9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[Q24]

Read my post again. I am not saying that the failure starts at the roof, but in a part of the structure some way below. The penthouse moving is the visible sign that a collapse has started somewhere in the structure that supports the penthouse, not that the penthouse sytucture itself has failed.

If the final failure starts well inside the building this could easily happen again in your tests, but if the final failure is near an outside wall then the collapse would look different. It would all depend on how the fire and damage progressed through the building, it turn depending on the details of the structure and where the fire found the best sources of fuel and oxygen.

Read my post again. I did not say you believed the structure’s initial failure was at the roof. The point is that if there was a failure around the 10th floor which ‘proceeded’ upwards to the top of the building, this would necessitate each of the 37 stories above breaking free of their horizontal supports at every level. And doing this without instantaneously taking down the adjacent structural supports, ie the rest of the building, with it. You are asking us to believe the structure in the path below the penthouse acted like a tunnel right through the building; that it performed, at least initially, independently of the rest of the building. You are asking us to believe that load redistribution of the structure below the penthouse failed miserably or was non-existant. You are asking us to believe that the initial failure of a single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse at freefall speed. You are asking us to believe you are crazy.

[Llucid]

haven't had time to read through everything, but if the WTC7 building collapse was how they said it was then the BBC has psychic powers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNhbsJ81Q4

[flyingswan]

Read my post again. I did not say you believed the structure’s initial failure was at the roof. The point is that if there was a failure around the 10th floor which ‘proceeded’ upwards to the top of the building, this would necessitate each of the 37 stories above breaking free of their horizontal supports at every level. And doing this without instantaneously taking down the adjacent structural supports, ie the rest of the building, with it. You are asking us to believe the structure in the path below the penthouse acted like a tunnel right through the building; that it performed, at least initially, independently of the rest of the building. You are asking us to believe that load redistribution of the structure below the penthouse failed miserably or was non-existant. You are asking us to believe that the initial failure of a single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse at freefall speed. You are asking us to believe you are crazy.

You still seem to have no concept of structures at all. I tried to explain several pages ago that I am not claiming that a "single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse." Pericynthion has provided you with numerical examples showing that your simplistic ideas of load redistribubion are wrong. It is obvious from your post that you are trying to apply your ideas of how an intact structure should behave to a structure that has been damaged.

To start again:

The building was damaged and on fire.

Damage redistributes loads, causing undamaged elements to get near or over their design ultimate loads.

Fire weakens steel elements, so that the increased load due to damage may become more than the element can withstand.

In this way, a fire can spread damage an element at a time.

Eventually, if the fire is not checked, you can reach the situation where a single element is all that is preventing a collapse.

A collapse is a situation where the load redistribution from each element failure immediately overloads other elements.

How the sequence of element failures spreads depends on the design of the structure and the existing pre-collapse damage.

There is no reason why the collapse could not initially spread upwards rather than sideways to produced a hole through the building, then within a few seconds spread outwards to the walls and bring the whole building down.

A collapse can be very rapid, there is no magic steel that provides the sort of resistance to collapse that you seem to expect.

This rapidity may make the collapse look symmetrical, but if you examine the video you can see that one bit of the outer wall goes slightly ahead of the rest.

The building falls vertically down because that is the direction in which gravity acts.

[Sunofone]

The building falls vertically down because that is the direction in which gravity acts.

completely rediculous assertions that have no links to precedent or common sense-- columns dont just disintegrate when there are integrity breaches--here are examples of what concrete and steel buildings look like when the damage of certain load bearing members fail--

you just dont understand that math will always trump repetition

[Q24]

Good pictures showing how high rise buildings will likely fall when major damage occurs near their base on one side Sunofone. There are many examples like these yet not a single one displaying anything similar to WTC7's collapse.

You still seem to have no concept of structures at all. I tried to explain several pages ago that I am not claiming that a "single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse." Pericynthion has provided you with numerical examples showing that your simplistic ideas of load redistribubion are wrong. It is obvious from your post that you are trying to apply your ideas of how an intact structure should behave to a structure that has been damaged.

