bush? Cheney? Condi? CIA? FBI?
If no one can't figure that out, then there is no case.

I haven’t been needling you for not being a structural engineer at all – I don’t care who or what you are. The only times I have pointed out you are not from a building construction background is when you use your position as an ‘engineer’ to attempt to give credence to your theories.

I still don’t see the point in contacting Gilsanz as he won’t change his mind or be able to clarify his theory anymore than he has done already – that is because it is based on lack of evidence. I do give him credit at least for not attributing the WTC7 collapse to ‘bouncing’ columns though.

Putting aside your passing of the buck to Gilsanz for a moment, there are two questions I would be interested in you addressing: -

1. Can you, or can you not see that the paper is working to a pre-conceived conclusion?
2. Do you understand that the simulated “removal” of column 79 could not occur due to heating?

As I have said before, although having a level of technical detail, this isn’t rocket science – certainly the official fairytale deals in vague generalisations rather than specific technicalities. Who would I believe? It isn’t a case of ‘believing’; it’s finding the truth. I would accept NIST’s conclusions if they could justify their ‘findings’. I believe people who hold the opinions I have formed myself as they follow logic, unlike the alternatives.



Well if you have a bit of paper saying you did a short section on structures in a general engineering course, surely you must know all about 9/11 better than anyone else. I doubt that short section covered intelligence operations, but of course at least it covered building collapses… didn’t it? Perhaps you put more faith in your supposed understanding than is due. Perhaps if you broadened your outlook from just the WTC structures you would see why a prominent world figure such as Francesco Cossiga is better positioned to comment on 9/11 than yourself.

Regarding so called experts on this particular subject, here is an excerpt I find relevant from an article I read: -

“An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy.

Benjamin Stolberg

Experts can be safely observed in several ways. One way is to ask an expert "Where's the evidence?" This can have the same effects as a scarecrow. If you would like to avoid frightening experts away, a less drastic, although less safe, method is to distinguish between opinions and facts. As Charlie Brown said when impersonating an expert, "I am always certain about matters of opinion." By allowing experts to be certain about their opinions, you may be able to observe them for longer, but be careful that you do not confuse their opinions with facts as this can be dangerous.”

You said “You said “Then you said””

You are getting your wires crossed where I am differentiating between a wall and a whole structure. If a whole structure is weakened it may collapse, though if one wall is weakened in a steel framed building, whilst connected to the rest of the intact structure, this does not necessitate a ‘drop’. Also there is obviously the difference between the entire wall in contrast to only one area of the wall. Yes, I believe one limited region of a wall in a structure of this type as witnessed can be indefinitely weakened without collapse. That is one area of wall that can be indefinitely weakened; not an entire structure! In the case of the WTC structures, it was the former witnessed.



It has little to do with the north wall having residual strength and everything to do with the hat truss redistributing loads to the core and adjacent walls. You see, after two thirds of the north wall was severed, the remaining structure took up the excess loads, thus no collapse. The same should have been true of the south wall no matter how much weakening to it took place. Supposedly though the core was by that time weakened in excess of being ale to carry these additional loads, and that in particular is what the official story utterly fails to prove.



The “basic reason”… like there is actually a “detailed reason” anyone could give? Again for your progressive collapse theory in the case of WTC1 we are back to the problem that the tilt occurred on the opposite side to the impact damage where load redistributions were less severe. If damage had propagated from the impact area there would have been a tilt to the north.

Your lack of interpretive skills if you don’t see how power downs, security reductions, heavy machinery noises on vacant floors and Mossad agents celebrating the Tower collapses are unusual. I would not expect anything else from your unfalsifiable theory though.

Who said the controlled demolition was setup in a day? Strawman, yet again.



I did not initially say NIST tampered with the photograph, have said again since that NIST did not tamper with the photograph and now you still claim I said NIST tampered with the photograph! Another of your silly strawmen accusations.

The “sudden” description is in relation to the onset of collapse in all three of the demolished structures. The buildings did not appear to be on the brink of failure and despite the minor bowing to isolated areas of the walls, certainly no one could have predicted when the structures would come down, therefore the collapses were sudden. I could use the word "unexpected" instead of "sudden" if it irks you so much, though the words are practically the same. Incidently, I have read 'official' versions of the collapse process that describe the drops as sudden.



