9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Czero 101]

Based on a simple calculation for an estimate, a typical thermitic chip 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters would contain on the order of 100's millions of seperate particles of elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimately and uniformly mixed. do you think it sensible to suggest that a three millimeter fragment of a DVD could be further fragmented into 100 million particles just by force of collisons?

Can you explain why you expect a "three millimeter fragment of a DVD" to be the source for your "typical thermitic chip 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters". I'm trying to follow your logic here, but can't seem to find any at the moment.

and then those 100 million particles come together to form a solid material uniformly embedded alongside a quantity of nano sized iron oxide particulate in an accidental ratio quantity that matches the required ratio quantities of those materials to form a thermite?

There's still no conclusive proof that it was actually thermite. You can repeat the questionable findings all you like, post links to an article on a "pay-to-publish" site that has a history of shoddy and even non-existent peer review process all you like, but that still not conclusive proof. Don't you find it odd that the test that could most likely provide the proof was never done?

Cz

[Q24]

Can you explain why you expect a "three millimeter fragment of a DVD" to be the source for your "typical thermitic chip 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters". I'm trying to follow your logic here, but can't seem to find any at the moment.

Ask booNyzarC… he suggested it, not Little Fish.

There's still no conclusive proof that it was actually thermite. You can repeat the questionable findings all you like, post links to an article on a "pay-to-publish" site that has a history of shoddy and even non-existent peer review process all you like, but that still not conclusive proof. Don't you find it odd that the test that could most likely provide the proof was never done?

The composition of the material and description of the reaction do appear thermetic.

But does it really make a difference what we call it?

We could say it’s “pixie dust” if you like…

At the end of the day a large quantity of this material was present, that when heated to 430^oC produced a reaction hot enough to create molten iron. Whatever it was and wherever it came from, this material could have had a profound influence on the structural failure of the buildings.

I think this something that NIST should have at least looked into.

[Czero 101]

Ask booNyzarC… he suggested it, not Little Fish.

Yes, I know, but the whole "3mm dvd chip = 3mm x 3mm thermite chip" was brought about by Little Fish. I don't see the logic in that assumption.

The composition of the material and description of the reaction do appear thermetic.

Key word: "appear". Sure it may appear thermitic is some situations and in the tests done, but there are tests that could have been done to conclusively show that it was thermite, or at the very least been more conclusive than what has been offered as proof so far.

But does it really make a difference what we call it?

It make a lot of difference, actually. If further testing shows that the material, while having similar characteristics to thermite, was, in fact, not thermite, then that changes a lots of things and invalidates a lot of assumptions.

At the end of the day a large quantity of this material was present, that when heated to 430^oC produced a reaction hot enough to create molten iron. Whatever it was and wherever it came from, this material could have had a profound influence on the structural failure of the buildings.

(my emphasis)

And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying. However, I don't believe that the tests done to date by those who proffer the "Thermite Theory" (call it what you will) as the only explanation for the material were sufficiently conclusive enough to make that determination with the degree of certainty offered.

I think this something that NIST should have at least looked into.

I thought they did, or at least discussed the material to some degree, however, it has been a while since I've read through their findings / reports, so I could be "mis-remembering" that

Cz

EDITED for a little grammar and formatting...

Edited September 25, 2011 by Czero 101

[booNyzarC]

Based on a simple calculation for an estimate, a typical thermitic chip 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters would contain on the order of 100's millions of seperate particles of elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimately and uniformly mixed. do you think it sensible to suggest that a three millimeter fragment of a DVD could be further fragmented into 100 million particles just by force of collisons?

and then those 100 million particles come together to form a solid material uniformly embedded alongside a quantity of nano sized iron oxide particulate in an accidental ratio quantity that matches the required ratio quantities of those materials to form a thermite?

And for that to happen over and over again such that of many samples of the dust taken miles apart, contained the same material in each sample.

I think this is as likely as random particles generated in a collision coming together randomly to form a set of table and chairs, not once but many times over. Perhaps in Douglas Adam's universe, but not this one.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

First of all, your estimate size is way off. The largest red/gray chip in Harrit's paper is roughly 2.5 millimeters x 1 millimeter. The others are more like 200 micrometers x 100 micrometers. Not even close to the 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters that you are proposing.

