BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Sal The Butcher]

does anyone think this article isnt authentic?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate.

i didnt know that professor jones had acess to debris, is there any reason to doubt the validity of this article?(i dont mean do you think jones is right, i just mean did he really say this? if so discussion would be appreciated)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Article provides no information how the analysis was done, what controls were in place, chain of custody of evidence, how they eliminated other sources of sulfur(gypsum walls, etc) as possible sources of the sulfur, etc.

Also, I think this was touched upon in the last 10 pages or so on the Loose Change III thread.

[Hellbound]

Even the NIST report, IIRC, discovered sulfer residue.

However, saying this is thermate is a bit disingenious.

Alex Jones has claimed some form of thermite was used since the beginning, so this would not be out of line with his claims. However, his claims are not supported well by the evidence.

Thermate consists of only 2% sulphur, with the vast majority being Aluminum, Iron, and Barium Nitrate. There should be large amounts of Aluminum Oxide slag near the sulphur deposits, as well as Barium Oxide residue and elemental iron. These elements being found together would go a long way towards proving Thermate, but sulphur by itself does not suuport the idea.

The sulphur residue is currently thought to be due to sulphur from various fuels at the site, as well as possibly coming from the gypsum in drywall.

[Sal The Butcher]

ah, so i would assume its accepted that jones really made this claim, is it?

if so then i am indeed intrigued

[Hellbound]

ah, so i would assume its accepted that jones really made this claim, is it?

if so then i am indeed intrigued

I'd see no reason to doubt it, as he's explicitly brought up the possibility numerous times.

[Sal The Butcher]

Even the NIST report, IIRC, discovered sulfer residue.

However, saying this is thermate is a bit disingenious.

Alex Jones has claimed some form of thermite was used since the beginning, so this would not be out of line with his claims. However, his claims are not supported well by the evidence.

Thermate consists of only 2% sulphur, with the vast majority being Aluminum, Iron, and Barium Nitrate. There should be large amounts of Aluminum Oxide slag near the sulphur deposits, as well as Barium Oxide residue and elemental iron. These elements being found together would go a long way towards proving Thermate, but sulphur by itself does not suuport the idea.

The sulphur residue is currently thought to be due to sulphur from various fuels at the site, as well as possibly coming from the gypsum in drywall.
i dont know about sulfer/thermite so im not gonna argue..

but i think you confused him with the conspiracy master, i think the professors name is steven jones, he has, however, been making arguments that thermite was used for a LONG time

[Sal The Butcher]

im not doubtinmg what you are saying, but where exactly do you think the aluminum came from? was it common in the building?

[Hellbound]

i dont know about sulfer/thermite so im not gonna argue..

but i think you confused him with the conspiracy master, i think the professors name is steven jones, he has, however, been making arguments that thermite was used for a LONG time

You know, you are right. I was confusing the Jones's :)

However, Stephen Jones is the one I intended to talk about.

Alex Jones has been mentioned recently, which is where my typo came from.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

im not doubtinmg what you are saying, but where exactly do you think the aluminum came from? was it common in the building?

It was common in the building

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers’ design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm


During the pre-planning stage, over 100 schemes were studied, including a plan for a single 150-storey tower which was discarded due to an excessive scale and replaced by a design with twin towers. The completed WTC plan was introduced in January 1964 and after slight alterations, like the abandonment of a plan enclosing the plaza with a low-height building "wall" or change of cladding material from stainless steel to an aluminium-alloy, the construction was started with groundbreaking on August 5, 1966.
...
The elevator complement consisted of 23 express elevators and 72 local elevators in each zone. There were 43,600 windows in the towers; glass, however, comprised only 30% of the towers' facade area, the rest being taken up by the aluminium-clad columns that leave between only narrow, slot-like windows. In order to allow the top floor observation facilities better views, the top floor windows had to be widened by one-third. In each tower, a specially-designed window washing machine travelled up and down the facades and took half an hour to wash one vertical stripe of windows.

http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc3b.html

[dubfan]

Also, I think this was touched upon in the last 10 pages or so on the Loose Change III thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58851

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58851


Thankee sai!

[Hellbound]

im not doubtinmg what you are saying, but where exactly do you think the aluminum came from? was it common in the building?

As Arkan stated, aluminum was common.

However, unless something new has been released recently, Stephen is basing his conclusion on the presence of sulphur alone. It was not coincidental with Aluminum oxide or barium oxide. It was found mixed with iron, but iron was also relatively common.

Even in thermite/thermate, the level of sulphur is low. The Barium Nitrate is primarily what enchances the incendiary effect...the sulphur is purely to assist in the ignition (it does not enhance).
There's 15 times as much barium nitrate as sulphur, and 25 to 30 times as much of the aluminum/iron oxide mixture. Yet all he found were sulphur and iron.

[kevin]

It was common in the building
go look at a picture of the WTC before it fell. All that shiny stuff? Aluminum covering the steel. That's a heck of a lot of aluminum!

[Kopji]

“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

Maybe his belief in Mormonism is a predictor that despite his impressive educational credentials he is susceptible to believing the impossible and fantastic.

[Sal The Butcher]

so all the outside beams had some amount of aluminum coating them?

[Hellbound]

so all the outside beams had so0me amount of aluminum?

And that doesn't even include the likely amounts of aluminum outside the building structure proper, such as components in the various machines (computers, printers, generators, etc), piping and conduit, light fixtures, doorknobs, decorative pieces, "kickguards" on doors, bathroom stalls, etc, etc, etc.

