911 was a complete inside job-No Question About it-Evidence Here...

[jbrid1138]

I want to comment on the last few postings --

My thoughts:
These buildings (the twin towers) were unique in many ways, their height, the manner in which they were constructed -- but also quite unique in that they were mainly nearly mostly comprised of steel (not brick and mortar -- STEEL) //

Setting everything aside for a moment (except the steel part) WHAT IF (??) things were different in all of this and 9/11 wasn't the issue and Mr. LARRY SILVERSTEIN had only simply decided it was time (because of the age of the buildings and the expenses in renovations) to have the buildings demolished -- legally, of course -- how might something of such magnitude be accomplished?

I would think that he (and other interested parties) might very well consider seeking out the assistance of people that do demolitions as a profession -- wouldn't you do this if they were your buildings and you wanted to bring them down?  Safely and in the most cost effective manner.  And considering what we're talking about here (the twin towers and their height and their location) perhaps those same interested parties might give serious thought to seeking out 'true' professionals, just to make sure the job is carried off safely and successfully. 

Of course, one such method is a wrecking ball approach (even used by professionals) BUT perhaps a more appropriate and time consuming and cost effective approach would be via the use of controlled demolition.  Keep in mind that I am talking as if 9/11 never happened and these folks were seeking out professionals for a legal business transaction.  Controlled demolition has its advantages // it has become quite the art // it has become the choice method in many such legal business matters as we see in just taking a snap-shot look at one such company -- Controlled Demolitions, Inc (CDi).

Those guys know their business, inside and out, upwards and downwards (pardon the pun) // but they do know how to bring a building down using all the tools of the trade for such work.  In fact Hollywood employs them for many of their movie stunts, not only for the FLASH of such things as 'explosions' but also because they know that CDI has seriously got their act together when it comes to handling explosives.  The same folks hold Guiness World Records for bringing down the tallest of tall (buildings and other structures).  These same folks have been contracted repeatedly by our government (again quite legally) for some pretty major heavy duty business transactions involving demolitions already -- the most recent I am aware of is the apartment building that once sat at the gate of Fort Myers, VA (over looking Washington, DC) // I have a video of that business transaction that I will share with you, momentarily. 

But first to continue with my thoughts on this matter as if 9/11 had never happened:

In that case, in other words, I'm quite sure considering everything that Mr. SILVERSTEIN (and partners) would be wisely interested in seeking out the best if they had desired to bring down the towers, legally.  It'd be a good choice (CDI) because of their expertise.  At last count they had performed over 7000 (look at that number again -- 7000) controlled demolitions worldwide // and they are not alone in the business of this type.  I have something on that too, if I don't forget, I'll send your way for your info.

Since the structures (the towers) were mainly mostly nearly all comprised of steel // it stands to reason that the folks doing the demolition would NEED to use materials that can get at the steel columns and remove them out of the way so the weight of the structure can do its work.  Well, how in the world might they (or anyone) get heavy steel support beams out of the way for this to happen?  They'd have to cut them, blast them, do something to remove them -- there shouldn't be anyone with any question as regards this // not really.  But to remove them using what?

Well, that's entirely their choice -- they're the experts.  That's why Mr SILVERSTEIN (and partners) might go in search of that same expertise, because they would know best. 

Don't you think so?  Well, it makes perfect sense to me laying it out in this fashion -- What if done legally, what would those in the know use?  That's their call.

I think we can all agree that whatever the right tool might be, it sure in the heck wouldn't be crashing an airplane into the towers // that would be entirely too risky and entirely too dangerous // people would be killed doing something that stupid and drastic.  And if the ones doing 'the doing' actually thought that jet fuel from those same airplanes might do the trick -- then that's just being flat out dumb, because that would mean that the 'experts' weren't really expert at all // because jet fuel (kerosene) just couldn't wouldn't get hot enough to destroy all that (and there is a heck of a lot of it) -- STEEL.  The two are friends (steel/fire) not enemies, in other words -- one can't harm the other -- it just wouldn't be a suitable workable demolition choice, now would it.  So, then, what's the solution?

Maybe -- now this coming from someone on the outside looking in // maybe (??) -- something of a chemical compound that is 'known' to produce sufficient heat and force to 'cut steel' same as a knife might cut a tomato, a hot knife through a cold stick of butter.   

Obviously to keep this on track it would be to combine people who know their business and which method(s) are the best.  Regardless, they would really have their work cut out for them (again no pun) because of the type of structure AND the heights involved.  Get the appropriate steel support beams out of the way, as efficient and as fast as possible -- just to get that tall structure down and maintain some sense of control (to prevent it from uncontrolled collapse from such great heights) // it would be quite a feat -- even if 9/11 had never happened and the demolition process was a normal everyday legal transaction.  What a challenge it would be for any company, even a super-sklilled one. 

Now (back to reality) -- WE KNOW 9/11 DID HAPPEN -- And we know something else, that controlled demolitions are not so unusual.  And we know that since we're talking about 9/11 and people died, and that death and destruction was the plan, that how this demolition process was to be handled was a bit different than normal because safety ALWAYS A FIRST CONCERN when it comes to the everyday process -- would be of little concern, considering.  People died on 9/11, again the plan -- we know that, so much so that safety flew right out the window because it wasn't necessary.  But it was necessary to get those towers down quickly, the physics of something like that don't change, but the method of how that is (was) to be accomplished -- does.  Surely even the tools of choice change right along with other concerns.   