To start again:

I would prefer not to start again flyingswan - we have already discussed the main building collapse. At the moment I am trying to be more specific to the event of the penthouse falling through the building approximately 8 seconds prior to the main building collapse. You did not seriously address any of the issues I raised in my last post, so perhaps a direct question is better: -

In your scenario, why did the structure between the damaged floor and the penthouse not redistribute its load to the remaining internal structural columns thus preventing the penthouse from falling separately from the rest of WTC7?

Even Pericynthion's examples of load redistribution would agree that these loads should redistribute in some fashion to the rest of the remaining intact structural columns. I have heard it argued many times by followers of the official story, the reason for WTC7's complete downfall is that high rise steel framed buildings will not collapse until all of their main columns are brought to maximum load bearing capacity. So, according to your WTC7 penthouse theory, either: -

1. The structure below the penthouse did redistribute its load to the remaining 23 columns which then all failed in turn, leaving only the perimeter columns intact.
2. There was no load redistribution method built into WTC7, thus allowing the penthouse and structure directly below to collapse independently of the rest.

   Neither of the above seem reasonable so I offer another option: -

3. A separate damage event occurred toward the top of the structure, close to the penthouse, causing it to collapse independently of the rest of WTC7.

Take your pick.

[flyingswan]

completely rediculous assertions that have no links to precedent or common sense-- columns dont just disintegrate when there are integrity breaches--here are examples of what concrete and steel buildings look like when the damage of certain load bearing members fail--

you just dont understand that math will always trump repetition

Two points:

All your pictures show buildings that were much lower than the WTC ones. The taller a building, the less likely it is to fall sideways intact. This is because falling sideways requires bending strength and the taller the building the more bending strength is required.

Now check out how far from the building footprints WTC debris reached and compare with your photos. I don't see that your buildings got farther outside their footprints than the WTC ones.

[flyingswan]

I would prefer not to start again flyingswan - we have already discussed the main building collapse. At the moment I am trying to be more specific to the event of the penthouse falling through the building approximately 8 seconds prior to the main building collapse. You did not seriously address any of the issues I raised in my last post, so perhaps a direct question is better: -

In your scenario, why did the structure between the damaged floor and the penthouse not redistribute its load to the remaining internal structural columns thus preventing the penthouse from falling separately from the rest of WTC7?

Even Pericynthion's examples of load redistribution would agree that these loads should redistribute in some fashion to the rest of the remaining intact structural columns. I have heard it argued many times by followers of the official story, the reason for WTC7's complete downfall is that high rise steel framed buildings will not collapse until all of their main columns are brought to maximum load bearing capacity. So, according to your WTC7 penthouse theory, either: -

1. The structure below the penthouse did redistribute its load to the remaining 23 columns which then all failed in turn, leaving only the perimeter columns intact.
2. There was no load redistribution method built into WTC7, thus allowing the penthouse and structure directly below to collapse independently of the rest.

   Neither of the above seem reasonable so I offer another option: -

3. A separate damage event occurred toward the top of the structure, close to the penthouse, causing it to collapse independently of the rest of WTC7.

Take your pick.

You still do not understand the concept of load redistribution, and find anomalies simply because of this lack of understanding. Read pericynthions posts carefully and see how, even with very simple structures, the load redistribution causes some structural elements to carry much more load than others. This is the point your arguments consistently miss. This is why the damages does not spread the way you expect it to.

You do not need all 23 columns to fail before a collapse starts. A well-designed building should be able to survive a single column failure, but whether it needs two, three, four, etc adjacent columns to go before a collapse depends on the detail of the structure. Once a progressive collapse starts, the most likely direction for it to progress is vertically upwards, because the structure above is not designed to be unsupported.

With the basic double tube structure of WTC7, I see nothing anomalous in the collapse bringing down the interior tube a few seconds before the outer one.

[Radian]

I spoke to firefighters that were inside the building who said they heard explosions before they were getting out of the building before the collapse, so there is conflicting stories. I have a tendency to trust the guys inside the building as they were inside immediately before the collapse.