Second, the debris created by the collapse of the towers is extremely varied, underwent a multitude of pulverization mechanisms, included processes which undeniably resulted in vaporization and condensation of at least some materials, took place under conditions of extreme energy, friction, heat, grinding, melting, colliding, and mixing. There is no precedent for the conditions in those collapses and the buildings weren't empty like you'd find at a controlled demolition site. In many ways, the collapsing towers were literally a melting pot of a widely diverse set of ingredients under unique conditions.

For you, or anyone, to suggest that it is impossible for these materials to combine in unexpected ways under such conditions is extremely short sighted. You simply can't predict all of the possible results when you have two laboratories 208 ft x 208 ft x 1360 or so feet in size with thousands upon thousands of different processes are taking place nearly simultaneously using thousands upon thousands of varied components.

You can throw false analogies at it all you want, but they still don't compare. This is nothing like creating a chair, or a cake, or anything else like them. We are looking at tiny fragments of debris, of varying sizes and thicknesses, with varying components, and not anywhere near as uniform as you or Harrit are attempting to convey.

Add to this the complete implausibility of intentionally planted thermite in the first place and you've got a non-starter. The buildings collapsed at the areas of impact. The physics required for collapse have been adequately fleshed out and were indeed posited by Bazant and other engineers within days of the event. If thermite played a role in this event, it certainly wasn't pre-planted nanothermite, but naturally occurring thermitic reactions from the material components present as a direct result of the impact of the planes. This latter scenario has been described in detail by F. R. Greening. Additional violently explosive responses between molten aluminum and water have been proposed by Christen Simensen as noted in these articles:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html

http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html?cache=clear

For planted nanothermite to have played a role either the thermite would have to have been planted at the exact areas of the impact zones, or planted throughout the buildings in anticipation of imperfect piloting. In either scenario, the buildings would have collapsed much more quickly than they actually did because the thermitic material would have been fully consumed shortly after igniting. Assuming that this material would have been positioned in such a way to commence collapse, it should have commenced within moments of burning out. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after being struck and the North Tower after 102 minutes. Why this variance if it was a controlled demolition using nanothermite? Why not within minutes of being struck?

Why not nanothermite? Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that nanothermite was used. None of the actual facts surrounding the collapse support the notion.

[skyeagle409]

Oh really! I love debunker logic. If there is thermite, then it wasn't planted but occurred naturally.

Aircraft aluminum + iron oxide + high tempertures = thermite.

Once again, who is going to race all the way up to the point of impact and start planting thousands of pounds of explosives?

As I said, if I chuck flour, eggs, butter and sugar in my oven, I don't get a sponge cake.

With the right ingredients, you will. With aluminum and iron exide under high temperatures, you will get thermite. No explosives needed.

So if the fires heated the beams and they failed because they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors, then what about the structure which was not heat weakened that was already holding the weight of what was above it??

Much of the supporting structures were damaged by the impact of the aircraft, so the beams were under even more stress to support loads for which they were not designed.. The beams were designed to take only a certain load and heat-soaking resulted in their failures because the beams could no longer support the overhead load at levels for which they were not designed.

Unless you are suggesting that the entire lower portion was heat weakened?

Looking at the videos, there were no failures below the impact points of the aircraft, which was evident because the collapse of the buildings began at the point of those impacts.

And if a beam or beams are heat weakened, does that mean the building automatically collapses??

Depends on the extent of damage. For an example, the number of major support beams that were bent or broken.

...Because in every multi floored structure before the WTC where a fire as heat weakened the beams, the building only partially collapses?

You have to remember that those buildings were not struck by B-767s. That is a major difference between those buildings and the WTC buildings. Had those buildings been struck by B-767s, they would have gone down as well because their damaged major support beams would not be able to support overhead loads during a major fire. Another example is where more than a thousand pounds of explosives were unable to bring down one of the WTC buildings in 1993 because their were no impact damaged to the supporting structural beams beneath the building.

It can't be air, some of these air pressures happened many floors below the collapse zone and the air doesn't continue to escape as the building collapses.

The compressed air pressures didn't begin at the lower levels. Look at the videos.

Edited September 25, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

I thought they did, or at least discussed the material to some degree, however, it has been a while since I've read through their findings / reports, so I could be "mis-remembering" that

You are misremembering

[Stundie]

What do you mean it can't be air?

Because this expulsion look exactly the same as the expulsions which are seen during the collapses.

I posted this on another thread explaining the problem I have with air pressure or as it's officially known as "Debunkair ©"..