As the melting point of lead is a little over 300^oC, how is a battery going to continue heating up when it melts itself? How does lead/aluminium reach approximately 1,000^oC to make it glow the observed colour? Was there a near 100% heat transfer between the fire and metal? How does the metal not flow away from the heat source once it becomes molten? Was it held in a nice little container? Why is the flow intermittent? Was the non-visible movement of the structure tipping the nice little container a bit at a time?



I don’t know how he measured the temperature but when the head of Madrid’s fire department comments on the Madrid Windsor Building fire it would be smart to listen up.



The main differences with the Windsor Building explosions are - there are no reports from far below the fire level, Madrid firefighters did not find it unusual and authorities did not fear “secondary devices”.

Sticking with the Windsor Building fire comparison for a moment, why was the extreme distortion of the steel frame not visible with the WTC structures before collapse? I am aware the concrete reinforcement of the Windsor Building gives a level of support to the rest of the structure, though throughout the WTC fires, there were long periods when large areas, especially in the core, were not at extreme temperatures anyway. Why didn’t the large non-affected areas support the remaining structure with severe distortion occurring as in the Windsor Building? My bet is that the fires were not so hot.

After seeing the level of distortion the Windsor Building endured before the collapse of its steel members, to say the WTC structures entirely collapsed due to an isolated area of bowing façade is rather standing out.



I think you are suggesting I am wasting my time with this experiment. You are certainly making excuses as to why a glowing molten flow will not be present. Is it safe to say the battery molten flow theory you now believe, could only occur under specific highly unusual circumstances and that in fact generally speaking, fire and batteries will not cause an effect such as the observed molten flow?

Your link said the power down lasted a day.

If you think building power-downs or people working on vacant floors are unusual, you must work in a building that needs remarkably little maintenance.

I'm certainly not interested enough in this point to trail back through the thread looking for the quote, but someone said that.

So all the firefighters moving back from WTC7 were just cowards? Of course they were expecting a collapse.

Once again you are quibbling. All three buildings showed bowing of structural columns, which is generally seen as a sign of possible collapse.

So what's the temperature at which paper ignites and how hot do office fires get?

Of course a fire can get hotter than the initial ignition source. Once again you are completely out of touch with reality. I expect the metal was originally held in place by the room it was in, then started to move when the floor or walls distorted. I expect it was intermittent because the floor or whatever gave way in a series of movements. How does a thermite charge give an intermittent flow?

In other words, you don't know how accurate that claim is either. You've spent pages saying how NIST haven't established the temperatures in the WTC towers, yet you take this guy's word as gospel. I repeat - how did he measure the temperatures?

For a start, the core structures of the towers were hidden from view. You don't know what they were doing. However, there is no reason for the two buildings to behave in exactly the same way, they had different types of structure, the Windsor Building hadn't had an aircraft fly into it.

I think you probably are. Scaling small-scale physical experiments up to the real thing is not straightforward, because different features scale in different ways. You have to allow for square-cube law effects, etc.

You are back to claiming that the outer walls carried no load. This is not correct.

You are back to claiming no collapse however much weakened.

Perhaps you could point me to your paper showing the errors in the NIST collapse initiation simulations?

If there had been just the impact damage, the building would have remained standing. If there had been just the fires the building would have remained standing. It was the combination that did it, but you keep switching your argument. As here, you argue structures while ignoring the fire effects, elsewhere you argue about the fire while ignoring the effects of the impact damage.

But this aerospace engineer came up with a theory that has much in common with Gilsanz', so maybe I do know what I'm talking about after all.

In other words, you do not have any interest in testing your theories. Naturally, this does not indicate any lack of confidence on your part that you are right.
Why isn't it of interest to you to ask him the questions that you put to me about his article and to see what he says? Why did you want my third-party answers but not his?
Why shouldn't I pass questions about Gilsanz' paper back to him? Who better to ask?

If you mean, did he think from the start that the building fell down as a result of the damage and fires, I think the answer is yes. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this is the obvious place to start. However, the exact mechanism isn't obvious, so he has to look for some way for it to happen and this wasn't pre-conceived. If he had failed to find a collapse mechanism, then he would have had to look for other causes.