Mmm. I recently seen the 911 movie with what's his face.... ?? Anyway, In the film it makes a significant point that the scenes were according to the fireman's accounts.. The movie depicts before the collapse there were sounds of bombs or explosions while they were still inside the tower..

Couldn't there have been other explanations of these explosions besides bombs... ?

[Sunofone]

Mmm. I recently seen the 911 movie with what's his face.... ?? Anyway, In the film it makes a significant point that the scenes were according to the fireman's accounts.. The movie depicts before the collapse there were sounds of bombs or explosions while they were still inside the tower..

Couldn't there have been other explanations of these explosions besides bombs... ?

the only thing is we have video that cooberates the firefighters claim of "secondary devices" where the towers disintinigrate all 110 floors in ten seconds which can only occur with the use of explosives

Edited August 18, 2007 by Sunofone

[DigitalSentinal]

Rather than endlessly argue this or that, I'll just make a blanket statement and say the States did it to its own people.

Edited August 18, 2007 by DigitalSentinal

[flyingswan]

Mmm. I recently seen the 911 movie with what's his face.... ?? Anyway, In the film it makes a significant point that the scenes were according to the fireman's accounts.. The movie depicts before the collapse there were sounds of bombs or explosions while they were still inside the tower..

Couldn't there have been other explanations of these explosions besides bombs... ?

Of course. Lot of things in a burning building can make very loud noises. Structural elements breaking, things falling - especially down shafts, various closed containers exploding when their contents expand. For a CD the explosion comes right before the collapse, and this timing element seems to be missing in the general witness statements about explosions.

[flyingswan]

the only thing is we have video that cooberates the firefighters claim of "secondary devices" where the towers disintinigrate all 110 floors in ten seconds which can only occur with the use of explosives

Only your opinion. You still haven't explained what exactly would make the collapse a lot slower without CD.

Perhaps you should take this to heart:

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[Sunofone]

Only your opinion.

you are a complete joke -- perhaps you should take basic physics and some common sense to heart

[Teslasparkgap]

Subscribe to some of the YouTube posters of 9/11 events.

You will be emailed when new videos go up.

You can start the comments then and review the other postings.

The energy to destroy all the buildings may exceed the plane crashes can always be doubted.

The Deutsch Bank had a fire a day ago during tear down. I wonder how that got so damaged.

Smaller buildings nearby had damage but look in operation in the recent photo of the burning Deutsch bank.

Mayor Bloomberg say the structure is solid despite the fire.

[Q24]

You do not need all 23 columns to fail before a collapse starts. A well-designed building should be able to survive a single column failure, but whether it needs two, three, four, etc adjacent columns to go before a collapse depends on the detail of the structure. Once a progressive collapse starts, the most likely direction for it to progress is vertically upwards, because the structure above is not designed to be unsupported.

With the basic double tube structure of WTC7, I see nothing anomalous in the collapse bringing down the interior tube a few seconds before the outer one.

You did not answer the question: -

In your scenario, why did the structure between the damaged floor and the penthouse not redistribute its load to the remaining internal structural columns thus preventing the penthouse from falling separately from the rest of WTC7?

As you have a selective inability to directly answer questions, I will attempt to deduce your line of thinking. You seem to believe that the structure did transfer its load to some, but not all, of the internal columns. This ‘grouping’ of columns then failed independently of the rest of the building, causing only the penthouse and structure below to initially collapse. If this was the case, why would the event cause the complete collapse of the rest of the building? The grouping of columns below the penthouse cannot have been relying on the rest of the columns for support (otherwise it would have transferred the penthouse load to them and not collapsed independently of the main building), therefore the rest of the columns cannot have been relying on the penthouse columns for support.

Just giving my opinion on the Bankers Trust Building without any knowledge of the building's structure, I would say that there appears to be severe structural damage and I would not have been surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse.

As you know, I would have been very surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse. So after being damaged by falling debris from the Towers on 9/11 and last night sustaining a large fire for 7 hours over three floors (story here), the Bankers Trust Building is still well and truly standing with not even the slightest hint of collapse. In view of this, your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan.

[flyingswan]

you are a complete joke -- perhaps you should take basic physics and some common sense to heart

Perhaps if you had an argument, you wouldn't need an insult.