Watch this and pause the video on the 1:05 mark' date=' have a good look and then read below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EbsGZcl2jk&feature=player_embedded

That expulsion confirms to me that it is definitely not air pressure because if any air is force out because of the build up of pressure, it would escape where the air pressure is the highest which would be closer to the collapse zone.

Another reason against air pressure is that even though air is being forced down with the collapse, the collapse path/upper portion wouldn't be air tight as it's destroying the the lower portions. So there are plenty of escape routes for any build up of air pressure.

The main reason though and I laugh when I think about it too much..lol Is that if we accept for a moment that it was air pressure. I am then forced to believe that as the collapse progressed at the pause mark in the video, that this extreme air pressure built up and travelled either through or down some stair wells, through latched doors, lift shafts and air conditions ducts to some 40 odd floors below, where it ejected out of the side of the building, like a window without expelling so much as an office chair out, a door or damaging any other windows on the outer sides of building we can see. I would also be forced to believe that the air pressure once escape through the side of the building, then puffed out because this 40 odd floors of air pressure manage to escape (for the time being) through the side and never continued on it's journey to freedom and less pressure, which is odd because if it was air pressure, wouldn't we see air and debris continuously being pushed outwards as the collapse continues building pressure and now it has an escape route. However, after this puff of air pressure 40 odd floors below the collapse zone, it then decides to do a complete u-turn and then travel back up the building through all the shafts, vents etc etc and escape through the sides again up and down the building, as the collapse progresses in another series of puffs of air pressure.

Actually, after giving this much thought, I no longer support the possibility these are explosives because what I said above, sounds so logical!

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&view=findpost&p=4059584[/quote']

The expulsion of debris from the squib starts out very slow and then accelerates, just like air pressure from collapsing walls/ceilings would cause.

Sorry but it's looks just like the expulsions during the collapse, unless there are collapsing walls/ceiling happening 40 odd floors below the collapse zone.

As for the object that was ejected, it looks like a jacket to me, very much like the jacket that the poor guy at the beginning of the clip is waving around.

It doesn't look like that poor mans jacket to me because the expulsion is in a different location and floor to where the man is.

So maybe you should look again and have another guess.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Stundie

[booNyzarC]

Because this expulsion look exactly the same as the expulsions which are seen during the collapses.

Similar, but not exactly the same. This one is much smaller than those, but they were likewise caused by collapsing walls/ceilings; on a much grander scale and in quicker succession because at the point full collapse was under way.

I posted this on another thread explaining the problem I have with air pressure or as it's officially known as "Debunkair ©"..

I'm sure that you think that's clever, but I don't.

Sorry but it's looks just like the expulsions during the collapse, unless there are collapsing walls/ceiling happening 40 odd floors below the collapse zone.

During the full on collapse air pressure was being pushed downward throughout the lower floors, creating gale force winds and the resulting squibs were much larger.

It doesn't look like that poor mans jacket to me because the expulsion is in a different location and floor to where the man is.

I didn't say it was that man's jacket genius. I said it looked like a jacket, similar to the one the poor guy is waving around.

So maybe you should look again and have another guess.

I've looked at it already and have no doubt in my mind that it wasn't caused by some kind of demolition charge.

[Stundie]

Aircraft aluminum + iron oxide + high tempertures = thermite.

I have asked you time and time again, but you seem to avoid answering?

How high a temperature are you talking??

And it's certainly not as simple as you make out.

Once again, who is going to race all the way up to the point of impact and start planting thousands of pounds of explosives?

Is this the best argument you have??

Who ever said someone should race up and plant thousand of pounds of explosives? I know I didn't, so you must have had this conversation with the voices in your head.

With the right ingredients, you will.

Oh dear! The point as flew over your head hasn't it. I'll try again....lol

I have the right ingredients for a sponge cake, but I can't just chuck the ingredients into the oven and expect a cake to come out of the end.

With aluminum and iron exide under high temperatures, you will get thermite. No explosives needed.

Who said it needed explosives??

And I refer you back to my analogy, if I have the ingredients for a sponge cake, I have to do more than chuck it in the oven. I have to make sure that I have the right amount of ingredients, mix them correctly etc etc.

Much of the supporting structures were damaged by the impact of the aircraft, so the beams were under even more stress to support loads for which they were not designed.. The beams were designed to take only a certain load and heat-soaking resulted in their failures because the beams could no longer support the overhead load at levels for which they were not designed.