It's hard to find a building without lots of aluminum in it, because aluminum is one of the most common, least expensive metals around, and useful for a lot fo things.

[dubfan]

It's hard to find a building without lots of aluminum in it, because aluminum is one of the most common, least expensive metals around, and useful for a lot fo things.

Including 767s!

[Mancman]

so all the outside beams had some amount of aluminum coating them?

The entire facade consisted of aluminium panels, one for every exterior column on every floor. 236 panels per floor, 25950 panels on each tower.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Maybe his belief in Mormonism is a predictor that despite his impressive educational credentials he is susceptible to believing the impossible and fantastic.

Cannot the same be said of any religious person?

As I've said before, I too am a mormon and I think that Jones (who claims his work has drawn threats and bribery attempts from government agents) is full of crap.

I've seen a number of anti-CT sites go after Jones for his religious beliefs. The problem with that is that you open the door to pro-CTs to make the same kind of attacks.

Two of the sources listed on the debunking 9-11 CD theories site ( http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/ ) are themselves mormon and therefore also believe that Jesus walked among the ancestors to the Aztecs and the Mayans.

A Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU are both mormons themselves (employees of church owned institutions like BYU are required to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in good standing, this includes paying tithing and submitting to annual "worthiness interviews").

That the faculty of his own school won't back him up is as effective a counter-argument to his work as any I could imagine. Dismissing Jones as a mormon means dismissing them as well.

[Bikewer]

I havn't really been following all this, but let me get this straight. Are these lunatics claiming that naughty persons snuck around in the building structure of the towers, craftily planting thermite grenades and such, cleverly wiring them all together and rigging some sort of clever trigger that just happened to coincide with the impact of the hijacked airliners.....At the precise location that the airliners hit the buildings...?????

I have watched a number of Discovery-type segments on building demolition and implosion, and watched while they prepped and imploded one of our old dorms a couple of years ago. This takes a large work crew, and a lot of heavy-duty sawing, drilling, jackhammering, and so forth. The wiring for such efforts is extremely complex the explosions must occur in exactly-timed sequence.

[kevin]

I havn't really been following all this, but let me get this straight. Are these lunatics claiming that naughty persons snuck around in the building structure of the towers, craftily planting thermite grenades and such, cleverly wiring them all together and rigging some sort of clever trigger that just happened to coincide with the impact of the hijacked airliners.....At the precise location that the airliners hit the buildings...?????

Not all of them, some are claiming the rebar in the concrete core (that didn't exist) were covered in C4.

[Sal The Butcher]

I havn't really been following all this, but let me get this straight. Are these lunatics claiming that naughty persons snuck around in the building structure of the towers, craftily planting thermite grenades and such, cleverly wiring them all together and rigging some sort of clever trigger that just happened to coincide with the impact of the hijacked airliners.....At the precise location that the airliners hit the buildings...?????


NOT AT ALL,

accroding to the theory an explosion was not syncronized to the impact,

and accoprding to the official story the impact did NOT weaken the structural integrity of the buildings, the theory is that the explosives were detonated when the buildings collapsed, and its what brought them down

[Sal The Butcher]

Not all of them, some are claiming the rebar in the concrete core (that didn't exist) were covered in C4.
ive NEVER seen claims that the building had a concrete core, there were ALOT of elevator shafts according to what ive seen

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NOT AT ALL,

accroding to the theory an explosion was not syncronized to the impact,

and accoprding to the official story the impact did NOT weaken the structural integrity of the buildings, the theory is that the explosives were detonated when the buildings collapsed, and its what brought them down

No, the accepted (scientific) theory regarding the cause of the collapse of the buildings is that the impacts of the planes caused some loss of structural integrity. The subsequent fires caused further structural integrity loss, eventually leading to a collapse of the core column support and "pancake" style collapse of the floors. The accepted theory, as stated by the NIST and Commission reports, has no mention of explosives.

edited: Because verb tenses on Monday's is _hard_!

[Sal The Butcher]

No, the accepted (scientific) theory regarding the cause of the collapse of the buildings is that the impacts of the planes caused some loss of structural integrity. The subsequent fires caused further structural integrity loss, eventually leading to a collapse of the core column support and "pancake" style collapse of the floors. The accepted theory, as stated by the NIST and Commission reports, has no mention of explosives.

edited: Because verb tenses on Monday's is _hard_!
i was saying the theory about explosioves says they brought the building down and NOT that they were syncronized to the impact


i thought that it was established the towers could take more then one plane without loosing integrity, and i thought that same report said the impact didnt damage the towers integrity (NIST)

[dubfan]

I havn't really been following all this, but let me get this straight. Are these lunatics claiming that naughty persons snuck around in the building structure of the towers, craftily planting thermite grenades and such, cleverly wiring them all together and rigging some sort of clever trigger that just happened to coincide with the impact of the hijacked airliners.....At the precise location that the airliners hit the buildings...?????

Basically yes.

Some of these people claim the airliners didn't exist -- that they were holograms, or CGI effects added in real-time to the broadcast videos. Or perhaps they were real planes, but not airliners, or that perhaps they were real planes, but they fired a missile from a "pod" visible underneath the plane, and it was the missile that primarily created the damage, not the plane.