[flyingswan]

As you have a selective inability to directly answer questions, I will attempt to deduce your line of thinking. You seem to believe that the structure did transfer its load to some, but not all, of the internal columns. This ‘grouping’ of columns then failed independently of the rest of the building, causing only the penthouse and structure below to initially collapse. If this was the case, why would the event cause the complete collapse of the rest of the building? The grouping of columns below the penthouse cannot have been relying on the rest of the columns for support (otherwise it would have transferred the penthouse load to them and not collapsed independently of the main building), therefore the rest of the columns cannot have been relying on the penthouse columns for support.

Again you seem to be clinging to this idea that load transfer loads up all the remaining structure uniformly. Load can't transfer to an element that has already failed, and broken elements make a gap which load cannot transfer across.

Once the penthouse moves, you have the situation that a portion of the structure is falling through the rest of the building. This falling debris is going to cause damage on the way down, and particularly when it hits the bottom and spreads outwards. This extra damage is what causes the collapse of the rest of the building. The short delay between the penthouse movement and the rest of the collapse fits this scenario very well.

As you know, I would have been very surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse. So after being damaged by falling debris from the Towers on 9/11 and last night sustaining a large fire for 7 hours over three floors (story here), the Bankers Trust Building is still well and truly standing with not even the slightest hint of collapse. In view of this, your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan.

I didn't say it would collapse, I said I would not have been surprised if it had.

[Q24]

The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load. If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way. The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one. At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

Again you seem to be clinging to this idea that load transfer loads up all the remaining structure uniformly. Load can't transfer to an element that has already failed, and broken elements make a gap which load cannot transfer across.

Your above two comments are now directly contradicting one another. Your argument for the main collapse of WTC7 was based on columns failing and redistributing their load to remaining columns within the building one after the other. Now you are saying that loads cannot transfer across gaps. You cannot have it both ways. Also once an element has failed as you assume with the structure below the penthouse, causing a collapse separate from the rest of the building, that load above will obviously no longer be there. This would mean no extra load required redistributing to other local columns, nullifying your ‘loads reached critical point one after the other across the building’ theory. Once the penthouse structure collapsed it would have actually relieved a lot of weight on the rest of the building!

If you are claiming columns are in ‘groupings’, collapses can occur independently of each other and loads cannot transfer across gaps, you are contradicting your own theory about how the whole main structure instantaneously collapsed on itself, virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.

Once the penthouse moves, you have the situation that a portion of the structure is falling through the rest of the building. This falling debris is going to cause damage on the way down, and particularly when it hits the bottom and spreads outwards. This extra damage is what causes the collapse of the rest of the building. The short delay between the penthouse movement and the rest of the collapse fits this scenario very well.

This is a new one - now the main building collapse was not initiated by the original debris, fire, or load re-distribution; it was actually initiated by the penthouse debris when it somehow ‘spread outward’ as it reached the bottom of the building. As we are dealing with solid steel here rather than liquid, flyingswan, it would be far more likely the debris would ‘pile up’ within the ‘tunnel’ it had created. How this section managed to tear free of all its adjoining horizontal beams, creating a tunnel through the building in the first place I still do not know.

I didn't say it would collapse, I said I would not have been surprised if it had.

I did not say you said it would collapse. I said “your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan”. And indeed, as the Bankers Trust building did not come in the slightest close to collapse, the assertion it may have collapsed is plainly wrong/far off the mark/silly.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Q24

[Sunofone]

Perhaps if you had an argument, you wouldn't need an insult.

your are the one who has repeatedly refused to supply the links to the data that explains how the experts rationalize the disintigration of 110 floors and subsequent freefall collapse of two towers into their own footprints in 10 seconds-- where is the info that convinced you it is plausible? who was the structural engineer that calculated the equations and where are they?

[sirfiroth]

Boy, I cant wait for the interview in the Final Cut. Debunkers will just hate the part where it says explosions going off in building7 before either Towers collapse! Go think of a good excuse for that!