The "removal" word that you object to is a simple way of simulating in the structural model that the column has failed. Why shouldn't a column fail due to heating? They certainly did at the Windsor Building. Or are you again claiming again that nothing can ever collapse, no matter what?

It is, however, more science than you possess. You could read every page of the NIST reports and appendices - which you haven't - and still not understand whether they justified their findings or not. You just reject NIST's conclusions because they are not the conclusions you want.

So now you think politicians are reliable? That hasn't been the impression I've drawn from the rest of your posts. Oh, sorry, that was a politician who agreed with you, of course he was right...

I have been asking you for evidence of your thermite theory for months, but I've yet to see anything the least bit convincing. I've shown that you are wrong in several of your initial claims, but you still believe. You are always certain about matters of your own opinion. You are the complete expert conspiracist.

These events are not everyday occurrences. The hint of peculiarity is that the power downs, noises from vacant floors and reduction in security were all occurring simultaneously, only days before 9/11. They are not direct evidence of an inside job but they are proof of opportunity, or windows, for a controlled demolition setup.

The celebrating Mossad agents arrested in New York on 9/11 are on another level to the above and are direct indication of intelligence services involvement. I know what you think they weren’t doing, but did you ever say what you think they were doing?



Actually they were expecting WTC7 to “blow up”. Could anyone on the scene predict when the Towers were going to collapse? If not, then the collapses were sudden.



Exactly – so the heat source was not the batteries themselves but the office fires. All the talk of “unimaginable thermal effects” from short-circuits isn’t making sense. I don’t see why the official story needs batteries to explain ignition when a kerosene laden airliner has just impacted the building.



How can a room hold the metal whilst it is heated? Once the metal became molten it would flow onto the floor and spread out. Obviously, with heat rising, the highest fire temperatures occurred at the top of each level. How did the room hold the metal so that close to a 100% temperature transfer between the metal and supposed hottest part of the fire occurred? The molten flow must have been close to 1,000^oC to appear the glowing orange colour observed. These sort of temperatures usually occur in furnaces, not through random damage and office fires!

I don’t know how many thermite reactions you have seen but it sometimes happens that the reaction slows or even stops for a moment where the aluminium/iron oxide mixture is not fine enough or a pocket of thermite does not come into contact with the required heat to ignite. Physically agitating the mixture or simply waiting can allow the reaction to restart. This, especially as it was likely damaged and displaced, would explain the intermittence of the WTC2 thermite unit.



Perhaps he based the figure on his previous experience of what office fire temperatures will reach, maybe they carried out analysis on the debris. Either way, I find the head of Madrid’s firefighters to be a reliable source on the Madrid Building fire. I’m beginning to think you have something against firefighters as first you belittle the experience of those at the WTC site and now those based in Madrid – why do you think you know more about fire than firefighters?



Both structures had their steel elements exposed to fire – one suffered severe widespread distortion before partially collapsing the other showed a singular limited area of bowing before totally collapsing – but you just keep on making excuses.



Good, so at least generally speaking, battery or office fires will not create minimum near 1,000^oC temperature molten metal. It was just another bizarre event that happened on 9/11 to go along with all the others.

I know very well that each external face carried approximately 10% of the structure’s load. The problem is, you are claiming a wall cannot redistribute its load to the adjacent walls and core columns. This is not correct.



You are claiming collapse will occur no matter how inconsequential the damage.



After all we have said about the investigation, its slating by professionals in the field and your own admittance they could have done more, you still grasp at the NIST straw. First off, NIST have not provided a visual simulation of collapse initiation so far as I am aware (please link to it if I am wrong). From a NCE article: -


All NIST provide is a narrative of events leading to collapse initiation including static figures rather than a simulation (I read that is because NIST could not make the computer simulation correlate with the observed collapse). Add that NIST base their collapse initiation theory on the ‘severe’ case impact damage but not the expected ‘base’ case damage and also that they “remove” damaged columns in the same way as described in Gilsanz’ WTC7 article and as with the rest of the investigation we are left with a fairytale theory that in reality did not ever happen.



NIST state after the impacts the North and South walls each carried 7% less loads, the West and East walls carried 7% more loads and the core carried only 1% additional loads. With the safety factors involved in the Towers construction (FoS approximately 2.25 at the core and approximately 4 to the exterior columns) I believe these load redistributions were vastly within the structure’s capabilities and could not have assisted the fires greatly.