As I've said numerous times and what you have failed to recognise, that if a beam fails, the weighted is transferred throughout the entire load path of the structure.

That load path isn't limited to a single floor or even a few floors.

Looking at the videos, there were no failures below the impact points of the aircraft, which was evident because the collapse of the buildings began at the point of those impacts.

There was failures below the impacts because this is what caused the building to collapse, even though they did start at the point of impact.

Depends on the extent of damage. For an example, the number of major support beams that were bent or broken.

We know that the damage would have been limited to the floors of impact. So we should be able to attain that there was full structural support below the impact damage.

You have to remember that those buildings were not struck by B-767s.

Neither was WTC7.

That is a major difference between those buildings and the WTC buildings. Had those buildings been struck by B-767s, they would have gone down as well because their damaged major support beams would not be able to support overhead loads during a major fire.

WTC7 was not hit by a B-767 or any other plane.

Another example is where more than a thousand pounds of explosives were unable to bring down one of the WTC buildings in 1993 because their were no impact damaged to the supporting structural beams beneath the building.

Funny that isn't it. They failed with explosives, but maybe they should have put explosives on the floors where the plane hit to damage the same columns and just started a fire.

The compressed air pressures didn't begin at the lower levels. Look at the videos.

I never said they began at the lower levels.

I'm looking at the videos and I'm seeing air pressure "debunkair ©" go off many floors below the impact zone and then travel up the building going off closer to collapse zone. (Goto 1:05)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EbsGZcl2jk&feature=player_embedded

Maybe you should look at the video yourself.

[Little Fish]

First of all, your estimate size is way off. The largest red/gray chip in Harrit's paper is roughly 2.5 millimeters x 1 millimeter. The others are more like 200 micrometers x 100 micrometers. Not even close to the 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters that you are proposing.

Harrit's paper says the chips were 0.2 to 3 millimeters on the largest dimension. you are quibbling over a distinction without a difference. mechanical breaking and fracturing of a 3 millimeter fragment of a DVD into tens of millions or hundreds of millions of seperated elemental aluminium particles and then reforming in the correct ratios with nano sized iron oxide into millions of 0.2-2.5 millimeter thermitic chips spread out over a square mile and present in all the dust samples taken is too fanciful to be taken seriously.

Second, the debris created by the collapse of the towers is extremely varied, underwent a multitude of pulverization mechanisms, included processes which undeniably resulted in vaporization and condensation of at least some materials

aluminium cannot vapourise and then condense as elemental aluminium in air. I thought that you had accepted that, which is why you proposed the mechanical breaking of aluminium based DVDs theory above. firstly you need temperatures nearly twice that above the melting point of steel (~2500C) in order to vapourise aluminium, secondly vapourised aluminium will react immediately with the oxygen in air to form aluminium-oxide which is not reactive. the red chips contained elemental aluminium, (not aluminium-oxide).

we can also rule out the mechanical breaking of solid aluminium and iron objects as an explanation for the creation of the red chips based on the morphology and the size of the aluminium and iron oxide particles in then red chips - a 3mmx3mm chip would contain hundreds of millions of seperated and intimately mixed iron oxide and elemental-aluminium particles. these particles have constant uniformity and not the multitude of sizes and shapes you would expect from fracturing solid objects.

you are therefore left with the fact that the red chip material was manufactured this way.

[Stundie]

Similar, but not exactly the same.

No, sod it, I will say exactly the same. There are no differences!

This one is much smaller than those, but they were likewise caused by collapsing walls/ceilings; on a much grander scale and in quicker succession because at the point full collapse was under way.

Have you measured it?? Because I hope you are not offended seeing as I don't trust your judgement.

And even if they are different sizes, doesn't disprove it was possibly explosives at all.

I'm sure that you think that's clever, but I don't.

Care to explain what is not clever about it but respond on the thread.

During the full on collapse air pressure was being pushed downward throughout the lower floors, creating gale force winds and the resulting squibs were much larger.

The problem is this air pressure doesn't continue to release air as the building collapses, they are puffs of air, meaning its highly unlikely to be air pressure I'm afraid.

I didn't say it was that man's jacket genius. I said it looked like a jacket, similar to the one the poor guy is waving around.

Maybe you should be clearer in what you are saying...

As for the object that was ejected, it looks like a jacket to me, very much like the a jacket that the poor guy at the beginning of the clip is waving around.

I've looked at it already and have no doubt in my mind that it wasn't caused by some kind of demolition charge.

