Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:11:31 -0600, Dan wrote:

You never did answer my question: how did they hide the preparations
required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the debris
they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one noticed a
daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember walls,
windows, and structural members are always removed in preparation for
controlled demolitions. What about all the structural members that had
to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several thousands of feet
of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It would have taken weeks
and much manpower just to prepare the buildings. How come no one
noticed? Why do you keep refusing to answer?


Any why didn't any of this stuff go off when the plane hit it. Top down
demoliton requires explosives on every floor (since "truth" refuses to believe
the pancake theory is even possible).

Laurence Doering wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:08:30 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
Laurence Doering wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
@individual.net:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
"Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
Never. Sorry.

Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.

There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.

I think the fact that qualified engineers spend a lot of time
and effort figuring out how to protect steel frame members from
fire is extremely strong evidence that they think fires could
cause a steel framed building to collapse, and that they want to
keep that from happening for some reason.

If you have "a lot more evidence" that qualified engineers
are blithely unconcerned about the deleterious effects of
fires on building structures, by all means feel free to post
it.

Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
colossal waste of time.

If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
failure.

I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
coincidence is totally absurd.

You said:

"A qualified engineer would know that steel framed
buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never."

Unless you're willing to postulate some mysterious magic force
that holds steel-framed buildings up after a fire has weakened
them, you are claiming that fire can't damage steel structures.

Anyone who's ever done any welding knows that's ludicrously
absurd.

I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
on February 2005 are fakes too, right?

The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
were.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid had a reinforced concrete core surrounded
by a steel-framed structure.

The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and
WTC 7 did.

The steel-framed portions of the Windsor Tower on and above the levels
affected by the fire did completely collapse. Google for pictures of
the building after the fire, and notice how the concrete core was all
that remained standing of the entire upper half of the building.

Google will also tell you that the Windsor Tower was described
as having been "destroyed" by the fire, that Madrid officials
believed there was a very good chance the entire building would
collapse after the fire was out, and that the remains of
the tower have since been demolished.

The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin
Towers and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of
time.

WTC 1 and 2 burned about as intensely as you might want from the
time the fires began until the towers collapsed, and fires continued
burning in the rubble pile for weeks.

WTC 7 burned out of control for at least 7 hours before collapsing.

The Windsor Tower fire began about midnight, and photos of the
fire show the steel frame failed completely while it was still
dark. This means that, even though it took almost 24 hours for
Madrid firefighters to extinguish the fire, the steel frame
collapsed much sooner, before daybreak on the night the fire
began.

The fire in the North Tower was **very small**.

Says you. If it was "very small", why does all the available video
of the north tower during the time between impact and collapse show
a massive smoke plume that could only come from a large fire? What
about all the video that shows visible fire on multiple floors?

More to the point, why did hundreds of people jump to certain death
from the north tower if there was only a "very small" fire? Why
didn't they stay put and wait to be rescued?



They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.




If not, why did firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they
needed was a couple of lines?

Because you're quoting them out of context. Feel free to provide
proof that the FDNY believed there was only a "very small" fire
burning in WTC 1.


ljd



This is regarding WTC 2, not 1:


excerpt from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html


Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to
hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to
the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without
fear, and selflessly.

Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact
that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a
coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation
of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they
weakened the steel structure

Dan wrote in news:HX2Sf.61662$Ug4.7991@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
they were complete collapses

I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
for example

Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the
current situation:

No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
(Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

And they were wrong

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
building has ever collapsed from fire…



The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in
1975; however, the building survived with minor damage
and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover,
2002)


That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
major impact.

That makes a difference


That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires!
Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore

However, such complete and nearly
symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives
in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
none of whom were in evidence at the WTC

snip



The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
collapse initiation will not see the evidence.

You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
floors in a timed sequence






Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers.
Besides, the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too*
obvious


You never did answer my question: how did they hide the
preparations
required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the
debris they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one
noticed a daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember
walls, windows, and structural members are always removed in
preparation for controlled demolitions. What about all the structural
members that had to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several
thousands of feet of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It
would have taken weeks and much manpower just to prepare the
buildings. How come no one noticed? Why do you keep refusing to
answer?


The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12...interview.html

Also, GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin were executives in the WTC's
security company





By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because
you think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you
snipped out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding
NIST not performing analysis after collapse inituation.

You have a history of name calling yourself.


Only in direct retaliation.





Why would NIST need to
do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.



Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.



From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases
based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in
building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe
cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST
report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2)
was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of
simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports
[e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input,
but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the
pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were
adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to
provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter
columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building
collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of
such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen.
Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the
sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get
the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were
“adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained
that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns
in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)



I also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study.
Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:


As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests…
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)



That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was
cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of
collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting
exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the
conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test]
results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on
September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)



So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models
fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise
collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for
very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of
course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration
of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.



Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of
their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only
proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any
data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building
became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142;
emphasis added.)



What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna
dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed
in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?
Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at
ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps
to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-
refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests
that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the
evidence is most probably correct.



14. Support from New Civil Engineering Article



An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) has
come to my attention at the end of the draft-process which lends support
to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to
show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite
calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of
the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of
Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….

University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous
resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By
comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there
have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
(Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)


Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised
by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by
a physicist.