Folks, there are so many things that we do know, things that we see, yet some continue to fight the logic of it all when it comes to these things.  We have an expert, Mr. Loizeaux, the president of CDI, claiming to have known in 'a nanosecond' that those towers were coming down, and in which order, simply because he saw it unfolding on television (and that meant airplanes and jet fuel // the worst possible scenario for bringing those tall buildings down) -- yet someone who would better than most of us realize this, claims to have thrown all that out the window and known in 'a nanosecond' something that had never before in history ever happened.

Now what do you think that means?

And then he goes on to say he tried to get in touch with Mayor Guiliani at the WTC7 but the telephone circuits were busy -- could that maybe account for how Guiliani found out the towers were coming down? (maybe Loizeaux truly did get through to him) but has since forgotten he was told the same -- Loizeaux says he tried to do this important thing because he didn't want all those rescue workers caught up in the falling mess that he knew in 'a nanosecond' was gonna come down and in which order // Hey, folks, those towers didn't fall down, they stayed put for nearly 2-hours in one case, 1-hour in the other -- we know that, too.

And those are explosions we see bringing down the towers.  I mean we can see it happening as the floors explode many feet outwards into a cloud of dust as the runaway freight train of mass rushes to earth nearly at free fall speed.  Which we also know only makes sense if the supporting structures had been removed -- 'first'  -- we know this, we're not idiots.  Well, maybe some are.

Some things I promised you:
-- Fort Myers --
http://www.krem.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=69105&catId=126

-- World's Top 100 Demolition Companies (2005 Edition) --
http://www.cherrycompanies.com/pdf/2005March_dri.pdf

And some additional links of interest:
-- WTC Brought Down by Bombs, Not Jet Fuel Fire! --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqcp7k

-- Controlled Demolition -- A World Record Event (1998) --
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120
***extract***
'In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure' // (There were a total of 33 levels in the structure, including: basements; mezzanines; full floors; and, the penthous.)

typos


 

[jbrid1138]

(snip) Here are two articles that disagree with Steven Jones method and conclusions on thermate/thermite. Both articles come from within the truth movement, and seem to me to raise valid questions on his work that should at least be considered.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.html
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html

Okay, so here we go // A war between scientist // I don't want to get caught up in something like this.  The same seems a bit SciFi for my taste.  Not saying I agree or disagree here, just wanting to clear up something:

Based upon the articles you provide, Dr. Wood's appraisal of what actually brought down the WTC was a weapon of directed High Energy Beam design.  She contacted NIST and urged them to understand this and change their findings.

Of course NIST brushed this proposal aside saying NO change to their published work.
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_003222.pdf

[Biggs]

A scalar weapon e.g. HAARP would explain the melted cars and fire trucks, plus that disappearing  steel core that can be seen in one shot turning to dust (many hundreds of tons 600 feet high just turns to dust in shot).

But there is no direct evidence of it yet, and I do not see how they could use just this method and hope for clean demolitions.

My guess is they did something like this.

1) crash remote controlled military planes into towers (OR missiles with hologram etc and computer graphics on tv) 
2) use thermate/ite in the initial explosions to cut some columns
3) use a standard demolition sequence again using thermate/ite, but in addition one or several very low yield micro nukes 9blast radius 10 metres, less than 0.1KT yield)
4) perhaps a particulate beam weapon just as a test and as a last ditch back up in case demolition sequence and micro nukes fail to work properly.

however, it is just a guess and I would not claim otherwise.

[zlater]

Zlater-The answer to your questions on fuel is JetA-this is a kerosene based fuel which has a auto-ignition (this is the temperature that if you heat the fuel to, it will ignite by itself) temperature of 460 degrees F,  a flashpoint of 100 degrees F, and the flame pool rate is 150 ft per sec (if you had a pool of fuel from the end zone to the 50 yrd line and ignited it at the end zone, it would take one sec to get to the 50 yrd line.

thank you very much maddog3n.. 
a few more questions.. How big is a 757 fuel tank, an estimate on how much would have been left in the tanks and finally how many seconds for that to burn away completely?

Biggs > why would they have gone to the trouble with using beams, haarp, holograms or anything else when skyscrapers are demolished in freefall easily with thermate? They had to get the core of the towers down. The vids were not only on tv but also by peoples own videocameras and who would edit them? there were debris, molten steel running out in places on the side and squids that well could have spread stuff. Where exactly do you say there were molten cars and got pics or vids on them? But it's best to concentrate on the big picture instead of details. (says me asking about the jetfuelstuff >.< ).

[jannerbob]

Zlater-The answer to your questions on fuel is JetA-this is a kerosene based fuel which has a auto-ignition (this is the temperature that if you heat the fuel to, it will ignite by itself) temperature of 460 degrees F,  a flashpoint of 100 degrees F, and the flame pool rate is 150 ft per sec (if you had a pool of fuel from the end zone to the 50 yrd line and ignited it at the end zone, it would take one sec to get to the 50 yrd line.

thank you very much maddog3n.. 
a few more questions.. How big is a 757 fuel tank, an estimate on how much would have been left in the tanks and finally how many seconds for that to burn away completely?

Biggs > why would they have gone to the trouble with using beams, haarp, holograms or anything else when skyscrapers are demolished in freefall easily with thermate? They had to get the core of the towers down. The vids were not only on tv but also by peoples own videocameras and who would edit them? there were debris, molten steel running out in places on the side and squids that well could have spread stuff. Where exactly do you say there were molten cars and got pics or vids on them? But it's best to concentrate on the big picture instead of details. (says me asking about the jetfuelstuff >.< ).

NIST answer the jet fuel.It doesn,t matter how big the tanks were they are only filled with the amount of fuel needed for the flight.In the case of the second plane that was 10,000 gallons.70% of that fuel burned up on the initial fireball leaving 3000 gallons.3000 gallons will fit in an 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot box.NIST and  FEMA acknowledge the fuel burned out in minutes.Dr Wood is a disinformation agent,nothing she has ever said should be taken seriously.She doesn,t even know what an elastic collision is.She even struggles with the laws of momentum.I read somewhere she teaches college students.God help you.