The debunkers have discredited the upcoming interview as presented by Loose Change as BS before they can get them edited, If what they claim is truth why do they have to edit and make changes in the first place? The truth does not change! IMHO Loose Change cares only for the sensationalism, not the truth.

FYI Wild speculation and accusations do not permit us to prosecute the guilty, so please post your evidence. Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? No more wild claims without evidence, we can't prosecute the parties responsible for this blasphemous act on mere speculation.

Until you can produce solid evidence that leads somewhere, please quit making baseless claims. IMHO you are making yourself look like the idiot you profess us all to be.

[Sunofone]

The debunkers have discredited the upcoming interview as presented by Loose Change as BS before they can get them edited, If what they claim is truth why do they have to edit and make changes in the first place? The truth does not change! IMHO Loose Change cares only for the sensationalism, not the truth.

FYI Wild speculation and accusations do not permit us to prosecute the guilty, so please post your evidence. Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? No more wild claims without evidence, we can't prosecute the parties responsible for this blasphemous act on mere speculation.

Until you can produce solid evidence that leads somewhere, please quit making baseless claims. IMHO you are making yourself look like the idiot you profess us all to be.

the video of firefighters and emt's claiming "secondary devices" and "bombs" is evidence and it is about to be verified by the head of security for the entire complex-- in the final cut of loose change "barry jennings" is set to testify to explosions in wtc7 which killed many people before the collapse-- also the videos of the collapses cooberate the eye wtitness testimony-- the simple fact that both 110 story towers collapsed in 10 seconds which was heavily documented is further evidence of demolitions-- the claims are based on fact and solid evidence that cannot be denied you are the only one that looks like an idiot wearing blinders that looks away from the evidence any time it is presented-- retired BYU physics professor steven jones has definitively proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that thermate was used in the demolition and not one soul has stepped up to the plate to debate him-- you want proof talk to a physics professor about jones theories and whether or not they can discredit him-- i challenge you sir to back up your rhetoric

[flyingswan]

your are the one who has repeatedly refused to supply the links to the data that explains how the experts rationalize the disintigration of 110 floors and subsequent freefall collapse of two towers into their own footprints in 10 seconds-- where is the info that convinced you it is plausible? who was the structural engineer that calculated the equations and where are they?

I gave you a link to a method for calculating how the collapse would be slowed in reply #224. You claimed to have read it.

[flyingswan]

Your above two comments are now directly contradicting one another. Your argument for the main collapse of WTC7 was based on columns failing and redistributing their load to remaining columns within the building one after the other. Now you are saying that loads cannot transfer across gaps. You cannot have it both ways. Also once an element has failed as you assume with the structure below the penthouse, causing a collapse separate from the rest of the building, that load above will obviously no longer be there. This would mean no extra load required redistributing to other local columns, nullifying your ‘loads reached critical point one after the other across the building’ theory. Once the penthouse structure collapsed it would have actually relieved a lot of weight on the rest of the building!

The loads redistribute every time an element fails. The loads cannot redistribute to an element that has already failed. Where is the contradiction?

After a partial collapse, some of the load will no longer need to be carried, but some of the structure is missing. This does not produce a situation where none of the remaining elements are overloaded.

If you are claiming columns are in ‘groupings’, collapses can occur independently of each other and loads cannot transfer across gaps, you are contradicting your own theory about how the whole main structure instantaneously collapsed on itself, virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.

This is a new one - now the main building collapse was not initiated by the original debris, fire, or load re-distribution; it was actually initiated by the penthouse debris when it somehow ‘spread outward’ as it reached the bottom of the building. As we are dealing with solid steel here rather than liquid, flyingswan, it would be far more likely the debris would ‘pile up’ within the ‘tunnel’ it had created. How this section managed to tear free of all its adjoining horizontal beams, creating a tunnel through the building in the first place I still do not know.

Hardly a new one, it stuck me as the obvious explanation the first time I saw the video of the penthouse collapse, and I have mentioned it quite a few times in my posts above.

We are not dealing with solid steel, we are dealing with a steel framework, and by the time it reaches the ground it is in a lot of pieces. These pieces can easily bounce around and hit the remaining outer columns. By your argument no debris from WTC1 could have hit and damaged WTC7.