Yes, you know what you are talking about as much as the next official fairytale follower.



Answer the question: why don’t you test your theories by contacting Journal of 9/11 Studies? Then you will know my reasons also.



Enough said after the first sentence – the paper works to a preconceived conclusion. The problem then is that Gilsanz goes to unreasonable lengths and unbelievable scenarios to fit that conclusion.



If the column is not “removed”, loads should be distributed away from the damage area before they ever reach the short weakened section of column.



Who has read the entire NIST report except for the authors?! I am making a damn good go of it though – even so far as trawling through an utterly useless section on how the smoke plumes acted. I reject NIST’s conclusions for the same reason that hundreds of professionals reject them – the ‘findings’ are unreasonable.



This is a politician more removed than most from the furore surrounding 9/11 investigations. Also giving Francesco Cossiga credit, he is one of the individuals responsible for the implementation and eventual exposure of Operation Gladio – another operation involving false flag terrorist attacks, in part funded by the CIA.



Very kind of you to say so.

Of course building power-downs are everyday occurrences. As I pointed out earlier, it would take months to prep the towers, and a day's power-down does not match the time required.

I've no idea what they were doing in New York, and neither do you. Supposition isn't evidence.

Quibbling again. The WTC7 collapse was expected:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...thdrawalfromwtc

You still don't get heat and temperature, do you? Each battery was a potential heat source, and there are a lot of batteries in a UPS.

The towers had concrete floors.
And in spite of what you keep saying, office fires do reach 1000 deg C. Ask a fire engineer.

In great big lumps like that cascade? This is pure speculation on your part: let's count the hypotheses.
Thermite a feasible CD technique.
Presence of thermite CD set-up.
Very large charges needed.
Charge displaced by impact.
Displaced charge can still work.
Fire ignites charge, though your theory requires damage and fire-proof charges.
That whirring sound you hear is Occam spinning in his grave.

And this isn't an appeal to authority because...
Who is belittling firefighters? If you are right they must be involved in the conspiracy.

Pointing out the differences in the structures and their initial damaged states is hardy an excuse. Do you really think every building fire should have exactly the same outcome?

Did you even read those links on office fires? They can reach 1300 deg C, there is nothing unusual about 1000 deg. Ask a fireman.

I am claiming nothing of the sort. It's the dynamic redistibution of the south wall loads to the core that starts the collapse.

And I'm not claiming that either. Haven't I just said "If there had been just the impact damage, the building would have remained standing."?

You are quibbling again. Those engineers you quote don't say there is anything grossly wrong about the NIST simulation, they just want a different presentation of the same results. If NIST had provided such a visual version you would dismiss that as well, just as you dismissed the Purdue impact simulation, which did include such a visual presentation.
The reason that NIST initial estimate of the damage isn't the best match to the simulations isn't the only reason they suggest the damage was intermediate between that and the more severe case. The base case also failed to match the actual impact, in that it did not result in any aircraft debris going right through the building and holing the south wall. The Purdue simulation, visuals and all, did get this right and also gave more than the base damage.

There you go again, implying uniform load redistribution. The core as a whole may have been seeing its usual load, but the core was damaged, so that load would have been redistributed non-uniformly to the remaining columns.

So articles in magazines published by professional engineering associations are fairytales, but your elaborate theory with no supporting evidence isn't?

Because I have the engineering knowledge to understand those articles and see where they are making unreasonable assumptions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you do not have the technical background to judge these things. You only say that about him because he reaches wrong conclusion for your theory. If he agreed with you, you would find his ideas perfectly reasonable.

You still have not the faintest idea about how structures work. No wonder you don't dare ask a structural engineer.

Just as I said above. You admit it.

You have a power-down everyday at work? That is strange. At my work we have a power-down for one reason or another probably every 12 months. In my experience, complete power-downs of areas are rare occurrences and that one took place in a Tower the weekend before 9/11 is coincidental/suspicious at least, depending which side of the fence you are on. Obviously the controlled demoltion setup would have taken longer than a day - disruptions would have been kept to a minimum and this was one that just happened to be noticed and reported.