In article ,
on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

"khobar" wrote in
news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in
news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in
message ...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way
you are aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings
arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since
thermite isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it
being used. Har har har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I
guess to a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially
evaporate steel? Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures
that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal
dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were those three items
present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers aren't able
to take everything into context, and instead give silly reasons
for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a
nuclear reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like
in the videos? Yes. Were these three items present at the WTC?
Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His
supporters are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence
at his Sept 22 seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there
should be a new investigation.

Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !

And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree
in structural engineering


This is what they're calling for:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1141667399

Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine
in the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.

So he has no background in structural engineering ?
Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.

A degree in physics is just that.





Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.



So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
structural engineering or materials science.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

mrtravel wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

Wake Up! wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's the
ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.

And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.


Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.

That is what you do when analysing any kind of system failure or test.
When you perform a test or failure analysis, you build a computer model,
as best you can, and then change paramaters until you duplicate the
observed phenomena. Of course, you would change the data (weaken or
remove structural members from the simulation, etc.) until you get an
understanding of what actually failed.

I doubt that fire engineers would understand the dynamics of structural
failure -- they are interested (and trained) in fireproofing,
firefighting and fire prevention -- not how a building came down when
hit by the equivalent of a 1KT weapon.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:53:00 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....




By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because you
think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you snipped
out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding NIST not
performing analysis after collapse inituation.

This brings to mind a line from a famous Katherine Hepburn movie,

" The Loons, the Loons......"



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:01:42 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....


Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say
"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to
knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to
hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to
the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without
fear, and selflessly.

Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact
that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a
coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation
of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they
weakened the steel structure

All you prove here is that there were some incredibly brave and professional
fire fighters working for the NYFD.

I'm not sure how you can make your leap from that fact to your ideas.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 14 Mar 2006 18:02:06 GMT,
Laurence Doering attempted to say .....

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
"Wake UP!" wrote:

Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.

You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
an aluminum alloy [1].

Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
that's easily reached in building fires.

Add the tons of material in office partitions and furniture. Not to mention the
plastics.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:HX2Sf.61662$Ug4.7991@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

The behaviour of steel in fire hasnt changed in 60 years and yes
they were complete collapses

I can cite other cases, the Hotel York in Redcar England was
a 15 storey steel framed hotel that collapsed after a fire
for example
Based on the following quote from Jones' paper, it can be assumed
that the collapses you mention above are not relevant to the
current situation:

No they are vidence of how full of **** Jones is.

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
(Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

And they were wrong

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a
major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise
building has ever collapsed from fire…



The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in
1975; however, the building survived with minor damage
and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover,
2002)

That fire was confined to approx half of a single floor rather than
several floors and the building had not been damaged by a
major impact.

That makes a difference

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires!
Incorrect, I have given examples that you choose to ignore

However, such complete and nearly
symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred
many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives
in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
Which requires weeks of careful preparation by large work teams,
none of whom were in evidence at the WTC

snip


The Towers' implosions were not typical. They were detonated top
down. Therefore, any engineer truncating the investigation at
collapse initiation will not see the evidence.

You dont use explsoives to demolish buildings from the top
down, you blow out the lower floors and some intermediate
floors in a timed sequence





Except when demolishing unique structures like the Twin Towers.
Besides, the government couldn't make controlled demolitions *too*
obvious

You never did answer my question: how did they hide the
preparations
required for a controlled demolition? Where did they put all the
debris they would have had to remove in preparation? How come no one
noticed a daily line of dump trucks hauling away the debris? Remember
walls, windows, and structural members are always removed in
preparation for controlled demolitions. What about all the structural
members that had to be weakened with torch cuts? How about the several
thousands of feet of det cord and charges placed in plain view? It
would have taken weeks and much manpower just to prepare the
buildings. How come no one noticed? Why do you keep refusing to
answer?


The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12...interview.html


In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does not
indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
week's work in less that 24 hours? Even if "they" could who made all the
debris vanish and why didn't anyone notice the prepwork Monday morning?

Do you not see why your theory makes no sense whatever?


Also, GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin were executives in the WTC's
security company

And his brother Jeb is governor of Florida and his wife was a
librarian and his mother has gray hair and the sun was shining that day
and Alaska has ice...etc. So what?





By your tone / name calling, you sound a bit upset. Perhaps because
you think there's something to Jones' claims afterall? I noticed you
snipped out one of Jones' main points from my response, regarding
NIST not performing analysis after collapse inituation.
You have a history of name calling yourself.


Only in direct retaliation.

Negative.


Why would NIST need to
do an analysis after initiation of collapse when they already proved
what how it started? It was simply a chain reaction.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.

Already addressed.



Also, are you aware that NIST literally "changed" the data in their
computer simulation to get the Towers to collapse? And now they refuse to
show the simulations to leading fire engineers who call for them.

I bet they did change data entries. It's part of what one does in
simulations. Once they duplicate what happened they will know what
caused it by the data they entered. You are not conversant in this area
so I suggest you accept the responses from the experts you keep asking.



From Jones' paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Let me try to explain this again. His paper has been debunked many
times. He may be a physicist but he is a theoretical physicist as
opposed to a structural engineer who uses applied physics. Jones is a
fool and so is anyone who uses his paper as a basis for disbelieving the
government's story.

You keep asking for expert opinion then blowing off what you hear. By
your own admission you don't understand the science and math involved
yet you doubt those of us who do. Remember when you tried to tell us
jetliners use diesel fuel, a squib is a puff of smoke, the ground is not
visible from 34,000 feet etc? You are really coming across as a bit
silly in all this.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired