Semptember the 11th

Also on the 84% of population reject official story thread you can look at Deanos first post on page 13 that he posted that shows evidence explosives were set off.I also referred Darth to a book by a researcher earlier who wrote a book about the kennedy assassian that shreds to pieces the warren commission report that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.He proves in that book beyond a doubt it was an inside job to kill kennedy and he does the same thing in this book that it was an inside job by the government with 9-11 and that explosives were set off.Darth ignored that point and never bothered to read that book I referred him to so I will just be repeating evidence that he ignored earlier so I really dont feel like referring him to that book again when I know he wont bother to read it and I'll just have to repeat the name of the book I mentioned earlier only to be ignored. 🙄

By the way I cant wait till December.Because that researcher who wrote those books-He happens to be a professor at a major university in Texas, is coming here to where I live to give his presentation on 9-11.He will also be talking about secret societys and that as well so I will learn quite a bit from him.

Ah, the "Truss failure Theory" Which the NIST proposed.

Buckling existed well before collapse initiations, and came about slowly and steadily.

The alleged failings of trusses just before collapse initiations were lightning-fast across whole floors, too quick for buckling to be filmed or photographed, enabling totally symmetrical collapses.

The buckling that existed pre-collapse was of a small number of perimeter columns, spread across different floors. This small number of buckled columns was obviously not enough to initiate a global collapse. Considering the great redundancy of the Towers, and all modern skyscrapers, the buckled columns observed pre-collapsed would have posed no real threat to global stability.

your ignoring the way the building was designed completely by focussing on the trusses and the vertical columns as being seperate

as you say...there was slow buckling of a small number of columns...this is because the horizontal trusses effectively bind the vertical columns together...the weak points on the trusses (which were shown in previous safety examinations of the building to have been done on the cheap by bolting them to the vertical columns with only 2 joins at each section instead of 4)...so...the weakpoints break and the floors collapse onto one another...the gap they leave causes the force on the vertical columns at the point where the floors are missing to be great. steel has the property of being able to take massive compression and then has a crtical break point...and hence the sudden collapse

your point about the pic of the building tipping is slightly bizarre as you seem to be looking at it from the idea that the top of the building tipped off rather like a lid...and thus if it did it would have fell down the side of the building...but obviously this would have required a horizontal force at the time of collapse to push it out...didn't happen like that...you can see by the alignment of the corner columns that the building initially buckled in on itself at the damaged side....as would be expected...gravity done the rest...

people often question why it collapsed in its entirity....only to be expected in a building that was 90% air...

That doesn't explain the extreme heat months after 911 on ground zero or molten steel.

your right...but then neither do explosives of thermite given that they both release huge amounts of energy in a short space of time

not to mention that it still fails to explain that thermite cant cut horizontally through columns....or the fact that it is only visible at one column...which by your own admission would not cause collapse

Quote please, because I'm pretty sure that's not what was said

actual seismic spikes recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.

the quote from the people who recorded it...one over a 30 minute time span which appears to show a sudden spike...the other is over a 40 second span which actually shows small tremors from when the building began to collapse right through to the end

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Originally posted by jaden101
your ignoring the way the building was designed completely by focussing on the trusses and the vertical columns as being seperate

as you say...there was slow buckling of a small number of columns...this is because the horizontal trusses effectively bind the vertical columns together...the weak points on the trusses (which were shown in previous safety examinations of the building to have been done on the cheap by bolting them to the vertical columns with only 2 joins at each section instead of 4)...so...the weakpoints break and the floors collapse onto one another...the gap they leave causes the force on the vertical columns at the point where the floors are missing to be great. steel has the property of being able to take massive compression and then has a crtical break point...and hence the sudden collapse

Let's accept Your scenerio and imagine that all the trusses of one floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing.

Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud.

Originally posted by jaden101

your point about the pic of the building tipping is slightly bizarre as you seem to be looking at it from the idea that the top of the building tipped off rather like a lid...and thus if it did it would have fell down the side of the building...but obviously this would have required a horizontal force at the time of collapse to push it out...didn't happen like that...you can see by the alignment of the corner columns that the building initially buckled in on itself at the damaged side....as would be expected...gravity done the rest...

people often question why it collapsed in its entirity....only to be expected in a building that was 90% air...

That's funny, despite the presents of squibs blasting horizontal out of the building there wasn't any force?!