[jbrid1138]

Very interesting post you make there (the facts) // and while we're getting hung up on jet fuel fires -- let's not forget this tiny little fact:
_______________
(as per) Professor Eagar of MIT --

Thomas Eagar is a professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society published his analysis that explains the fire could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel. His main points were:

Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F).

Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of approximately 1000°C (1800°F) when mixed with air in perfect proportions,but this only causes steel to glow a bright red. Therefore, theories that claim the steel melted violate the laws of physics.

It is virtually impossible for an airplane crash to coincidentally mix the fuel and air in such perfect proportions that the maximum possible temperature is achieved. Therefore, the temperature of the steel was certainly significantly less than the maximum of 1000°C. Theories that claim the steel reached temperatures near 1000°C could be described as violating the laws of statistics.

[zlater]

thanks both of you (jannerbob and jbrid1138)!

Exactly and precisely to the point i was after. I'm 100% satisfied with the facts about the fuel. Never thought it could melt steel anyway, i mean steel is steel for crying out loud and the main fact these towers were BUILT to withstand impacts etc from planes.

good discussion.

[jannerbob]

Just found something interesting?.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Citicorp_Center.html

"For the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inch-thick steel plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints during the night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public."

So workmen can go into a building during the night to weld plates without anybody even knowing.How many people have you heard say"How could they get in the towers to plant explosives without anybody knowing".That case has been officially shot down in flames.

[jannerbob]

thanks both of you (jannerbob and jbrid1138)!

Exactly and precisely to the point i was after. I'm 100% satisfied with the facts about the fuel. Never thought it could melt steel anyway, i mean steel is steel for crying out loud and the main fact these towers were BUILT to withstand impacts etc from planes.

good discussion.

Fire is the key to understanding what happened.The problem is that NIST used a computer simulation to find the answer to collapse initiation.I  have a real problem with that!.They basically tweaked the simulation adding more heat,reducing the core columns and stripping thermal cladding until it had the desired effect.The end result was that the core was 700 degrees c plus even talking about 1100 degrees c.That is nonsense,the fire would only be burning at 650 degrees c maximum and that fire was heating the whole 200,000 ton structure.Add to that that NIST analysed steel from the towers.They say that steel was only 0.5 of the total steel but that is still 1000 ton of steel.Only two pieces of that steel got hotter than 250 degrees c.Real physical evidence does not lie.

[jbrid1138]

Just found something interesting?.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Citicorp_Center.html

"For the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inch-thick steel plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints during the night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public."

So workmen can go into a building during the night to weld plates without anybody even knowing.How many people have you heard say"How could they get in the towers to plant explosives without anybody knowing".That case has been officially shot down in flames.

Excellent find.

And think about this also:
(power downs at WTC)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/339746/power_down_in_trade_centers_weekend_before_9_11/

[jannerbob]

Just found something interesting?.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Citicorp_Center.html

"For the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inch-thick steel plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints during the night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public."

So workmen can go into a building during the night to weld plates without anybody even knowing.How many people have you heard say"How could they get in the towers to plant explosives without anybody knowing".That case has been officially shot down in flames.

Excellent find.

And think about this also:
(power downs at WTC)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/339746/power_down_in_trade_centers_weekend_before_9_11/

Thanks,that is a good film.You do not need to shut anything down to upgrade internet cables anyway.How much clearer do people want it .

[roxdog]

Where did all the posts from that f^ckhead sevon go?

[bryan]

this discussion is pointless

anyone visiting this site knows that 911 was an inside job

those that are saying the opposite are gov't disinfo agents

it's as simple as that!

if this site continues to allow this disinfo agents time..then you know prisonplanetforum is gov't run

watch and observe

if you believe that this place is gov't run go away and take care of those you love

the disinfo agents will be jobless and homeless soon enough

LOL!

[roxdog]

this discussion is pointless

anyone visiting this site knows that 911 was an inside job

those that are saying the opposite are gov't disinfo agents

it's as simple as that!

if this site continues to allow this disinfo agents time..then you know prisonplanetforum is gov't run

watch and observe

if you believe that this place is gov't run go away and take care of those you love

the disinfo agents will be jobless and homeless soon enough

LOL!

F^ck the disinfo agents & trolls.
We dont need proof to know it was an inside job.
ban anyone who says otherwise

[Alex_V]

If you have ever seen molten aluminum then you will realise that the molten liquid was ferrous.Aluminum has a distinctive colour.That molten metal remained molten all the way to the ground,alluminim melts at 660 degrees c and would therefore cool and solidify very quickly.Steel melts at over 1500 degrees c yet it is now accepted that the towers were not even half of that temperature.I work with steel every day and i know what molten steel looks like.That molten metal was ferrous there is no doubt.

I don't doubt that you may be right, but I am dubious as to how you can tell that a molten liquid is ferrous from a distance, given only the colour of the liquid. Is it the tone of the colour, or a more specific feature that makes you certain that it's ferrous?

If aluminium melts at 660 degrees c is not to state that the molten liquid, if it did contain aluminium, would have to be exactly 660 degrees c. It would have to be at least that temperature.

The steel samples proved that a eutectic reaction causing intergranular melting occurred in that steel.How can you explain that by contamination as eutectic reaction can only occur at above 1000 degrees c and has never happened in an office fire in the history of office fires.

The following link seems to suggest that office fires can reach over 1000 degrees c...

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

Granted Jones as of yet has not conclusively proved anything but think about this.If the eutectic reaction occurred naturally{causing the steel to melt at 500 degrees c  lower than standard}then every steel frame building is at risk and should be demolished.If every day objects caused the intergranular melting then every steel framed building in the world should be deemed unsafe and demolished.Has anybody even mentioned this fact because eutectic reaction did occur it has been well documented.No recommendations have ever been made so every high rise steel framed building must be safe.Everybody with any knowledge of eutectic reaction knows it happened on 9/11 and never has or ever will occur in an office fire ever again.Of all the unexplainable events that happened that day the eutectic reaction causing intergranular melting of steel turning into swiss cheese is the biggest smoking gun of all.Does thermate explain it,you better believe it does perfectly.Or was it the Sheetrock or the sea salts or the steam or the jet fuel.Talk about desperation.Steel framed buildings with Sheetrock! demolish them they are unsafe,any buildings near the sea! demolish them they are unsafe,Any buildings that might catch fire on a rainy day! demolish them they are unsafe.Do you see where i am going with this..Dr Judy Wood in my opinion is a disinformation specialist.She talks of energy pulse beams and other nonsense.Do not put any faith in her.

I take your point. I believe another explanation for it was the possibility of acid rain. What I don't understand is how thermate is a better explanation for it than other ones. I agree it's the best explanation that supports a controlled demolition, but that would be providing the answer that most fits the conclusion that you want.

The samples Jones has in his possession show high concentrations of metals and metalloid's including aluminum, chromium , antimony, molybdenum, barium, manganese, copper, and zinc, as well as moderate concentrations of lead, selenium, and vanadium.Jones has always stated that a thermate variant was used.His studies are continuing,nothing is proven and nothing is disproven.Jones is the only person looking for an answer though and considering the seriousness of the topic that is positvely shameful.

That is kind of my point though. Nothing is proven and nothing is disproven. So why jump to big conclusions?

Many of the initial questions still remain. Has thermate or thermite ever been used in a controlled demoltion? No. I'm not convinced as yet of your personal testimony that the liquid flowing from the building HAD to be ferrous (and neither are the writers of the articles I cited earlier). The contamination of Jones' samples surely cannot be ruled out. Neither can the alternate explanations for his findings - they could be thermate, or they could be something else.

[jannerbob]

All I can do Alex is give you my theories as a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this. Firstly aluminum glows a silvery green color whereas iron and steel glow orange. The fact that Aluminum melts at such a low temperature means that in air it will cool and solidify quickly, in seconds. The fact is this molten metal glowed orange and was liquid all the way down the building. I witness molten metals every day and I think I should be able to distinguish between Aluminum and steel in fact I know I can, in a second.

Some building fires can burn at 1000 degrees c but every fire is different. I always quote from NIST as often as possible and they say that the impact and damage to the building did not aid oxygen supply. This was a very well thought out building, the core was hermetically sealed to make sure in a fire there would be no updraft or chimney effect. Also every floor was sealed from the next; this was added after the 75 fire. The point of this was to make sure that oxygen from lower floors would not be sucked into the fire. A woman called Edna Crinton was also stood in the gaping wound left by the plane.This is where the oxygen supply was at its greatest and she is not burning. Google Edna Crinton and you will see what I mean. Fire needs fuel and oxygen in the right amounts to reach 1000 degrees c.This fire was fuel rich oxygen starved hence all the black smoke. Blow on a campfire and notice the fire gets hotter, less smoke more flame. Bad oxygen supply bad fire and this was a bad, bad fire. At times there was barely any visible flame just masses of smoke. Light a campfire and before it takes hold it is all smoke. When the fire kicks in there is more flame and less smoke. Smoke bad fire, flame good fire, what did you see.

Acid rain, sea salt,steam,sheetrock all of them have sulfur but again my point is that if acid rain causes steel to melt 500 degrees c lower than normal then every steel framed building in the world is unsafe. Nobody has suggested this so I think using these things to explain how sulfur got into the grain structure of steel is highly dubious. Not impossible granted but in my opinion not plausible. When something has never happened before I do expect proper analysis and investigation to explain why. This has not been done though and I feel that is outrageous because other buildings remain unsafe until that analysis is done. I think it has not been done because the powers that be already know the answer. As of yet thermate is only a theory, I don,.t see how Jones can do this on his own so it will remain only a theory.In my opinion it is a better theory than acid rain don,t you?.We are now nearly six years away from 9/11.We are no closer to answers now than we were then.As an engineer not one official explanation has come anywhere near explaining what was going on.I had to force myself through the NIST report and there wasn,t a page that didn,t contradict itself.It debunked itself from start to finish,it was an abomination of a report.10,000 pages and they never even explained the collapse.They explained collapse initiation,the moment the building started to collapse.All the unexplainable stuff happened after that,near freefall collapse,pyroclastic flow,pulverisation,steel beams being shot hundreds of feet sideways,body parts found on the roof of buildings 100,s of yards away.NIST explained none of that,the building initiated collapse and thats it end of report.Thats no more than criminal.The coup de gras is we are still waiting for the WTC7 report.6 years not long enough for them or is it that they can,t explain it.How can you explain the unexplainable,thats a tough call.

These are only my own views and i am fully aware that at the end of the day my theories mean absolutely nothing.I think however i can spot the difference between what is plausible and what is not.

[TruthgoneWild]

Some building fires can burn at 1000 degrees c

Would you like to show examples of this?

Thanks

[Sonja]

Dig- He's agreeing with us, you silly bird.

[zlater]

 

Yeah DIG.. and trying to explain things to Alex_V..