I'm sure you have no doubt in your mind, but you have not attempted to explain to me and the lurkers why or how you have come to the conclusion that it wasn't caused by an explosion of some kind.

And I have no doubt in mind that its not air pressure either, for the many reason I've expressed and stated in my previous post.

[booNyzarC]

I disagree. And I don't think that you are looking at the scenario honestly.

Edit: I was going to edit this to clarify that it applied to Little Fish. But hey, it applies to both of you.

Cheers.

Edited September 25, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Czero 101]

The problem is this air pressure doesn't continue to release air as the building collapses, they are puffs of air, meaning its highly unlikely to be air pressure I'm afraid.

Can you clarify what you mean by the above?

Cz

[Stundie]

I disagree. And I don't think that you are looking at the scenario honestly.

Edit: I was going to edit this to clarify that it applied to Little Fish. But hey, it applies to both of you.

Cheers.

Well if you do not care to explain why you disagree, then your opinions don't count for much really and might as well be written on the toilet roll sitting in my loo.

I can easily say that you are not looking at this scenario honestly, because you refuse to address the obvious problem that if it was air pressure, then there would be a continuous expulsion of air as the building collapsed downward.

[Stundie]

Can you clarify what you mean by the above?

Cz

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213798&view=findpost&p=4053547

Watch the video and read the comments underneath

Edited September 25, 2011 by Stundie

[booNyzarC]

Well if you do not care to explain why you disagree, then your opinions don't count for much really and might as well be written on the toilet roll sitting in my loo.

I can easily say that you are not looking at this scenario honestly, because you refuse to address the obvious problem that if it was air pressure, then there would be a continuous expulsion of air as the building collapsed downward.

I've already explained my position on the video. Your complaints regarding that explanation are what belong on the toilet roll in your loo, right next to your cocky attitude kid.

[Little Fish]

I disagree. And I don't think that you are looking at the scenario honestly.

Edit: I was going to edit this to clarify that it applied to Little Fish. But hey, it applies to both of you.

Cheers.

if you disagree then you should explain why you disagree, otherwise it looks like you are not being honest with yourself.

if you think the red thermitic material was created by the destructive wtc events, then you need to describe a valid mechanism for the metallic aluminium nanoparticles within the red material. I don't think you'll find one for the reasons given. You are on a hiding-to-nothing by pursuing this natural creation explanation.

"Metallic aluminium is very reactive with atmospheric oxygen, and a thin passivation layer of alumina (4 nm thickness) forms in about 100 picoseconds on any exposed aluminium surface"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

any evaporated aluminium will quickly react and become aluminium-oxide (alumina) vapour, so how can this alumina condense back into metallic aluminium?

If you want to attack the Harrit paper, you'll need to find reasons to reject the individual experimental findings listed at the end of the paper. the two crucial findings are metallic/elemental aluminium platelets, and the molten iron production, points 3 and 5:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

[Stundie]

I've already explained my position on the video.

I know your opinion, but you've not explained it, you have not substantiated it, you just told us your opinion that it was a wall/ceiling collapsing, even though it clearly isn't.

If it was a ceiling or a wall collapsing, then any air pressure would have an escape route through the gap of the failure point. So unlikely to cause enough pressure to blow out a glass window that is designed to withstand the wind from being so high in the sky. Unless you are suggesting that when this wall or ceiling collapsed, it some how remained air tight and no air could escape through the point of failure, so it had no choice but to bust out the window.

Your complaints regarding that explanation are what belong on the toilet roll in your loo, right next to your cocky attitude kid

No, my complaints are valid, it's just that your theory/opinions are now residing in the bowl after I've just wiped up after emptying my bowels and dumping on it sonshine. Edited September 26, 2011 by Stundie

[booNyzarC]

if you disagree then you should explain why you disagree, otherwise it looks like you are not being honest with yourself.

--

Like you did?

I've explained the mechanisms to the extent possible. And you ignored all of that so that you could focus in on how aluminum would be oxidized within picoseconds if vaporized in air. Big deal. In the post your were responding to I didn't say that aluminum was vaporized in air. I said many materials thoughout were impacted by varied processes.

All of the materials in those chips were present in the towers. Exactly how they combined during the collapse isn't something that I can answer. But they were all there. Manufactured nanothermite need not apply. Especially poorly manufactured nanothermite with the inconsistencies present in those chips.

[booNyzarC]

I know your opinion, but you've not explained it, you have not substantiated it, you just told us your opinion that it was a wall/ceiling collapsing, even though it clearly isn't.

It clearly isn't? I'm afraid that you have failed to substantiate that claim.

If it was a ceiling or a wall collapsing, then any air pressure would have an escape route through the gap of the failure point. So unlikely to cause enough pressure to blow out a glass window that is designed to withstand the wind from being so high in the sky. Unless you are suggesting that when this wall or ceiling collapsed, it some how remained air tight and no air could escape through the point of failure, so it had no choice but to bust out the window.

Where is your evidence that the window was blown out at that moment and that it hadn't been knocked out by the initial impact from the plane and ensuing fireball? For all we know that window was wide open for the whole clip and the squib was just an expulsion of dust and debris that had previously settled on the interior. What caused it? It could be just as I've said, an internal structure collapsed like a wall or ceiling. There is nothing indicating "explosive" in the clip at all. You want it to be there, but that doesn't mean it is.

As for escape back into the impact zone, this window is three or four floors below the gaping hole. We don't know what exactly is on the other side. It could be a single office. It could be a conference room. It could be a set of cubicles. We just don't know.

No, my complaints are valid, it's just that your theory/opinions are now residing in the bowl after I've just wiped up after emptying my bowels and dumping on it sonshine.

I don't know how FlyingSwan so patiently put up with your constant juvenile behavior in previous discussions, but I commend his patience and will try to follow the inspiration of his example.

[skyeagle409]

I have the right ingredients for a sponge cake, but I can't just chuck the ingredients into the oven and expect a cake to come out of the end.

Who said it needed explosives??

Looking at the video, that is compressed air blowing out the side, which is the result of the upper floors crashing down on the lower floors. The compressed air had got to go somewhere outside the building!!

Because of the fire in progress at the point of impact, you can see flames blowing out the sides of the building AS the floors are falling and that is expected as the compressed air blows out the sides of the buildings.

Do you really think that someone would carry thousands of pounds of explosives all the way up to the point of impact within minutes after the aircraft impacts?!

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

What do you mean it can't be air? The expulsion of debris from the squib starts out very slow and then accelerates, just like air pressure from collapsing walls/ceilings would cause. As for the object that was ejected, it looks like a jacket to me, very much like the jacket that the poor guy at the beginning of the clip is waving around.

You are absolutely correct!

In that video, not anything to do with explosives. They need to understand that.

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I have asked you time and time again, but you seem to avoid answering?

How high a temperature are you talking??

Over 2000 degrees.

And it's certainly not as simple as you make out.

Is this the best argument you have??

Nope.

Report Assesses Trade Center's Collapse

Protecting Skyscrapers Might Not Be Feasible, Engineering Team Says

By Bill Miller

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, May 1, 2002; Page A03

The twin towers of the World Trade Center sustained massive structural damage after two hijacked jets crashed into the 110-story buildings on Sept. 11, and the steel eventually buckled under the enormous heat generated by fires caused by spreading jet fuel, a federal team of engineers has concluded in a report to be released today.

Saying it was "remarkable" that the towers remained standing as long as they did, the engineers warned that it "may not be technically feasible" or cost-effective to design structural safeguards to protect other skyscrapers from toppling in similar attacks.

The towers, designed in the 1960s, were unique because they were built to withstand the impact of the largest jet at the time, a Boeing 707. But the design plan did not take into account the consequences of jet fuel and a massive fire, engineers said.

My link

Who ever said someone should race up and plant thousand of pounds of explosives? I know I didn't, so you must have had this conversation with the voices in your head.

Oh dear! The point as flew over your head hasn't it. I'll try again....lol

Then, I can safely assume that you don't support the skeptic's theory that explosives were planted at the points of impact, which were high above ground level.

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

As I've said numerous times and what you have failed to recognise, that if a beam fails, the weighted is transferred throughout the entire load path of the structure.

Other beams were damaged as well.

WTC7 was not hit by a B-767 or any other plane.

Then, what is the point? A skeptic posted that another steel building that was burning, (nothing to do with 911) did not collapse.

[Czero 101]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213798&view=findpost&p=4053547

Watch the video and read the comments underneath

Ok, so in essence, your position is that its not possible for the air on each floor to have been compressed to a high enough pressure to blow out the odd window here and there throughout the building?

I realize that's somewhat of a "Cole's Notes" version, but is that essentially correct?

Cz