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1152446814/911_WTC_Squibs

Originally posted by jaden101

your right...but then neither do explosives of thermite given that they both release huge amounts of energy in a short space of time

not to mention that it still fails to explain that thermite cant cut horizontally through columns....or the fact that it is only visible at one column...which by your own admission would not cause collapse

Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.

Here's some evidence:

Super-Thermite Electric Matches are designed to replace the conventional electric matches used in pyrotechnics applications. Unlike conventional electric matches, Super-Thermite matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge, thereby minimizing accidental ignition. The principal application is in the entertainment industry, which uses fireworks displays for a variety of venues such as sporting events, holiday celebrations and musical and theatrical gatherings. Secondary applications include uses for triggering explosives for the mining, demolition, and defense industries; setting off vehicle air bags; and igniting rocket motors.

http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/100_awards/2003rd100-03.htm

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

C4 is very stable. You can shoot it with a rifle round and nothing happens.

Another hole

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.” (Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.) Others noted that “the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities.” This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” (“How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings,” Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.)

Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred and forty super-strong perimeter columns and forty-seven core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing

Another hole

Let's accept Your scenerio and imagine that all the trusses of one floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing.

Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud.

i'm sure that the core structure could stand in a hurricaine...but once again you're putting forward points in isolation...you fail to mention how much of the cross bracing on the perimiter was damaged and how many vertical columns were severed....

we also know from eye witness accounts from one of the engineers who escaped the towers that while he and a collegue were trying to help people escape...they surveyed massive damage to the core structure also (which is quite evident given that the plane impact went through the building in its entirety...meaning that there were columns damaged on 3 sides of the building and also damage to the core on 6 different floors

the last point you make about no part of the building remaining above the dust cloud is also false...several videos of the collapse show one side of the tower standing

its the right side in this video...the reporter also mentions it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqws8IKMjZk

That's funny, despite the presents of squibs blasting
horizontal out of the building there wasn't any force?!

you're missing the point...in order for the top of the building to tip over if would need a horizontal force pressing on one side of the building from the exterior

not to mention that those so called explosives were seemingly at utterly random points throughout small sections of the building...which by your own admission would not be sufficient to initiate a collapse because they would only take out a tiny number of the supporting columns....

Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.

given that there are several more efficient and easier to conceal ways of detonating explosives...super thermite is a highly unlikely one to be used...not to mention that several studies of nanometric aluminium used in super thermite has showed no increase in explosive power and in some cases a decrease in explosive power of several different high explosives such as RDX AND HMX

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uNrnB88DxIwJ:www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf+high+explosive+super+thermite+detonater&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

plus you cant have it both ways...either your video of alleged thermite combustion is super thermite to aid the detonation of another explosive (which doesn't appear to be the case given the lack of explosion on the video) or it is standard thermite used for cutting steel...which doesn't explain why a vertical reaction supposedly cuts horizontally through a steel structure...and only at 1 point on the building

surely thermite would be needed to cut through many of the columns to initiate collapse...so why isn't the entire building pouring molten aluminium?

oh..and thanks for those links...very informative...i enjoyed reading them

Originally posted by jaden101

actual seismic spikes recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.

the quote from the people who recorded it...one over a 30 minute time span which appears to show a sudden spike...the other is over a 40 second span which actually shows small tremors from when the building began to collapse right through to the end

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

thought you might like to see this. It’s about the controlled demolition of the Murrah Bldg after the OK bombing back in 1995, and how it relates to WTC7.

Scientists back then concluded, from the data of the controlled demolition of the remaining 75% of the building, that explosions are much more efficient at exciting ground motion than building collapses. Here is the paragraph and link: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo1...o16_seismic.htm

The implications of this are interesting when you consider WTC7. With the additional 9 seconds added [per NIST sponsored contract with Kim in 2005] to the original seismic time of 5:20:33, which brings it to 5:20:42, you then add the 18 seconds of seismic activity, which brings the seismic end-time to 5:21:00.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

However, the FEMA timeline states the actual visible collapse didn’t begin until 3 seconds after that at 5:21:03.
FEMA Timeline, WTC7, pg 5-23
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r...eline%20wtc7%22

So, when you consider the 1995 results of the above seismic analysis from the OK CD...

I.E.,

"Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building"

it indicates the possibility that the 18 seconds of seismic activity, which happened before the actual visible collapse of WTC7, was due to hidden, inside explosions for a controlled demolition of the building, and when the building finally fell visibly to all the world, this event was not even strong enough to register seismically.

Now Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Scientists back then concluded, from the data of the controlled demolition of the remaining 75% of the building, that explosions are much more efficient at exciting ground motion than building collapses. Here is the paragraph and link:

then in relation to the towers, this is the key point...the greatest seismic activity isn't at the initiation of collapse when the explosives would have been used...therefor discounts that notion entirely

and i'm not getting anything from 2 of those links...the new american one is giving me an error page and the 3rd link is giving me this

* If you arrived here by selecting a link provided by a site other than the U.S. House of Representatives, please notify the originating site of this error.
* If you arrived here by typing in a specific URL, please make sure the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are correct.
* If you arrived here by using a bookmark or favorite link, please make sure the link is current for the 109th Congress.

o Go to U.S. House of Representatives Home Page.
o View list of Representatives by Name or State.
o Send a message to the Web Comments Administrator. Please be sure to include the URL or specific information to assist in the research and correction of a problem.

Use the SEARCH in the above right to search the entire U.S. House of Representatives Web site.

also what take away credence to the theory that explosives were used in the base of the tower is the fact that part of the lower three floors were entirely intact (ther area where most survivors were found

and seen in the closest video of initial collapse shows the building collapsing from the top down...which at 7 seconds shows what you would claim is one of the explosive charges....at a single point of the building...which is most certainly not how controlled demolitions are carried out which require simaltaneous explosion along single floors

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=twin+towers+collapse

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm sure that the core structure could stand in a hurricaine...but once again you're putting forward points in isolation...you fail to mention how much of the cross bracing on the perimiter was damaged and how many vertical columns were severed....

we also know from eye witness accounts from one of the engineers who escaped the towers that while he and a collegue were trying to help people escape...they surveyed massive damage to the core structure also (which is quite evident given that the plane impact went through the building in its entirety...meaning that there were columns damaged on 3 sides of the building and also damage to the core on 6 different floors

According to FEMA's report:

Between 31 and 36 of the 240 perimeter columns of WTC1 were severed in a local area.

Around 23 of the 240 WTC2 perimeter columns were severed in a local area.

That's 15% or less of the perimeter columns in either localized area.

According to a NIST presentation, the perimeter columns had a safety factor rating of 5. Sound like a dire situation, to lose 15% or less of these things? This is just waht we've been pointing out when we say the buildings could withstand jet impacts - or even multiple jet impacts - and still stand: each impact would be like stabbing a pencil into screen netting.

There is no hard data on the core columns, but it's safe to say that in the South Tower, the core columns were hardly damaged at all given the trajectory of the plane into the building, and they were also very redundant, though not quite so much as the perimeter columns if you are to go with NIST figures. And given that the North and South Towers fell the exact same way, it's safe to say that since the South Tower fell while its core had hardly been scraped, whether or not the cores were much damaged by the impacts was apparently irrelevant to the fall of the rest of the buildings. In fact, you'll see that the core of WTC1 was the last thing to go down if you watch the video from Hoboken.

But either way, FEMA (if I'm not mistaken) has suggested that maybe 2 or 3 core columns at most may have been severed by the impacts. This is considering that the engines both hit columns directly, and I threw in an extra for good measure. The body of the planes would've been raped, though, by the perimeter column impacts. It would also leave the total column damage for either set below 15% in the area.

The rest of the damage has to be pinned onto fires if you won't accept demolition, and frankly there is no evidence whatsoever that any of those fires much compromised the heat of the steel.

The fires likely never went over 700 degrees Celsius at any given point in either building, and no investigations have found any samples of steel heated much beyond 200-some degrees Celsius. That shouldn't be surprising, because steel makes an excellent heat sink, not to mention all the heat that was being carried away from the fires in that black, soot-laden smoke, and exposure to cold air at the perimeter columns, and lack of air inside around the core columns, and other such factors that would've most certainly rendered the fires petty.

The plane damage was obviously not enough to bring the towers down. There was simply not enough structural damage. 15% isn't exactly a critical number, and I don't think I have to draw out any graphs or etc. to point that out.

Check out the NYC Building Code described on page 133 of this NIST paper. WCIP has summed it up nicely:

In simple terms, the above means that structural components and assemblies must be able to bear, without any visible damage for one whole week:
1. their own weight, plus
2. 150% of the maximum possible weight from people & furniture in the building and wind, plus
3. 150% of the weight of the building above that it is designed to support.