[Alex_V]

All I can do Alex is give you my theories as a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this. Firstly aluminum glows a silvery green color whereas iron and steel glow orange. The fact that Aluminum melts at such a low temperature means that in air it will cool and solidify quickly, in seconds. The fact is this molten metal glowed orange and was liquid all the way down the building. I witness molten metals every day and I think I should be able to distinguish between Aluminum and steel in fact I know I can, in a second.

I respect your credentials. I'm sorry to spam the thread with a cut & paste, but I just think the following piece of writing makes a better case than I ever could.

    Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

    The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

    First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

    I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

    Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

    If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

    Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

    The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

    The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

    The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

    Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

    Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

    The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

    THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

    Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

    I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

    Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

    Stephen D. Chastain

[Biggs]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

There is a problem here, the towers were built with a vast excess of tensile strength, more than 100% excess, and as such even at 1000C (which is far from proven, the fires were looking more like they were dying down, emitting black smoke from smouldering by the end, the NYPD also reported that guys on the scene thought the fires could be tackled, they are all dead now of course).

However, even if we say that the fires reached 1000F for a sustained time (as claimed above), then the towers should still have held firm, or at least even if the towers melted at the impact areas, the top should have slid off the buildings and into the street. As the towers below the impact area (and any alleged melting) should have held firm without the slightest problem as they were not burning at all (and hence could not have reached a temperature high enough to have an effect on tensile strength).

[maddog3n]

Alex- While I commend your tenacity on this point, really the point is moot.  The hypothesis of the burning vs demolition is a non-sequitur argument.  I will explain why.  I will concede that the that building did collapse from the jet fuel fire.  But I would then ask look how that could happen and give us the results that will all witnessed. I posted this earlier in the thread and obviously it was overlooked because if I'm wrong, please explain how I am wrong.

"I would like to point out a very good hypothesis theory test, if you haven’t heard of it, it’s called, Occam’s Razor.  William of Occam was a 13th century Francisican Monk and philosopher.   This methodology is stilled used today in the sciences.   In latin Occam’s Razor states, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” which literally means, “Dual theories should not be used beyond what is necessary”(My translation).  However, my modern interpretation is, “When given two equal but opposing viewpoints, the simpler explanation is the most accurate.”  It my definition for common sense.  Now to give a modern example of this in relation to 9/11, what is more plausible?  That a jet fuel fire that can only obtain 2000 degrees fahrenheit temperature melted reinforced steel (which melts at 3000 degrees) and weakened the 47 columns on one floor simultaneously within 45 minutes and hour and one half respectively (going off the top of my head with the times, but I know they were under two hours)?  This is what would have had too happen for the 3 buildings to collapse straight down as they did.  Or it was a controlled demolition?  Now, I might be able to buy it happening once but three times seems a little beyond the pale of simple chance, don’t you think?  But when we look at the footage and pictures, the most telling evidence is where the two aircraft struck on the building.  Neither, hit dead center in relation to the floor of the building, they hit to the side.  And as anyone who has built a house of cards knows, if you pull the card on the side out it will fall in that direction.  If you pull the cards out the center it will fall straight down.  It really is that simple.  You saw it with your own eyes.  The facts are not refutable.
To sevon- he said that his hypothesis was based on the characteristics of the fire that were viewed thru footage and eyewitness account and how they related to how thermite burns. I believe he said that only thermite produces these effects.  Seems that your argument is only based on this issue.  Lets take whether not it was thermite out of the equation.   Det cord can cut steel just as well as thermite.  Please explain how three building still dropped straight down?  And please don’t tell me that it my argument that I have to prove, as I stated above, you saw it with you own eyes.  Any 8-year-old child knows this principle.  And if you don’t like the house of cards theory, how about building a fort, a snowman, a sandcastle, etc… most kids learn very young that if you weaken one side of structure it will topple in that direction.  And yet we are to believe that in three separate instances those laws of physics were abated and the perfect conditions were made to come about by simply flying a jet loaded with fuel into a building."

I would further add to this that if your going to say that the fire engulfed the whole floor...well I don't see how that is possible from where the planes hit and given other building of similar design have withstood fires lasting longer in duration and that the fires encompassed more floors than on 911.  But lets just say we rack all that up to coincedence, that the north and south towers collapsed from the jet fuel, how can one explain then what happened with WTC 7.  Surely, there is no evidence to suggest that it received the the same amount of fuel from the airplanes to allow it to collapse perfectly as well. 

[zlater]

Who's this Steven D Chastain anyway? I think he speaks so convincing lies. He's bound to know if he's any scientist just like biggs mentioned the towers like any higher skyscraper are BUILT TO WITHSTAND JETLINERS AND THE CONSEQUENCES!.

It's not like "oooh we designed a empty-of-fuel jetliner that is weightless and can be thrown into the tower by a giant named jim"..

The main structure was steel and it would have hold even if the tower would have been filled with jetfuel and burning for weeks after the residue of jetfuel was no more..

[jannerbob]

All I can do Alex is give you my theories as a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this. Firstly aluminum glows a silvery green color whereas iron and steel glow orange. The fact that Aluminum melts at such a low temperature means that in air it will cool and solidify quickly, in seconds. The fact is this molten metal glowed orange and was liquid all the way down the building. I witness molten metals every day and I think I should be able to distinguish between Aluminum and steel in fact I know I can, in a second.

Some building fires can burn at 1000 degrees c but every fire is different. I always quote from NIST as often as possible and they say that the impact and damage to the building did not aid oxygen supply. This was a very well thought out building, the core was hermetically sealed to make sure in a fire there would be no updraft or chimney effect. Also every floor was sealed from the next; this was added after the 75 fire. The point of this was to make sure that oxygen from lower floors would not be sucked into the fire. A woman called Edna Crinton was also stood in the gaping wound left by the plane.This is where the oxygen supply was at its greatest and she is not burning. Google Edna Crinton and you will see what I mean. Fire needs fuel and oxygen in the right amounts to reach 1000 degrees c.This fire was fuel rich oxygen starved hence all the black smoke. Blow on a campfire and notice the fire gets hotter, less smoke more flame. Bad oxygen supply bad fire and this was a bad, bad fire. At times there was barely any visible flame just masses of smoke. Light a campfire and before it takes hold it is all smoke. When the fire kicks in there is more flame and less smoke. Smoke bad fire, flame good fire, what did you see.

Acid rain, sea salt,steam,sheetrock all of them have sulfur but again my point is that if acid rain causes steel to melt 500 degrees c lower than normal then every steel framed building in the world is unsafe. Nobody has suggested this so I think using these things to explain how sulfur got into the grain structure of steel is highly dubious. Not impossible granted but in my opinion not plausible. When something has never happened before I do expect proper analysis and investigation to explain why. This has not been done though and I feel that is outrageous because other buildings remain unsafe until that analysis is done. I think it has not been done because the powers that be already know the answer. As of yet thermate is only a theory, I don,.t see how Jones can do this on his own so it will remain only a theory.In my opinion it is a better theory than acid rain don,t you?.We are now nearly six years away from 9/11.We are no closer to answers now than we were then.As an engineer not one official explanation has come anywhere near explaining what was going on.I had to force myself through the NIST report and there wasn,t a page that didn,t contradict itself.It debunked itself from start to finish,it was an abomination of a report.10,000 pages and they never even explained the collapse.They explained collapse initiation,the moment the building started to collapse.All the unexplainable stuff happened after that,near freefall collapse,pyroclastic flow,pulverisation,steel beams being shot hundreds of feet sideways,body parts found on the roof of buildings 100,s of yards away.NIST explained none of that,the building initiated collapse and thats it end of report.Thats no more than criminal.The coup de gras is we are still waiting for the WTC7 report.6 years not long enough for them or is it that they can,t explain it.How can you explain the unexplainable,thats a tough call.

These are only my own views and i am fully aware that at the end of the day my theories mean absolutely nothing.I think however i can spot the difference between what is plausible and what is not.

Forgive me but if you are not a complete idiot (and i mean that literally and not derogatory) you are here to spread dis-info........Why would i say you are an idiot? If you can't simply look at building 7 and see that it's controlled then you are more than mildly retarded or simply an enemy of freedom and you will be thrown in prison with the rest of the corporate mafia. LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

Read my post again,in fact read all my posts.I am a strong advocater that the buildings could not have fallen the way NIST explain.As of yet the thermate theory is only a theory,that is a fact.But WTC7 could not come down because of fire.WTC1 and WTC2 could not have come down because of fire,damage or a combination of both.Idon,t know how much clearer i could be.Like i said read all my posts and see where i am coming from.I am aware that most people don,t understand what i am talking about,eutectic reaction is not something people grasp but trust me when i say that 9/11 was an inside job,all three buildings were brought down.Don,t put all your eggs in one basket with thermate though.If it was used that was only a small part of the overall picture.Conventional explosives brought the buildings down,thermate may  have aided that but thermate alone didn,t bring the buildings down.

[jannerbob]

All I can do Alex is give you my theories as a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this. Firstly aluminum glows a silvery green color whereas iron and steel glow orange. The fact that Aluminum melts at such a low temperature means that in air it will cool and solidify quickly, in seconds. The fact is this molten metal glowed orange and was liquid all the way down the building. I witness molten metals every day and I think I should be able to distinguish between Aluminum and steel in fact I know I can, in a second.

I respect your credentials. I'm sorry to spam the thread with a cut & paste, but I just think the following piece of writing makes a better case than I ever could.

    Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

    The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

    First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

    I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

    Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

    If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

    Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

    The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

    The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

    The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

    Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

    Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

    The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

    THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

    Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

    I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

    Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

    Stephen D. Chastain

Well Alex i think the only possible reaction i can give to this claim is that it is bullshit.Here is an experiment,melt some alluminium and throw a load of glass and coals into it.What happens is the slag burns and sits on top of the molten Alluminium.It does not mix it sits on top and burns.Pure bunkum i am afraid.I explained why it was ferrous and nothing will ever change my mind.My observations are the molten metal stayed orange,at no point did it turn silver.Stephen D Castain you are full of crap.

[jbrid1138]

(quote)
Its just as of yet i cannot work out how.
JANNERBOB
______________
Hearing of your credentials (a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this)   -- I think it's okay to go ahead and make that tiny little i you used above into a full CAPITAL LETTER -- I -- // Sounds to me like you've earned it. 

Now the real reason I write in response to you is that 'how' you used (above) //
this is HOW:

DEMOLITION --
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176732/demolition/

I'm no engineer BUT having been given a brain (and not from the man behind the curtain) // If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck -- there's a darn good chance it's -- 'a duck'.

Unless you are among the priviledged few (and boy is that a small number) you've not been invited to investigate any of this 9/11 happening up close and personal-like.  Let's not forget that even at the time of the WTC (where this demo took place)-(and at the Pentagon, remembering the 'smell reports' of cordite) the personnel allowed to 'visit' the site were restricted in movement and handled by government authority much like a group out on a high school outing (a field trip) // ignoring shouts of protest, steel was rapidly and consistently shipped overseas where today if you can get your hands on it, most likely it's in the form of automobile parts and/or soup cans.

What we're left with is pretty much our common sense in absorbing the entire picture of what went on that day (9/11) -- and there is waaaay more here than meets the eye, that's for sure; waaaay more than building collapse and trying to figure out 'how' something like that 'might' have occured.

Connecting ALL THE DOTS the verdict is in // 9/11 was an inside job (regardless of the fact that the murder weapon and the body hasn't been found yet) --

We know who the guilty are (some of them anyway) and should be comforted in knowing that God will sort it all out in His own good time.  But for me (and others using that common sense) -- if it looks like a duck, etc., that's what we're left with; the nitty-gritty 'how' of it is of no real consequence // that's something better left to the mystery writers and drama enthusiast to entertain us with in lame movies such as Flight 93.

Of course, I also know there's a real need to put this ALL TO REST (as best we can)-(the victims of this crime deserve no less) with the blessings of a new entirely unbiased PANEL legally chartered to thoroughly and honestly investigate 9/11 -- you'd think (wouldn't you?) that such an important task as that would have already come and gone, but the fact that it hasn't (and we all know that the 9/11 Commission and the joke of a backing it had and the results [failures] it churned out -- only add to that common sense look into what and who is truly behind 9/11) -- 9/11 was an inside job.

DEMOLITION // that's the 'how' you're searching for.  Accept that -- and watch out for that duck sh*t there on the sidewalk, don't want you stepping in any of it.

Smile, at that if you can.  And let me close by saying I truly enjoy reading your postings, each one has been darn good. 

typos   

[jannerbob]

(quote)
Its just as of yet i cannot work out how.
JANNERBOB
______________
Hearing of your credentials (a graduate engineer with 35 years experience of dealing with stuff like this)   -- I think it's okay to go ahead and make that tiny little i you used above into a full CAPITAL LETTER -- I -- // Sounds to me like you've earned it. 

Now the real reason I write in response to you is that 'how' you used (above) //
this is HOW:

DEMOLITION --
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176732/demolition/

I'm no engineer BUT having been given a brain (and not from the man behind the curtain) // If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck -- there's a darn good chance it's -- 'a duck'.

Unless you are among the priviledged few (and boy is that a small number) you've not been invited to investigate any of this 9/11 happening up close and personal-like.  Let's not forget that even at the time of the WTC (where this demo took place)-(and at the Pentagon, remembering the 'smell reports' of cordite) the personnel allowed to 'visit' the site were restricted in movement and handled by government authority much like a group out on a high school outing (a field trip) // ignoring shouts of protest, steel was rapidly and consistently shipped overseas where today if you can get your hands on it, most likely it's in the form of automobile parts and/or soup cans.

What we're left with is pretty much our common sense in absorbing the entire picture of what went on that day (9/11) -- and there is waaaay more here than meets the eye, that's for sure; waaaay more than building collapse and trying to figure out 'how' something like that 'might' have occured.

Connecting ALL THE DOTS the verdict is in // 9/11 was an inside job (regardless of the fact that the murder weapon and the body hasn't been found yet) --

We know who the guilty are (some of them anyway) and should be comforted in knowing that God will sort it all out in His own good time.  But for me (and others using that common sense) -- if it looks like a duck, etc., that's what we're left with; the nitty-gritty 'how' of it is of no real consequence // that's something better left to the mystery writers and drama enthusiast to entertain us with in lame movies such as Flight 93.

Of course, I also know there's a real need to put this ALL TO REST (as best we can)-(the victims of this crime deserve no less) with the blessings of a new entirely unbiased PANEL legally chartered to thoroughly and honestly investigate 9/11 -- you'd think (wouldn't you?) that such an important task as that would have already come and gone, but the fact that it hasn't (and we all know that the 9/11 Commission and the joke of a backing it had and the results [failures] it churned out -- only add to that common sense look into what and who is truly behind 9/11) -- 9/11 was an inside job.

DEMOLITION // that's the 'how' you're searching for.  Accept that -- and watch out for that duck sh*t there on the sidewalk, don't want you stepping in any of it.

Smile, at that if you can.  And let me close by saying I truly enjoy reading your postings, each one has been darn good. 

typos   

Loving the duck analogy.The statement i don,t know how was amended almost immediately.That was not what i meant to say at all.Explosives and demolition are out of my comfort zone and i would not presume to state that i know exactly how it was done.The fact is though  that conventional explanations do not stand up to scrutiny.Something else brought down those buildings and that something else was explosives,nothing else can explain it.What,where and how they did it would be pure speculation on my part.I have ideas but there is no scientific fact in those thoughts.Thats what i meant.

My son just opened the pot i am cooking his dinner in.He said "Whats that".I replied if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck its probably a duck".All he did was laugh at me,i don,t think i will use it again.

[zlater]

beisdes it's pretty sure that the thermate theory would be easy to make fact if not for people dismissing even the inventors of thermate, the fact they hid the evidence and choose what vids to show etc. the whole whitewash just is a fact in itself.

[jbrid1138]

Damn good point.  Here's a few examples for people to see just what this thermate 'stuff' is capable of doing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2289367460324643450&q=grenade
(and this)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585
(and this)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3289125123507311751
(and most likely, this)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1376647391142764281&q=molten+metal+wtc&total=91&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

edited -- to fix something I mesed up.

[TruthgoneWild]

Thermate is one of the keys to 911. We have visual and physical evidence of its presence. How it was used to bring the buildings down must be debated. We know thermate eats steel and its use is limited. We know the security of the WTC was compromised. We know there is wireless demolition technology. We know beams were cut using demolition techniques. We know there were explosions in all three buildings and that the type of reaction we witnessed pouring from the tower wasn't explosive. This could suggest all targeted beams within the buildings used this form of thermite to initiate collapse. Demolition companies always prep (remove much of the interior) a building before bringing it down to allow for a successful collapse. Since 911 was made to look as if aircraft and fires brought the buildings down there was no prep work. The explosives that were witnessed could have been pre-weakening of interior structures that would hinder the complete collapse.

I'm undecided about what caused the horizontal discharge of debris. What type of explosives were used. Were explosives only used to pulverize the concrete? Did every floor explode? Where were the explosives placed? Just a few questions I'm wrestling with.

[jbrid1138]

Take some time and watch this History Channel Documentary 'The Wrecking Ball' // Hosted by Alice Cooper -- goes into some great examples of tools of the trade of demolition experts (follows the Loizeaux Family and their family owned business Controlled Demoltions Inc):
(Video 49 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&q=alice+cooper+and+the+wrecking+ball&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I love what SANE has to say about this Company (CDI) -- Never go into a building you see them coming out of.  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.  But I also think some pretty damn good advice.
 

[OneShotKi11]

Take some time and watch this History Channel Documentary 'The Wrecking Ball' // Hosted by Alice Cooper -- goes into some great examples of tools of the trade of demolition experts (follows the Loizeaux Family and their family owned business Controlled Demoltions Inc):
(Video 49 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&q=alice+cooper+and+the+wrecking+ball&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I love what SANE has to say about this Company (CDI) -- Never go into a building you see them coming out of.  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.  But I also think some pretty damn good advice.
 

LOLZ funny!!!!

[DIG_THE_HEAVY]

Hit pause at 20 seconds then look under the letter C
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9PZ7Qz24jc&mode=related&search=

[JackSpade]

Hit pause at 20 seconds then look under the letter C
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9PZ7Qz24jc&mode=related&search=

There's an explosion, what am I suppose to be looking for?

[DIG_THE_HEAVY]

Hit pause at 20 seconds then look under the letter C
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9PZ7Qz24jc&mode=related&search=

There's an explosion, what am I suppose to be looking for?

Hit pause at 20 seconds and look under the letter C. You can see the nose of the plane intact, coming out the other side.

[JackSpade]

Hit pause at 20 seconds then look under the letter C
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9PZ7Qz24jc&mode=related&search=

There's an explosion, what am I suppose to be looking for?

Hit pause at 20 seconds and look under the letter C. You can see the nose of the plane intact, coming out the other side.

I see it now. You have to pause at like 20.5 seconds. If you catch it too soon there's nothing, too late it's fire. That is interesting.

[DIG_THE_HEAVY]

Hit pause at 20 seconds then look under the letter C
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I9PZ7Qz24jc&mode=related&search=

There's an explosion, what am I suppose to be looking for?

Hit pause at 20 seconds and look under the letter C. You can see the nose of the plane intact, coming out the other side.

I see it now. You have to pause at like 20.5 seconds. If you catch it too soon there's nothing, too late it's fire. That is interesting.

Looks like a gray military jet but more mysterious is how did the nose make it all the way through the building unscathed?

[Alex_V]

Thermate is one of the keys to 911. We have visual and physical evidence of its presence.

And what evidence is that?

[Alex_V]

Alex- While I commend your tenacity on this point, really the point is moot.  The hypothesis of the burning vs demolition is a non-sequitur argument.  I will explain why.  I will concede that the that building did collapse from the jet fuel fire.  But I would then ask look how that could happen and give us the results that will all witnessed. I posted this earlier in the thread and obviously it was overlooked because if I'm wrong, please explain how I am wrong.

"I would like to point out a very good hypothesis theory test, if you haven’t heard of it, it’s called, Occam’s Razor.  William of Occam was a 13th century Francisican Monk and philosopher.   This methodology is stilled used today in the sciences.   In latin Occam’s Razor states, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” which literally means, “Dual theories should not be used beyond what is necessary”(My translation).  However, my modern interpretation is, “When given two equal but opposing viewpoints, the simpler explanation is the most accurate.”  It my definition for common sense.  Now to give a modern example of this in relation to 9/11, what is more plausible?  That a jet fuel fire that can only obtain 2000 degrees fahrenheit temperature melted reinforced steel (which melts at 3000 degrees) and weakened the 47 columns on one floor simultaneously within 45 minutes and hour and one half respectively (going off the top of my head with the times, but I know they were under two hours)?  This is what would have had too happen for the 3 buildings to collapse straight down as they did.  Or it was a controlled demolition?  Now, I might be able to buy it happening once but three times seems a little beyond the pale of simple chance, don’t you think?  But when we look at the footage and pictures, the most telling evidence is where the two aircraft struck on the building.  Neither, hit dead center in relation to the floor of the building, they hit to the side.  And as anyone who has built a house of cards knows, if you pull the card on the side out it will fall in that direction.  If you pull the cards out the center it will fall straight down.  It really is that simple.  You saw it with your own eyes.  The facts are not refutable.

Occam's razor is just as readily cited by 'debunkers', who point to the incredible amount of planning, size of operation and subsequent cover-up that would have had to accompany an 'inside job', as opposed to terrorism plus collapse that constitutes the 'official' explanation.

In terms of melting steel, the official theory is NOT that steel melted.

In terms of straight-down collapse, I think you should check whether any reputable truth movement spokesman actually agrees with your hypothesis, and if so post a link or a further explanation of it here. I don't think a 'house of cards' theory can really be applied to buildings. I'm not sure what sort of snowman collapse you are talking about - I agree that in theory a snowman's head may roll off the body to the side. I think, unfortunately for all of us, that discussion of the principles of physics that apply to a collapse of this nature must reach beyond the simplistic and anecdotal.

[Noureddin]

9/11 inside.

THIS TOPIC IS STILL DISCUSSED AFTER 6 YEARS?!!! Are you guys that STUPID!!!!!