From there it only gets crazy, so we'd probably best stop now.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

i was saying the theory about explosioves says they brought the building down and NOT that they were syncronized to the impact

Copy.


i thought that it was established the towers could take more then one plane without loosing integrity, and i thought that same report said the impact didnt damage the towers integrity (NIST)
Towers were built to withstand the following aircraft collision:

Available Information on Safety of WTC
Towers in Aircraft Collision (1)
Towers in Aircraft Collision (1)
Type of Aircraft:
Boeing 707 (largest jet aircraft in the air at that time)
DC-8
Speed of Aircraft: 600 mph (Port Authority, February 1964)
180 mph (FEMA 403, 2002)
Location of Impact: 80
th
floor (Port Authority, March 1964)
Structural design: It appears that the design of the WTC towers
considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis
indicated that such collision would result in only
local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building
NIST found no documentary evidence
of any analysis supporting this conclusion.
...
Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial
airliners. While documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)
indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph, possibly crashing into the 80
th
floor,
was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of the subsequent fires was not considered. Building codes do not require building designs to
consider aircraft impact.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ussartf.org%2Fworld_trade_cen ter_disaster.htm&ei=ukagRLj7N5H4owLNuPX9Aw&sig2=Cc_FOvs7yY1-aDmN7WGtNA

Chapter 1 section 1.5.2 http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm addresses the plane collision specs used in the design of the towers.

Chapter 2, section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 deal with WTC1 and WTC2, respectively, and the collapse, included the initial plane impact.

[Sal The Butcher]

Basically yes.

Some of these people claim the airliners didn't exist -- that they were holograms, or CGI effects added in real-time to the broadcast videos. Or perhaps they were real planes, but not airliners, or that perhaps they were real planes, but they fired a missile from a "pod" visible underneath the plane, and it was the missile that primarily created the damage, not the plane.

From there it only gets crazy, so we'd probably best stop now.
this is misinformation, there are no more then maybe 50 people in the world that believe what you said, and thats a generous figure, that is NOT the theory,

its what people who dont listen to those who theorize think that people are saying (im not saying your someone who doesnt listen)

there is no speculatuon that explosions were coordinated to coincide with impact, that doesnt even make sense, i would imagine a few people hear 'explosives were used' and decide 'they must have been' but they dont bother even looking at what they heard so they go around saying explosives went off when the planes hit...

whatever the case, the actual theory is NOT that the explosives were syncrobnized to impace, and i live in NY and trhere is NO belief the planes were fake, most of the theories dont even sugge4st that what is known as 'al-quaida' was involved, they just suggest that the CIA still funds al-quaida

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

this is misinformation, there are no more then maybe 50 people in the world that believe what you said, and thats a generous figure, that is NOT the theory,

its what people who dont listen to those who theorize think that people are saying (im not saying your someone who doesnt listen)

there is no speculatuon that explosions were coordinated to coincide with impact, that doesnt even make sense, i would imagine a few people hear 'explosives were used' and decide 'they must have been' but they dont bother even looking at what they heard so they go around saying explosives went off when the planes hit...

whatever the case, the actual theory is NOT that the explosives were syncrobnized to impace, and i live in NY and trhere is NO belief the planes were fake, most of the theories dont even sugge4st that what is known as 'al-quaida' was involved, they just suggest that the CIA still funds al-quaida

What is the "actual" theory, and what is the evidence supporting it?

[Sal The Butcher]

What is the "actual" theory, and what is the evidence supporting it?
sorry, i should be more clear, what i mean is the mainstream explosives theory dictates that explosives brought down the buildings and NOT that they were syncronized to impact...

im not saying i have ANY evidence eitrher way, im just trying to point out to people saying that explosives werent coordinated to impact that nobody is saying they were

[Bradk3]

Maybe his belief in Mormonism is a predictor that despite his impressive educational credentials he is susceptible to believing the impossible and fantastic.

Oooooooor perhaps he's just a moron. Mormonism has nothing to do with it.

[Gravy]

sorry, i should be more clear, what i mean is the mainstream explosives theory dictates that explosives brought down the buildings and NOT that they were syncronized to impact...

im not saying i have ANY evidence eitrher way, im just trying to point out to people saying that explosives werent coordinated to impact that nobody is saying they were
However, CTs commonly cite the reports of random explosive noises in the towers for a period of an hour or so before collapse, as evidence of wrongdoing. To which my responses are:

– Why shouldn't there be explosions going on in such a scenario? There are many things that can make the described noises (including the impact and collapse of WTC 2 as heard, but not seen, by people in WTC 1).

– If you think there's something fishy about what any of the witnesses saw or heard, please describe in detail what you think they should have seen and heard.

– What would random explosions have to do with a building demolition?

[Beerina]

sorry, i should be more clear, what i mean is the mainstream explosives theory dictates that explosives brought down the buildings and NOT that they were syncronized to impact...

im not saying i have ANY evidence eitrher way, im just trying to point out to people saying that explosives werent coordinated to impact that nobody is saying they were

I watched a special on the WTC on PBS -- they showed multiple slo-mo closeups of the moments of collapse, and there are no explosions, unlike every other building demolition.

But to a CTer, all that means is you modify the theory a little, to claim they deliberately shaped the explosions so as to not produce any significant puffs. Which would be technically impossible given all the flames and smoke that would puff out in any noticeable explosion.

But that fact won't stop anybody.

[RandFan]

Oooooooor perhaps he's just a moron. Mormonism has nothing to do with it.Yes, no, maybe. Mormons are quite capable of critical thinking. They are also capable of suspending critical thinking. I don't know. I'd have to see something more to make me think that this is significant in this case. FWIW, I'm Mormon, I'm an atheist but I'm on the records so in that way I am Mormon. I do plan on having my name removed someday and I don't consider myself Mormon except that I still have attachments to the church through friends and family.

[kevin]

ive NEVER seen claims that the building had a concrete core, there were ALOT of elevator shafts according to what ive seen

Argue it out with Christophera. I think his suspension ends in a day or so. His claims are here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

[Sal The Butcher]

I watched a special on the WTC on PBS -- they showed multiple slo-mo closeups of the moments of collapse, and there are no explosions, unlike every other building demolition.

But to a CTer, all that means is you modify the theory a little, to claim they deliberately shaped the explosions so as to not produce any significant puffs. Which would be technically impossible given all the flames and smoke that would puff out in any noticeable explosion.

But that fact won't stop anybody.
i know what you mean, most demolitions have visible flashes as the charges go off, perhaps all you needed to take out to drop the WTC was the central beams/columns and the outer beams would just collapse, thus no charges would be going off snywhere near where you would see them from the outside (just a thought)

[Sal The Butcher]

However, CTs commonly cite the reports of random explosive noises in the towers for a period of an hour or so before collapse, as evidence of wrongdoing. To which my responses are:

– Why shouldn't there be explosions going on in such a scenario? There are many things that can make the described noises (including the impact and collapse of WTC 2 as heard, but not seen, by people in WTC 1).

– If you think there's something fishy about what any of the witnesses saw or heard, please describe in detail what you think they should have seen and heard.

– What would random explosions have to do with a building demolition?
i have read some of what you have posted and you seem to understand many things, my only criticizm of you is that yoyu tend to dispute specific arguments rather then general possibilities... however when you are discussing loose change you get mostly specific arguments so i cant blame you there, loose change is too suggestive, and has many inconsistencies


i would love to start a thread where i can present evidence to you and have you explain it to me, some of it i dont fully understand and some of it i may be misinterpreting, itll be a while before i present it all, ive got ALOT

[Sal The Butcher]

Argue it out with Christophera. I think his suspension ends in a day or so. His claims are here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426
ah, i will check this out

[Mancman]

i know what you mean, most demolitions have visible flashes as the charges go off, perhaps all you needed to take out to drop the WTC was the central beams/columns and the outer beams would just collapse, thus no charges would be going off snywhere near where you would see them from the outside (just a thought)

Not really applicable though, considering that both towers initially failed on the outer walls, on the sides which were subjected to the heaviest fire and most severe concave bowing.

Some core columns were just 35ft away from the perimeter. (Each floor was a 208ft square, central cores were 137ftx87ft) Could explosives on these beams have gone undetected by all the cameras that filmed the event?

[Sal The Butcher]

Not really applicable though, considering that both towers initially failed on the outer walls, on the sides which were subjected to the heaviest fire and most severe concave bowing.

Some core columns were just 35ft away from the perimeter. (Each floor was a 208ft square, central cores were 137ftx87ft) Could explosives on these beams have gone undetected by all the cameras that filmed the event?
i have seen at least video that shows flashes during collapse, however even among those who believe explosives were used there are disputes about them not being explosives,

the most common explination ive heard is that its most likley glass shards reflecting the sun, ive also heard arguments that the angles are wrong for that to be happening... i really dont know, the flashes dont exactly resemble demolition charges but i could be looking for the wrong things...


there is one video that shows what has been suggested to be a thermite reaction, however i have heard this disputed as well, i have heard suggestions that it is merley some type of electrical issue caused by the fire

ill look for the video of the flashes if you want to see it (i would imagine its probably glass or whatever was on the outside of the building that would reflect light, but people have argued the dust cloud would have prevented the sun from reaching the fragments)

i cant find the thermite comparrison thing right now, ill keep looking, i know i have the link somewhere

[Stellafane]

...my only criticizm of you is that yoyu tend to dispute specific arguments rather then general possibilities...

Hi Sal. With all due respect, I don't think the discussion of "general possibilities" (if I understand the term correctly) is of much value -- I think that the only way to really examine and demonstrate the truth is to address specific arguments. "Bush did it" is a general possibility, but how does one go about proving or disproving that? It would be almost impossible to disprove 100% to everybody (even Bin Laden's taped confession didn't do it), while proving it would probably require evidence no one will ever have. In the end, it boils down to what could be considered a philosophical choice, akin to religion -- you can either choose to believe it or not, but that's about it.

Specific arguments, on the other hand, are concrete claims that are far more provable/disprovable. "The towers fell faster than free-fall," for instance, is a specific argument that can be examined objectively, with evidence presented pro and con. In the end, any "general possibility" must be constructed of "specific arguments," or else there's probably not a lot of value in discussing it.

Of course, your definition of "general possibilities" may be different from mine.

[DavidJames]

i have seen at least video that shows flashes during collapse, however even among those who believe explosives were used there are disputes about them not being explosives,

the most common explination ive heard is that its most likley glass shards reflecting the sun, ive also heard arguments that the angles are wrong for that to be happening... i really dont know, the flashes dont exactly resemble demolition charges but i could be looking for the wrong things...


there is one video that shows what has been suggested to be a thermite reaction, however i have heard this disputed as well, i have heard suggestions that it is merley some type of electrical issue caused by the fire

ill look for the video of the flashes if you want to see it (i would imagine its probably glass or whatever was on the outside of the building that would reflect light, but people have argued the dust cloud would have prevented the sun from reaching the fragments)

i cant find the thermite comparrison thing right now, ill keep looking, i know i have the link somewhereYou seem to be searching for alternatives to the official explanation and I'm curious why?

Tell us what about the official explanation you disagree with. The NIST report goes into some signficant detail, point out the explanations you disagree with and why. Please be specfic.

[chipmunk stew]

does anyone think this article isnt authentic?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml



i didnt know that professor jones had acess to debris, is there any reason to doubt the validity of this article?(i dont mean do you think jones is right, i just mean did he really say this? if so discussion would be appreciated)Haven't read the thread, so sorry if I'm being redundant, but to be clear, he didn't find thermate. He found evidence that he's interpreted as evidence of thermate. Considering his poor track record with interpreting evidence, I don't have much faith that his hypothesis will bear fruit. The article appears to be a fair representation of Jones' claims, so I don't doubt the article's authenticity. Jones' claims, OTOH, I view with deep skepticism.

[Mr. Skinny]

i have read some of what you have posted and you seem to understand many things, my only criticizm of you is that yoyu tend to dispute specific arguments rather then general possibilities... however when you are discussing loose change you get mostly specific arguments so i cant blame you there, loose change is too suggestive, and has many inconsistencies


i would love to start a thread where i can present evidence to you and have you explain it to me, some of it i dont fully understand and some of it i may be misinterpreting, itll be a while before i present it all, ive got ALOT
Sal, I'd like to echo what Stellafane said above. We need to deal with specifics, not generalities, if possible.

Instead of waiting to put together ALOT of evidence (as you put it), why not just take things one at a time. Present one piece of "evidence" and let the discussion go where it may. Keeps things a lot neater.

Also, have you read the two previous Loose Change threads in this forum? Maybe some of your upcoming topics have already been discussed.

[Sal The Butcher]

Sal, I'd like to echo what Stellafane said above. We need to deal with specifics, not generalities, if possible.

Instead of waiting to put together ALOT of evidence (as you put it), why not just take things one at a time. Present one piece of "evidence" and let the discussion go where it may. Keeps things a lot neater.

Also, have you read the two previous Loose Change threads in this forum? Maybe some of your upcoming topics have already been discussed.
im bad at explaining things, i was tring to say if you are overley specific (WORST ANALOGY EVER IS COMING UP)

like if you say the number 30 does not apply, and treat that as if 30-39 have all been proven wrong (sorry, i didnt sleep last night)

i need to sleep, tommorow ill start posting some stuff

[Mr. Skinny]

im bad at explaining things, i was tring to say if you are overley specific (WORST ANALOGY EVER IS COMING UP)

like if you say the number 30 does not apply, and treat that as if 30-39 have all been proven wrong (sorry, i didnt sleep last night)

i need to sleep, tommorow ill start posting some stuff
Fair enough, Sal. Get some sleep and come back refreshed tomorrow.

If I'm getting your poor analogy right, well, for instance if you believe(to use Christophera as an example) that a concrete core didn't exist (number 30 in your example?), then why listen to his arguments about "pulverizing the concrete core", "C4 coated rebar in the concrete core", etc (numbers 31 through 39?). It makes no sense to continue discussion on those issue if the concrete core itself can't be substantiated.

That's why I'm suggesting sticking to one point at a time. It allows all participants to concentrate on one or two issues that are germaine to the claim without getting into a dozen or more side points.



Edited cause sometime I can't form a cogent sentence.

[Gravy]

i have read some of what you have posted and you seem to understand many things, my only criticizm of you is that yoyu tend to dispute specific arguments rather then general possibilities... however when you are discussing loose change you get mostly specific arguments so i cant blame you there, loose change is too suggestive, and has many inconsistencies

i would love to start a thread where i can present evidence to you and have you explain it to me, some of it i dont fully understand and some of it i may be misinterpreting, itll be a while before i present it all, ive got ALOT
Sal, thanks for the compliment, but don't sell everyone else short. There are several people on this forum who are MUCH better than I am at analyzing and explaining many 9/11-related issues. For example, I was reading some of dubfan's comments on the new ST911 Studies forum, (http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewforum.php?f=2&mforum=911studies) and he is really good. Also, I'm lousy at math. I've learned much from several regulars who don't post here as often as they once did: delphi_ote, Chipmunk Stew, Randfan, Manny, and others. There hasn't been a lot of CT action on this forum lately. They keep it lively. But it gets aggravating explaining the same things over and over, so I expect people to lose interest. Still, there are always people lurking here who pop in with comments and facts that are amazingly informed and relevant.

You may have gotten the impression that I'm a top dog on the 9/11 threads, but that's just because I have a habit of challenging CTs to put up or shut up. That doesn't mean I think I'm more capable at debating than others here. I don't think that. I just get pissed off when CTs shoot their mouths off about the "truth" but aren't willing to back their claims with evidence or listen to rational arguments. Their cowardice should be exposed.

CTs often ask why I don't debunk this or that person's work: why I "pick on" LC. Well, I did a pretty thorough debunk of the literature handed out by the NY911truth.org people, which is based almost entirely on David Ray Griffin''s work (linked in my sig. below, if it still works). I had actually started on this debunking jag with a critique of Steven E. Jones, but LC quickly got my attention. When someone brags that seven million people have downloaded their movie from one source, I listen up, even if I think they're exaggerating. That's a lot of people getting misinformation. Also, the CTs don't seem to have any idea how much work goes into a thorough critique. That's exactly the problem I have with them: they don't think things through. I think about all the material Mike Williams has gathered on 911myths.com, and my brain boggles. It's a lot of work, and it's distasteful work. Even the easy ones, like a critique I posted on the ST911 forum today, take a good deal of time.

Tonight I was going to do a critique of another paper on that site, but it would take many hours to do it properly, because the guy makes many claims and gets all of them wrong. All of them. It's exhausting to even think about debunking such utter nonsense. The same is true with people like Steven E. Jones, who is looked on with reverence by CTs. His 9/11 papers aren't hard to debunk because they're smart stuff. Exactly the opposite. They're tiring to debunk because they're an avalanche of misinformation, poor methodology, and logical fallacies. Jones has worked in major science labs for his whole career. He also claims to be a Christian. For a New York City tour guide like me to feel compelled to explain to him what the scientific method is, what standards of evidence are, what peer review is, and what honesty is, strikes me as more than a little bit bizarre. Actually, it makes me ripping mad.

So that's mainly what drives me. I don't enjoy doing this but I think it's necessary. I am very grateful for the exposure I've had to the good hearts and sharp minds here. Still, I'd rather be out playing baseball. And I don't do this because I find it interesting. I rarely do. There are always discussions going on in other subforums that I'd rather participate in. Most of the CT claims I've seen are simply idiotic and not intellectually stimulating. Sometimes a good mystery comes along (Able Danger comes to mind), and sometimes it's fun to play with trolls like Christophera, but for the most part this is just tedious and aggravating.

Sal, as for me focusing more on generalites when it comes to considering CT claims, that's not going to happen. CTs are great at spouting generalities but their claims almost never stand up to detailed scrutiny. People tell me, "Yeah, LC gets a lot wrong, but it gets people asking questions." No. LC gets everything wrong and is the worst possible guide to the truth. Someone who didn't look into its details might think that it gets some things wrong, but be impressed by its "general" tone of righteous indignation. Wrongtious hogwash, I say, and I can prove it because I looked at every detail. And that concludes today's rant. ;)

[RandFan]

Sal, thanks for the compliment, but don't sell everyone else short. There are several people on this forum who are MUCH better than I am at analyzing and explaining many 9/11-related issues. For example, I was reading some of dubfan's comments on the new ST911 Studies forum, (http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewforum.php?f=2&mforum=911studies) and he is really good. Also, I'm lousy at math. I've learned much from several regulars who don't post here as often as they once did: delphi_ote, Chipmunk Stew, Randfan, Manny, and others. There hasn't been a lot of CT action on this forum lately. They keep it lively. But it gets aggravating explaining the same things over and over, so I expect people to lose interest. Still, there are always people lurking here who pop in with comments and facts that are amazingly informed and relevant.
You've become somewhat iconic Gravy due to your efforts and putting together some comprehensive information. That's great and it is great that you get it that this is not about you or anyone in particular. It's about the truth and the victims of 9/11.

It's too bad Avery doesn't get this. He is happy to accuse a grieving father who lost his son on that day of actually murdering that child so that he (Avery) can gain some degree of notoriety and start a film career. It's disgusting. That the loosers don't see that is painfully disappointing to say the least.

[kevin]

Not really applicable though, considering that both towers initially failed on the outer walls, on the sides which were subjected to the heaviest fire and most severe concave bowing.


Come on man, you PM'd me the link to the Horizon episode on BBC that covered the fall (great resource BTW). It says:

At the northeast corner and along the east wall, the connections between the floors and the outer wall began to break as the floors sagged in the heat. The floors were an essential part of the structure, bracing both the outer walls and the inner core. Already weakened by the impact and now unbraced, the outer wall columns of the South Tower could not support the weight above them. At 9.59am Eastern Time, they snapped.

So check on outer wall collapse first on south tower, but the north they say:

gain, connections between floors and columns started to fail in the heat, but here in the North Tower, it was the connections at the core that gave way first. Without the floors to brace it, the core could not stand alone. 29 minutes after the first collapse, the core in the North Tower collapsed vertically, pulling the rest of the tower down with it.

Core failure first here. Personally if I were going to bring down two buildings of virtually identical design, I'd probably use the same methods and the buildings would fall the same way.

[gumboot]

I have a single painful problem with the CD theory that I feel is too often overlooked. Sound.

Everyone focusing on the look. Was there a squib? Is that a flash of explosion, or some breaking glass? How fast did they fall? Is that into its own footprint?

The most painfully obvious factor missing in the tower collapses, were they CD, is sound.

There are COUNTLESS videos at the base of the towers at the moment of collapse. NOT ONE records even a single explosion. Explosions are LOUD. Explosions of the scale required to do this job would DEAFEN people in and around the towers.

And yet no one can provide even a single scrap of video with an explosion in it. Instead we get videos taken a mile away with wobbly tripods and dull noises that could be wind on the microphone or someone shutting a car door nearby.

I'm sorry, but until someone can provide REAL evidence of loud explosions at the time of collapse, any consideration of CD is garbage.

-Andrew

[CurtC]

The most painfully obvious factor missing in the tower collapses, were they CD, is sound.
There is one video with sounds, called 9/11 Eyewitness or something similar. Unfortunately for them, it's taken from the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, a couple of miles away in Hoboken. Sometime before the collapse, there are pops which the guy who took the video claims are the sounds of explosions, but audio folks on this forum say sound like pops from wind noise on a small camera mic.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the problem with their believing this is proof of explosives.

[gumboot]

I'm sure I don't need to point out the problem with their believing this is proof of explosives.


It's the same with their "shaking tripod" video. A genuine explosion would "shake the tripod" because it would shake the building the tripod was sitting in. The actual tripod itself wouldn't shake at all - the thing it is sitting on would shake.

In the LC video, at the moment of the camera shake, they artificially zoom in on the image (evident by the pixelisation). This has two effects

1) it exaggerates the shaking and subconsciously associates it with the building they zoom in on (WTC)
2) it crops out the left of the frame where we see another building.

In the event of a REAL shake (I would estimate the shake to be equivelant to between a 4 and 6 earthquake (been in a lot of earthquakes)) a view of this neighbouring building would tell us a LOT about the nature of the "camera shake".

I managed to track down the original footage, and guess what? The neighbouring building shakes exactly in time with the camera. This indicates movement of the tripod itself, not the foundation it is sitting on.

Translation?

Someone bumped the tripod.

-Andrew

[RandFan]

It's the same with their "shaking tripod" video. A genuine explosion would "shake the tripod" because it would shake the building the tripod was sitting in. The actual tripod itself wouldn't shake at all - the thing it is sitting on would shake.

In the LC video, at the moment of the camera shake, they artificially zoom in on the image (evident by the pixelisation). This has two effects

1) it exaggerates the shaking and subconsciously associates it with the building they zoom in on (WTC)
2) it crops out the left of the frame where we see another building.

In the event of a REAL shake (I would estimate the shake to be equivelant to between a 4 and 6 earthquake (been in a lot of earthquakes)) a view of this neighbouring building would tell us a LOT about the nature of the "camera shake".

I managed to track down the original footage, and guess what? The neighbouring building shakes exactly in time with the camera. This indicates movement of the tripod itself, not the foundation it is sitting on.

Translation?

Someone bumped the tripod.

-AndrewWould it be possible to link to the footage?

[StarSeed]

I have a single painful problem with the CD theory that I feel is too often overlooked. Sound.

Everyone focusing on the look. Was there a squib? Is that a flash of explosion, or some breaking glass? How fast did they fall? Is that into its own footprint?

The most painfully obvious factor missing in the tower collapses, were they CD, is sound.

There are COUNTLESS videos at the base of the towers at the moment of collapse. NOT ONE records even a single explosion. Explosions are LOUD. Explosions of the scale required to do this job would DEAFEN people in and around the towers.

And yet no one can provide even a single scrap of video with an explosion in it. Instead we get videos taken a mile away with wobbly tripods and dull noises that could be wind on the microphone or someone shutting a car door nearby.

I'm sorry, but until someone can provide REAL evidence of loud explosions at the time of collapse, any consideration of CD is garbage.

-Andrew
Forgive me if I'm out of context here, but on the issue of sound, and the timing of it, there were rescue workers, including some that were inside the twin towers before the collapse, who heard multiple explosions. Have you already covered this?

I believe one theory is that some supports may have been blown prior to the final detonations that actually triggered the collapse, and, I think I may have seen a video or two which contained pre-collapse explosion sounds. IIRC, it was also reported by the media at the time, and I should still have that video clip.

[RandFan]

Forgive me if I'm out of context here, but on the issue of sound, and the timing of it, there were rescue workers, including some that were inside the twin towers before the collapse, who heard multiple explosions. Have you already covered this? Yes, sound of explosions or what sounded like explosions has been covered many times. A collapsing building would compress air and that air would create an explosion, buckling and falling materials can sound like explosions. Google "sounded like an explosion" and see how many times that phrase is used for things that turned out not to be explosions for non 9/11 events.

Also, eyewitness (or ear-witness) testimony from a chaotic events is notoriously problematic.

I believe one theory is that some supports may have been blown prior to the final detonations that actually triggered the collapse, and, I think I may have seen a video or two which contained pre-collapse explosion sounds. IIRC, it was also reported by the media at the time, and I should still have that video clip.Loose change is full of it...er full of reports of sounds of explosions.

[Gravy]

Forgive me if I'm out of context here, but on the issue of sound, and the timing of it, there were rescue workers, including some that were inside the twin towers before the collapse, who heard multiple explosions. Have you already covered this?

I believe one theory is that some supports may have been blown prior to the final detonations that actually triggered the collapse, and, I think I may have seen a video or two which contained pre-collapse explosion sounds. IIRC, it was also reported by the media at the time, and I should still have that video clip.
Welcome, StarSeed. This issue has been covered a number of times, here, in documents such as my "Loose Change Viewer Guide," and on other websites. But forget about that for now. Assume that no preplanted explosives were used. Can you think of any other things that might explode under the circumstances?

[gumboot]

Would it be possible to link to the footage?

My apologies... the appropriate footage is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i24y511VAMM&search=911%20tripod%20shake)

[gumboot]

Sorry, let me clarify...

I am distinguishing between eye witness testimonies reporting things that "sound like explosions" (most of which appear to be describing the actual collapse itself) and actual video footage in the vicinity of the towers that record explosions. Actual explosions make very distinct sounds that should be unmistakable amongst the other sounds occuring at the time. However I have not seen any video footage capturing these explosions.

[Hellbound]

Forgive me if I'm out of context here, but on the issue of sound, and the timing of it, there were rescue workers, including some that were inside the twin towers before the collapse, who heard multiple explosions. Have you already covered this?

I believe one theory is that some supports may have been blown prior to the final detonations that actually triggered the collapse, and, I think I may have seen a video or two which contained pre-collapse explosion sounds. IIRC, it was also reported by the media at the time, and I should still have that video clip.

Another thing to understand is that a few explosions, even a couple dozen, on this small scale, is nowhere near enough to do the job.

A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping the scale of the WTC. IT's huge. One of the towers could contain the population of a small town, easily. It's hundreds of acres of floor space.