They must be able to bear without collapse or failure for one week:

1.their own weight, plus
2. 50% of their own weight again, plus
3. 250% of the maximum possible weight from people & furniture in the building and wind, plus
4. 250% of the weight of the building above that it is designed to support.

Buildings are designed this way specifically to avoid them collapsing in case of fire, damage, or stress and 'creep'. Buildings can sustain massive, massive damage without collapsing entirely.

In other words, it would be illegal for the WTC Towers to stand without the columns being able to withstand 250% of the weight of its design loads. From 15% or less column damage, likely considering both types, there would have to be a hell of a fire to bring the buildings down in total, wouldn't it? figures from released NIST information that an average of 75% column failure would have to take place before a single floor's failure. And again, no evidence of any miraculously hot fire.

Originally posted by jaden101

you're missing the point...in order for the top of the building to tip over if would need a horizontal force pressing on one side of the building from the exterior

Your missing the point , there's an angular momentum problem, Where did the momentum of the top floors go?

See that tilt?

When those floors tilted out like that, they had momentum.

But then the floors stopped falling in those directions while continuing to fall straight down.

Where did that momentum go?

From Newton's first law of motion, to the laws of momentum, to the specific laws of angular momentum that this action breaks (at least if you accept the official story), we have a problem here. Objects don't just stop falling in a certain direction, and especially so with such a massive, unbelievably heavy object. The momentum would have been incredible.

It was either countered by a balancing force (in this case, equal and opposite would apply for a complete stop), or the floors would have had their frames *somehow* shattered to destroy the momentum of the object by destroying the structure of the object itself.

Well, it's safe to say there was no balancing/equal and opposite force. Superman wasn't there on 9/11, unfortunately, to push back on the buildings to counter the vast momentum. Well then I guess we'll have to assume the only possible answer: the frames of those top floors were shattered. I wonder what did it.

watch the video below. In the first 2 or 3 seconds of the South Tower's collapse, it tilted somewhere around 15 degrees outwards. Then it stopped. Totally. Momentum does not behave like that, going from 15 degrees in 2 or 3 seconds to 0 degrees further for the rest of the collapse. That's what we mean when we say disappearance of angular momentum.

Video of South Tower Collapse.
Still frames of the above video.

Here's a measurement of angles:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/msdos464/pics/other/measure/

Originally posted by msdos464
[code]frame slope angle angle change
at each frame
=========================================
30 1:0 90,00
60 500:10 88,85 -0,3833
80 640:15 88,66 -0,0095
100 560:30 86,93 -0,0865
120 550:70 82,75 -0,209
140 520:110 78,06 -0,2345
160 500:140 74,36 -0,185
180 400:135 71,35 -0,1505
200 400:160 68,12 -0,1575[/code]

Originally posted by jaden101

not to mention that those so called explosives were seemingly at utterly random points throughout small sections of the building...which by your own admission would not be sufficient to initiate a collapse because they would only take out a tiny number of the supporting columns....

the collapses had not yet reached the floors where the squibs occurred.

Not to mention several witnesses claiming they heard explosives, which was posted in the other thread. And, also the fact that concrete slabs were pulverized and Huge sections of steel beams were ejected over 500 feet from the side of each tower.

excellent posts ashtar. that last picture...unbelievable.

Originally posted by jaden101

given that there are several more efficient and easier to conceal ways of detonating explosives...super thermite is a highly unlikely one to be used...not to mention that several studies of nanometric aluminium used in super thermite has showed no increase in explosive power and in some cases a decrease in explosive power of several different high explosives such as RDX AND HMX

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uNrnB88DxIwJ:www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf+high+explosive+super+thermite+detonater&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Read what I posted, it's a thermite mixed with sulfur. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Originally posted by jaden101

plus you cant have it both ways...either your video of alleged thermite combustion is super thermite to aid the detonation of another explosive (which doesn't appear to be the case given the lack of explosion on the video) or it is standard thermite used for cutting steel...which doesn't explain why a vertical reaction supposedly cuts horizontally through a steel structure...and only at 1 point on the building

surely thermite would be needed to cut through many of the columns to initiate collapse...so why isn't the entire building pouring molten aluminium?

Lack of explosions, explain this:

[IMG] http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/cardm/Dust_card1_v1.jpg[IMG]

And there are various accounts of molten steel all over, I'll post them later.

Originally posted by jaden101
also what take away credence to the theory that explosives were used in the base of the tower is the fact that part of the lower three floors were entirely intact (ther area where most survivors were found

and seen in the closest video of initial collapse shows the building collapsing from the top down...which at 7 seconds shows what you would claim is one of the explosive charges....at a single point of the building...which is most certainly not how controlled demolitions are carried out which require simaltaneous explosion along single floors

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=twin+towers+collapse

That is not true, there were underground explosions and the collapse of the B4 level, with possible trapped victims, was reported and responded to by emergency personnel, although they seem to have been sidetracked with other emergency duties before any of them actually arrived at the scene.

mike percaro also reported the explosions, as well as twenty odd other employees who were in the basement. there is a media blackout on this particular discussion, and the testimony was stricken from the 'exhaustive' 911 (c)ommission report.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

Many, as in at least 14 according to some articles. Rodriguez had co-workers that verify his testimony, including Mike Pecoraro,

construction worker Phillip Morelli,

Anthony Saltamachia, Robert Falcon, and others.

Also:

[ex]0853 4-1 radios WTC Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level.

0857 WTC requests an available unit to check Turner Construction, 1 WTC B-4 Level, report of broken water pipes.

0901 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey start to evacuate the B-4 Level, 1 WTC.

0911 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey are clear of the B-4 level. PO Houston asks, "Where do you need us?" WTC Police Desk responds the 90th and the 22nd floors.

0912 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey advise Police Desk of trapped ABM workers on the B-4 level, as per a report from an ABM worker. The desk acknowledges.[/ex]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060519&articleId=2474

Yes, there are reports of the people in the basement going down due to this explosion.

Robert Falcon worked in the parking garage at the towers: "When the blast shook it went dark and we all went down, and I had a flashlight and everyone was screaming at me.

Also, there were "collapses" of some sort down there that at least wounded and appeared to trap people:

0853 4-1 radios WTC Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level.

0857 WTC requests an available unit to check Turner Construction, 1 WTC B-4 Level, report of broken water pipes.

0901 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey start to evacuate the B-4 Level, 1 WTC.

0911 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey are clear of the B-4 level. PO Houston asks, "Where do you need us?" WTC Police Desk responds the 90th and the 22nd floors.

0912 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey advise Police Desk of trapped ABM workers on the B-4 level, as per a report from an ABM worker. The desk acknowledges.

the collapses had not yet reached the floors where the squibs occurred.

thep point is that at a single point on any given floor wouldn't initiate a vertical collapse...as is the case with any actual controlled explosion (see my previous video)...not to mention that many of these "squibs" were acutually observed well before initiation of collapse of the buildings...

The fires likely never went over 700 degrees Celsius at any given point in either building, and no investigations have found any samples of steel heated much beyond 200-some degrees Celsius. That shouldn't be surprising, because steel makes an excellent heat sink, not to mention all the heat that was being carried away from the fires in that black, soot-laden smoke, and exposure to cold air at the perimeter columns, and lack of air inside around the core columns, and other such factors that would've most certainly rendered the fires petty.

incorrect...analysis of many of the 236 pieces of steel analysed showed temperatures in excess of 1000c...a high enough temp for steel to lose upto 90% of its load bearing capacity compared with standard room temperature

thermite also requires several minutes contact in order to burn through and cannot be inserted and iginited in a compact space (such as a cut hole in a vertical steel column as it requires large amounts of oxygen to initiate...the only way to ignite the thermite horizontally would be with a magnesium fuse as this reaches the reuqired temperature but does not have an oxygen source

here is an ideal thermite reaction failing to burn through a 1/4 inch iron skillet...the heat being conducted enough to set fire to the bench...

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Videos/Fe2O3/3/Thermite(Fe2O3)3%5BBest%5D.wmv

the "thermite was observed at a single location on 1 tower for around 30 seconds which is insufficient for it to destroy a single column and not at all on the other

not to mention that the video is of the impact point of the plane...where the largest source of aluminium would have been the plane itself...and aluminium melts at way below the reocrded temperatures of the fires

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

gypsum...a substance used widely in cement...high sulpher content...the building was rife with it

Originally posted by jaden101
thep point is that at a single point on any given floor wouldn't initiate a vertical collapse...as is the case with any actual controlled explosion (see my previous video)...not to mention that many of these "squibs" were acutually observed well before initiation of collapse of the buildings...