A building is by and large supported by columns. If a sufficient number of columns fail, the beams between them and the remaining columns are not designed to take the load and the part of the building held by the broken columns will "tear free", probably causing further damage as it does so. The fact that you have to ask about that shows that you have no mental picture of how a structure works.

I did not say you said it would collapse. I said “your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan”. And indeed, as the Bankers Trust building did not come in the slightest close to collapse, the assertion it may have collapsed is plainly wrong/far off the mark/silly.

I still see no contradiction with what I said earlier. Perhaps it did not collapse this time because the damaged area had been stabilised since 9/11 and, unlike WTC7, the situation never got bad enough for the firecrews to pull out.

[sirfiroth]

the video of firefighters and emt's claiming "secondary devices" and "bombs" is evidence and it is about to be verified by the head of security for the entire complex-- in the final cut of loose change "barry jennings" is set to testify to explosions in wtc7 which killed many people before the collapse-- also the videos of the collapses cooberate the eye wtitness testimony-- the simple fact that both 110 story towers collapsed in 10 seconds which was heavily documented is further evidence of demolitions-- the claims are based on fact and solid evidence that cannot be denied you are the only one that looks like an idiot wearing blinders that looks away from the evidence any time it is presented-- retired BYU physics professor steven jones has definitively proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that thermate was used in the demolition and not one soul has stepped up to the plate to debate him-- you want proof talk to a physics professor about jones theories and whether or not they can discredit him-- i challenge you sir to back up your rhetoric

I won't hold my breath waiting for the video of the firefighters and emt's from loose change.

You did not answer my question, Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? I have a very good friend, Physics professor at UT Austin who saw no evidence of explosives being used. I watched a documentary on the history channel which stated both sides of the arguments objectively. The documentary gave clear answers to the questions you have raised. In the documentary Loose Change backed off the demolitions theory regarding the WTC.

There is no such explosive as thermate! It is Thermite of which there is no evidence to support this theory in any of the debris.

Enough said! It seems to me you will believe what you want to believe regardless of any facts.

[Q24]

FYI Wild speculation and accusations do not permit us to prosecute the guilty, so please post your evidence. Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? No more wild claims without evidence, we can't prosecute the parties responsible for this blasphemous act on mere speculation.

Until you can produce solid evidence that leads somewhere, please quit making baseless claims.

Hey sirfiroth, in response to your question, here is what I posted earlier in this thread: -

It is interesting you raise the topic of people involved not being identified. Most people know that a number of the named 'hijackers' have been found alive. So who were the men on the airliners? The only ‘evidence’ we have of Bin Laden being involved is an obviously faked video tape supposedly found by US troops in Afghanistan. Then the FBI themselves have stated “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” This also backed up by then director of the FBI Robert Mueller who said in a speech “The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper” So, whether you follow the official story or the conspiracy theory, the people involved have not been identified to a degree that would stand up in court.

With 9/11 as an inside job it is safe to say that the perpetrators wanted absolutely to cover their tracks. Therefore why is it surprising there is no hard direct evidence linking anyone to the operation? There is though plenty of circumstantial evidence linking the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to the operation. Check

and Cheney’s “the orders still stand” episode to get interested. Read up on their PNAC involvement and Rebuilding America’s Defences document for their motives.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the video of the firefighters and emt's from loose change.

If you do not like Loose Change for its presentation techniques, you could always go to YouTube and type in “secondary device”. There you will find a multitude of news reports and interviews detailing how the firefighters and federal authorities believed secondary devices were placed within the Towers. Also worth a read is the Explosive Testimony article which is a compilation of actual firefighter and EMT oral histories collected by the FDNY.

There is no such explosive as thermate! It is Thermite of which there is no evidence to support this theory in any of the debris.

Thermate exists and is a variant of thermite, sirfiroth. I do not see the relevance in which incindiaries/explosives/cutting charges may have been used but I believe there has been evidence for thermate found in the Towers by US physicist Steven Jones, though ask Sunofone - he knows more about it than me.