Slashdot Mirror

So what you're telling is YOU'RE scientifically illiterate and you never should have joined in this discussion. You can't participate in the discussion when you comprehend basic scientific vocabulary.

Oh, and the link to the Jones paper has been on the thread in several places, but I'll post it again...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

âoeWas the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? ⦠NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.â
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTâ(TM)s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.
One of the most intriguing aspects of NISTâ(TM)s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony
(MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005,
Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also
substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire
where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all
parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of
each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted
much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).
These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called âoesolsâ, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting âoesol-gelâ is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [journalof911studies.com]

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
 

Every single sample of WTC ash that has been tested by independent labs has found the residue of thermite in that ash.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Science has led to the controlled demolition hypothesis. No other hypothesis fits the data.

Better take a look at good hard look at what is in the public record regarding what Bechtel Corp. of being fully capable of accomplishing before being so dismissive.

Any type of credible criminal investigation would have them at the top of the list of potential suspects.

All you are going to find there is real science.

I lol'd :)

For those of you who visited that site and laughed your ass off at the idiots trying to act like proffesionals, you may also want to check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It seems that a few of the nutters finally realized that they'd never get their drivel published in a real journal, so they started their own! Have a look at their "articles" - they're pure comedic genius.

As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.

Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.

Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker
A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livennore, CA 94550

Abstract

"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter
material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field
of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology,
effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide-
based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and
inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents
such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the
dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide,
which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests
that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal
species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes.
further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point
and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and
xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide
nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+
inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of
Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have
been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy,
surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses.
The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before
gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon
gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic
aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented...."

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

There's been THERMITE RESIDUE in every single sample of WTC ash that's been tested so far by independent labs.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.

Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.

As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.

Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.

Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker
A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livennore, CA 94550

Abstract

"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter
material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field
of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology,
effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide-
based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and
inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents
such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the
dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide,
which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests
that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal
species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes.
further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point
and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and
xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide
nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+
inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of
Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have
been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy,
surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses.
The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before
gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon
gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic
aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented...."

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

There's been THERMITE RESIDUE in every single sample of WTC ash that's been tested so far by independent labs.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.

Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.

Where [WTC7's] vertical supports were devasted by lateral-moving wreckage from the tower next door, and little things like generator fuel tanks got nicely peppered by red-hot debris, sparking electrical equipment (including huge battery backups in data facilities in the building). Again: that buidling wasn't designed to stand with important pieces of its central supporting structure weakened. Of COURSE if fell in on itself. What would be amazing would be if it fell any other way.

Hell, I'll even throw in another one for good measure. Where's your evidence?

I saw the top of one of the tower fall off towards the side and crash into WTC 7, ripping a huge gash in the side and shaking the ground violently, I said to myself, that little building is going down too

"symettric demolition"

See: http://911proof.com/ and for mreresearch and studies .
Did you know that the building called World Trade Center 7 also collapsed in spite of not being hit by a jet and being 370 yards away ?

I'm actually quite fascinated about the 911 conflicts, and I'm not sure why you thought 'it wasn't worth my time'

There are many conflicts in the story, and no one from the government is giving convincing answers.
Popular Mechanics attempts at debunking 911 alternative conspiracies have been meet by an extraordinary rebuttal by David Ray Griffins Debunking 9/11 debunking.

What is wrong with trying to put scientific method to 911?
For example, there are vidoes showing molten metal pouring out of a WTC building before its collapse.
Since jet fuel cannot melt steel what could cause it? So some scientists (Steven Jones) decided to use method.
Someone suggested it could be aluminium from the aircraft frame. So they melted Al, and poured it out, but it just looked silvery. Then they mixed in wood chips, carpet and other organic matter that may be found in an office. The organic matter just floated on top, and when poured out it just looked silvery, not 'sparky' like iron. Then they thought what could make molten iron? So they tried various thermite reactions and that gave results strikingly similar to that seen on videos.
They then started analysing wtc dust and found many iron micro spheres, and under X-EDS found the spheres had strong peaks for Aluminium, Iron and Sulfer, again pointing towards use of thermite.
you can read more here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/J onesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
There are many things about 911 that still do not make sense, especially the symmetrical near free-fall collapse of WTC7.

Please don't be mislead by the many straw man attacks against 911 truth researchers. Its a classic tactic to attempt to put up some wacko theory like 'no planes', destroy that theory, and say 'see, they are all wacko'.

No one claims that elements of the US government executed 9/11 successfully. If they had the evidence would corroborate the al queda explanation more than it did. If there was nothing to hide then full disclosure is in order. NIST should release the thousands of photos and videos they have possession of. The FBI should release all 80+ video's of the pentagon they claim they have. The American people deserve an earnest independent investigation with subpoena power. Do you honestly believe the Federal government has been completely honest about 9/11? Now put 9/11 in the context of the Iraq war deception. Why shouldn't people question the government's account of 9/11?

My goodness you are naive. My friend is a magician, and he once told me that it is the smartasses which you can fool the best.

Can you honestly read this paper throughout and not even question the official story physics? http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Jones WTC911SciMethod.pdf

Forget the physics, look at the work of investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker on Mohammed Atta and many many others on the circumstantial evidence of the players involved.

Have you honestly had a good look at what the mainstream media does not show you?

Actually, 43% of Americans believe there was a cover-up involving 9/11*. And even your link about Apollo states that only 6% believe that the moon landing was faked. The overlap could be 3-4%, not enough to be a significant part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Your strategy of linking people who believe that we don't know the whole truth about 9/11 to a insignificant minority of people who believe something entirely different is a nice distraction though. Also, calling them "a couple kids" then linking to lolloosechange and a YouTube rant for your rebuttal is pretty pathetic.

* Also see this poll which shows that only 16% believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

You could also check out this presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist at UT Austin, where he first revealed evidence of the presence of thermite on debris samples recovered from an apartment building near Ground Zero. The peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming, and will prove once and for all that all 3 buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 were demolished by explosives.

Finally, you can look to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for evidence that the flight data recorder data that they received from a FOIA request matches neither the animations they received, nor the downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony from Pentagon security officers of the flight path. One or more of those pieces of evidence were fabricated by somebody working for our government. Why would they do that if they were not covering something up? The flight recorder data ends at 180 feet altitude. The Pentagon is only 40 feet tall, and is 40 feet above sea level. How does a plane crash at about 100 feet above its target? The direction and pitch also do not match the other evidence. Watch it for yourself. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is just getting started. More videos and documents will be available soon.

The small groups of "Screw Loose Change" and other debunkers will be very busy over the next few months trying to debunk all these groups of professionals* with hard evidence. Good luck to them at getting more than their current fraction of web traffic that the 9/11 Truth sites get. They are helpful to people like you when you want to brush off the actual evidence though, no? So I guess they serve their purpose of distraction.

* Also see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for analysis of the actual blueprints which were recently leaked, and the variation between the blueprints and the data produced in the NIST and FEMA reports. And Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.

I'm saying it is nonsensical to claim that you can design a building that can withstand a plane crashing into it.. and that a building falling down after a plane crashes into it is a perfectly reasonable thing for a building to do.

The WTC buildings were designed to withstand the force of a plane crashing into them. The guy who designed the buildings has said so on-camera. Straight from the horse's mouth. Also, the buildings did withstand the force of the planes that crashed into them on 9/11. The WTC buildings did not topple over seconds after the impact the jets. The tops of the building were not sheared-off by the force of a huge jet traveling at full speed. The WTC buildings absorbed the force of the impact and continued to stand long enough for some people (but not all) to evacuate from the building.

As for why the WTC towers fell an hour after the planes impacted the buildings, I do not know. You ask "why haven't ALL of the structural engineers in the world come forward to expose the conspiracy?" Well, some people have examined the data and proposed that the buildings did not fall due to the impact of the planes:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20 Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely% 20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Ce nter%20J24.pdf

We may never know the exact reason why the WTC towers fell but your assertion that "it is nonsensical to claim that you can design a building that can withstand a plane crashing into it" is quite a different problem. You are saying that it is impossible for skyscrapers to be designed to accommodate that sort of impact. That's painting with a pretty wide brush. You are saying that, ignoring any conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 for a moment, no one anywhere can design a building to meet those specifications. One Slashdotter against ALL of the architects and structural engineers in the world. You should probably produce some very good math at this point to back up your claims.

These scholars seem to agree with this guy. There are alot more peer reviewed articles here and other useful resources here.

You should try focusing more on the truth, and less on silly analogies.

These scholars seem to agree with this guy. There are alot more peer reviewed articles here and other useful resources here.

You should try focusing more on the truth, and less on silly analogies.

I lost a long-time friend in the WTC and I had family right next door to it at the time who could very well have been killed... The idea of an elaborate conspiracy is preposterous and is based on psuedo-science at best.

I'm truly sorry for that. Losing a long-time friend in a tragedy like the WTC must be one of the hardest things to endure. I'm very happy that your family survived.

And while I agree with you that the idea of an elaborate conspiracy is hard to swallow, that fact should not cause you to discard it out of hand. Such things should be left on the table to be used when no other explanation will suffice.

Which is another way of saying that if you want to know the truth, you must be willing to go wherever the evidence and the laws of physics lead.

No matter how you, I, or anyone else might feel, emotion simply cannot and does not negate physics. The real world always wins in the end. So regardless of how we might feel, the bottom line is that physics does not allow for the collapse of the WTC to have been caused solely by the crash of a couple of airliners (one into each tower) and the subsequent fires.

I've read the NIST FAQ. Their response to question 6 is basically a nonresponse, a bald assertion without any calculations or modeling to back it up. They basically assert that the structure of the building, which was overdesigned to hold the building up both dynamically and statically (the building had to withstand winds and other external factors that would place greater compressive load on some parts of the structure while placing reduced load on other parts, which means that all parts had to be designed to take the greater compressive loads) and which was also designed to withstand the loss of structural support as a result of the collision of a 707 airliner, presented no significant resistance to the collapse front.

This paper does some analysis of the energy and momentum involved, and this adds further clarification. The conclusion of both papers is basically that the collapse could not have been sustained with the support structure in place. That conclusion is arrived at under assumptions that greatly favor collapse.

So to assert without accompanying analysis that the structure could not and would not provide any significant resistance to collapse, as NIST does, goes well beyond reason. It asks the reader to believe in miracles.

To bring this discussion back on the topic that started it, that belief in miracles and lack of reasoning ability is exactly what TheGratefulNet was talking about here in his comment that kicked this whole thing off.

I lost a long-time friend in the WTC and I had family right next door to it at the time who could very well have been killed... The idea of an elaborate conspiracy is preposterous and is based on psuedo-science at best.

I'm truly sorry for that. Losing a long-time friend in a tragedy like the WTC must be one of the hardest things to endure. I'm very happy that your family survived.

And while I agree with you that the idea of an elaborate conspiracy is hard to swallow, that fact should not cause you to discard it out of hand. Such things should be left on the table to be used when no other explanation will suffice.

Which is another way of saying that if you want to know the truth, you must be willing to go wherever the evidence and the laws of physics lead.

No matter how you, I, or anyone else might feel, emotion simply cannot and does not negate physics. The real world always wins in the end. So regardless of how we might feel, the bottom line is that physics does not allow for the collapse of the WTC to have been caused solely by the crash of a couple of airliners (one into each tower) and the subsequent fires.

I've read the NIST FAQ. Their response to question 6 is basically a nonresponse, a bald assertion without any calculations or modeling to back it up. They basically assert that the structure of the building, which was overdesigned to hold the building up both dynamically and statically (the building had to withstand winds and other external factors that would place greater compressive load on some parts of the structure while placing reduced load on other parts, which means that all parts had to be designed to take the greater compressive loads) and which was also designed to withstand the loss of structural support as a result of the collision of a 707 airliner, presented no significant resistance to the collapse front.

This paper does some analysis of the energy and momentum involved, and this adds further clarification. The conclusion of both papers is basically that the collapse could not have been sustained with the support structure in place. That conclusion is arrived at under assumptions that greatly favor collapse.

So to assert without accompanying analysis that the structure could not and would not provide any significant resistance to collapse, as NIST does, goes well beyond reason. It asks the reader to believe in miracles.

To bring this discussion back on the topic that started it, that belief in miracles and lack of reasoning ability is exactly what TheGratefulNet was talking about here in his comment that kicked this whole thing off.

explaining what the fuss is about israel

english MP mr Galloway blows ignorant "reporter" OUT OF THE FRICKEN WATER! hehe makes me laugh every time.

interview with iranian prime minister.[sarcasm] WOw he sounds really crazy...[/sarcasm]

two more links you should really read, though I doubt many will.

well thats all I can do. I cant FORCE you to watch them, and I doubt many will, but if even a couple do, and realise something interesting about the world as they knew it, I'll be happy

here I'll link it again. Make sure to read the pdf linked near the top, as it is in this that the Prof. goes through the chemical analysis evidence for thermite use and information on current nano-thermite tech and also a link to a patent for a device for using thermite to cut vertical beams, not just horizontal ones (patented early 2001 interestingly)

paper showing why we know the towers where explosively demolished

pdf linked showing latest results, including strong evidence of thermite usge in the analysis of the molten metal from the ruins

-sulphur is used in a millitary version of thermite called thermate. Im trying to find an independant explanation from why,though it seems it is to lower the melting point of the steel being cut, ie forming a eutectic, making it cut better

- potassium permangenate is used as an oxidising agent in some thermate/ite as well (perhaps mixed with something else to help ignite it?), hence K and Mn

- flourine may be present in the from of polytetraflouroethylene (teflon?) as a base for another oxidising agent according to this report http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/1344-QDsu 9M/webviewable/1344.pdf p120. According to it (a report on techniques for decommisioning nuclear reactors, which investigated thermite with additives):

"These characteristics show that the composition of the mixtures using polytetraflouroethylene as a base has a heat output 2.5 to 5.0 times higher than that of a mixture based on thermite."

- 1,3-diphenyl propane was recorded in "abundance" by the EPA not prof jones. They suggested the possible source as burning polyvynyl choloride compounds, although they admitted they had never before picked it up in ambient sampling such as this(which would suggest that there was at least SOMETHING decidedly strange about the fires in the towers, given the ubiquitous nature of PVC in modern buildings. )

As to the claims of partially evaporated steel, it is not him claiming this it is one Dr. Barnett in the NEW YORK TIMES! he was part of the initial (official) fema investigation, which reported on this anomoly, and recomended investigation into how it could occur, yet none was ever done (officially at least, I guess Prof jones took it up unofficially instead)

it is good to see someone who's objections are based on (what would be to you) logical reasoning (and, it seems, decent scientific knowledge), even if you dont have (m)any of the facts available, rather than the plain denial I see in most people. Should you wish to discuss it further with me, I'd be happy to talk to you on (oh no, eeeevill) msn messenger: hmmmmm_really At hotmail. Ive been looking into it for a while so I can steer you past the disinfo and crazy people and to the meat of the problem (and trust me, its as meaty as a triple bacon meat lovers pizza hold the cheese, base and sauce)

(oh buy the way, I know you havent read his paper on the collapses, or at least his subsequent presentation in which he shows the results of the analysis showing these elements, since you would have read his explanations for why they are there. It would seem a bit... perhaps hypocritical... to pick on the agenda of someone else, while "debunking" their work without actually reading it, wouldnt you say? (nor even reading the initial FEMA investigation it is partly based on it seems))

for anyone interested, all this is outlined in the pdf I linked earlier, But I'll link it again:

pdf showing thermate residue

recommended pre-reading (this is the paper that the pdf is a follow up on)

for the rest of you, the results show that the molten metal tested was NOT molten steel and aluminium from the planes/structure as suggested by an earlier post, since there are none of the other elements except Fe that should be there if it was from structural steel(eg chromium), and the aluminium is in low concentration, however it DOES have the characteristic sulphur, manganese, potassium, flourine (all "fingerprints" of thermate usage), and even more interestingly, 1,3-diphenlypropane, for which the only present explanation is that it's residue from the use of a sol-gel used with explosive nano-thermite charges..

It is all explained quite nicely in here, the electrone microprobe RESULTS (yes you can look at them yourself, "not CSI" indeed, dickhead.) are shown around page 77 on.

results of testing of the wtc steel