And how does that refute what I'm saying, I just said that the squibs were seen intially witnessed before the collapse. I never claimed I knew EXACTLY where the explosives were put, I'm claiming there were explosives. The fact there were squibs well before the initiation of collapse proves that, thanks.

Originally posted by jaden101

incorrect...analysis of many of the 236 pieces of steel analysed showed temperatures in excess of 1000c...a high enough temp for steel to lose upto 90% of its load bearing capacity compared with standard room temperature

And that's my point, a hydrocarbon fire can not reach tempertures of 1000 Degree's celcius under regular circumstances.These are tempertures reached by Bottles oxygen forced fires present in factories.

Also, you mind explain how this fire reached the basement, and heated managed to weaken the entire structure, and even if the floors pancaked. How could they maintain the velocity required to smash the stronger floors below them despite being smashed into small pieces while impacting said floors and these said pieces being ejected out the building I.E. How could they maintain that velocity whilst having such a massive change in mass?!

Originally posted by jaden101

thermite also requires several minutes contact in order to burn through and cannot be inserted and iginited in a compact space (such as a cut hole in a vertical steel column as it requires large amounts of oxygen to initiate...the only way to ignite the thermite horizontally would be with a magnesium fuse as this reaches the reuqired temperature but does not have an oxygen source

here is an ideal thermite reaction failing to burn through a 1/4 inch iron skillet...the heat being conducted enough to set fire to the bench...

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Videos/Fe2O3/3/Thermite(Fe2O3)3%5BBest%5D.wmv

The WTC towers burned for a while, the north tower burned for 104 minutes and the south tower around 90 minutes (I forget the exact time for the south tower), that's not enough time?

Originally posted by jaden101

the "thermite was observed at a single location on 1 tower for around 30 seconds which is insufficient for it to destroy a single column and not at all on the other

Right, I show you one video and now it's was observed in one location. Now your admitting there was thermite?

Originally posted by jaden101

gypsum...a substance used widely in cement...high sulpher content...the building was rife with it

The concrete in the tower isn't the same one used in the concrete of sidewalks my friend.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse

And how does that refute what I'm saying, I just said that the squibs were seen intially witnessed before the collapse. I never claimed I knew EXACTLY where the explosives were put, I'm claiming there were explosives. The fact there were squibs well before the initiation of collapse proves that, thanks.

but there were also these "squibs" witnessed many minutes before collapse...and even as the plane was impacting....if they were explosives deigned to cause collapse they wouldn't have been timed to go of randomly or placed throughout the building in random locations

The WTC towers burned for a while, the north tower burned for 104 minutes and the south tower around 90 minutes (I forget the exact time for the south tower), that's not enough time?

obviously it was enough time...but they weren't thermite reactions as it take 0.13 lbs of thermite to heat 1lb of steel not to melting point but to 700c (a critical weaking temperature)...therefor it was calculated that several thousand lbs of thermite would have been needed to heat enough steel to the weakening point...so the building would have been pouring out molten metal

Right, I show you one video and now it's was observed in one location. Now your admitting there was thermite?

it was observed in one location....the fact that is is the most filmed event of our time yet was only captured in one point on the building and the fact that out of 9000 eye witness testimonies it was only observed at that one point....and no...i'm not saying it was thermite...although i missed out my second " i'm sure someone of your apparent intelligence would have reasoned the irony of its use

The concrete in the tower isn't the same one used in the concrete of sidewalks my friend.

so here's a list of its other uses...

* Blackboard chalk
* Cement
* Drywall
* Plaster, a construction material
* Dental modes
* Surgical casts
* Paint filler
* Toothpaste
* Gesso
* Molds for Casting metals
* Agricultural soil amendment
* Solidifying earth (cast earth construction)
* Tofu coagulation
* Improving mineral content of brewing water
* Dietary calcium additives in breads and cereals
* Pharmaceuticals
* Dessicant - anhydrous calcium sulfate (anhydrite) is sold under the brand name Drierite
* Burtonisation

the 2nd, 3rd and 4th uses obviously bearing the most significance

All the proof i have seen makes me believe that it is a conspiracy but all i have heard against this conspiracy is "Do you think that George Bush would attack his own country?"
It is not proof so i kind of believe the 9/11 thingy