If you figure the amount of explosive needed, it measures in the tons of C-4. The explosions would not have been heard by a few, they would have been heard by everyone in the area, unmistakably. Smaller explosions might do some of the weakening, but then you throw off timing by trying to space them out, and you can't control the demolition anymore. Not to mention that a demolition job that required this much explosive would have wires and connectors and detonators running everywhere, and chances are that some of your pre-collapse explosions are going to damage these connections (not to mention a plane flying into the building). Remote detonation would not be reliable for explosives in the interior, either, due to the amount of metal in the building.

It is reasonable that people heard things that sounded like explosions: There are flammmmable and explosive substances in the towers (as in almost any office building), not to mention that the collapse of areas of ceiling or floor, debris falling down an elevator shaft, the snap of a steel cross-brace or beam, and similar things can sound very much like explosions.

[Anacoluthon64]

As an aside, away from the minutiae of sulphur and aluminium residues, it is, to say the least, peculiar that the article linked to in the OP is fraught with spelling and grammatical errors. One would expect differently from a reliable source of such information.

Just a thought.

'Luthon64

[CurtC]

I managed to track down the original footage, and guess what? The neighbouring building shakes exactly in time with the camera. This indicates movement of the tripod itself, not the foundation it is sitting on.
I don't agree. If the building/ground were shaking, that would be coupled through the tripod to the camera, causing the image to shake. The problem with that video is that there are many things that can cause a tripod to shake, including someone walking across the floor it's sitting on, and make the image shake.

I'm reminded of a local mall here. The big stores have two floors. When I'm standing still on the second floor, such as when waiting for my wife to shop, I can feel the floor bouncing up and down like a trampoline. It's not noticeable when I'm walking, but it sure is standing still. At the office I was working in a couple of years ago, my monitor would visibly wiggle when someone walked down my aisle, and the floor was concrete.

But a shaking tripod/camera does not mean there were earthquakes.

[Psiload]

Haven't read the thread, so sorry if I'm being redundant, but to be clear, he didn't find thermate. He found evidence that he's interpreted as evidence of thermate. Considering his poor track record with interpreting evidence, I don't have much faith that his hypothesis will bear fruit. The article appears to be a fair representation of Jones' claims, so I don't doubt the article's authenticity. Jones' claims, OTOH, I view with deep skepticism.

Leaps of logic and creative interpretation seem to be Dr. Jones' speciality:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America

[Mancman]

Core failure first here. Personally if I were going to bring down two buildings of virtually identical design, I'd probably use the same methods and the buildings would fall the same way.

To be honest I am unsure of the conclusion that the North Tower's core failed first, if you re-read the BBC transcript you'll see that there is no real comment from an expert about that point, just Matthys Levy saying 'it fell straight down like a controlled demolition', the narrator is the one who says this:

"Many experts now think the North Tower fell for different reasons to the South Tower. The main clue lies in what happened to the TV mast on top. It dropped straight down."

However, the angle they used to show the TV mast 'dropping straight down' was from the North East where the mast does appear to drop straight down, but in other angles you'll see that the top of the North Tower leant to the south, and the TV mast fell in the same direction.

Also, NIST calculated the lean of the top section to be 8° towards the south in one of their reports.

[Sal The Butcher]

i shall respond in red

Another thing to understand is that a few explosions, even a couple dozen, on this small scale, is nowhere near enough to do the job.

A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping the scale of the WTC. IT's huge. One of the towers could contain the population of a small town, easily. It's hundreds of acres of floor space.

If you figure the amount of explosive needed, it measures in the tons of C-4.
if a fire could have caused such a collapse by taking out 1 section couldnt explosives that took out the same small amount also have caused such a collapse? The explosions would not have been heard by a few, they would have been heard by everyone in the area,
there are people who supposedley heard explosions, but if the fire could destroy one small section and cause such a collapse, then why not just a few explosions to start the collapse? unmistakably. Smaller explosions might do some of the weakening, but then you throw off timing by trying to space them out, and you can't control the demolition anymore. Not to mention that a demolition job that required this much explosive would have wires and connectors and detonators running everywhere,wouldnt it be possible to use have wireless explosives that are controlled remotley? and chances are that some of your pre-collapse explosionsdo you mean the impact of the planes? if not what do you mean by pre-collapse explosions? are going to damage these connections (not to mention a plane flying into the building). Remote detonation would not be reliable for explosives in the interior, either, due to the amount of metal in the building.do you mean a signal wouldnt penetrate the steel, cause (ALL OF THIS IS JUST SPECULATION, IM NOT PRETENDING I KNOW ANTHING) couldnt a hole be drilled and a wireless reciever of some sorts be attached to the outside of the column with the wire running through the hole to the explosives?

It is reasonable that people heard things that sounded like explosions: There are flammmmable and explosive substances in the towersi would assume if the 'pankake' think is correct the explosions would be due to the impact of the floors rather then explosive materials (as in almost any office building), not to mention that the collapse of areas of ceiling or floor, debris falling down an elevator shaft, the snap of a steel cross-brace or beam, and similar things can sound very much like explosions.

i have seen a picture of a steel beam on the debris that has a great deal of a melted metal like substance where it is broken, perhaps it was steel, if you would like to see it ill look for it, im not sure if its something besides steel that happened to get on the beam, but it does look like it ciuld be a steel beam blown in half

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

By "1 section" I assume you mean floor. The impact, and subsequent fires, did not affect only one floor.

[Sal The Butcher]

By "1 section" I assume you mean floor. The impact, and subsequent fires, did not affect only one floor.
by section i mean what ever percentage of the building was effected and supposedley weakened/destroyed by the fire

[Hellbound]

if a fire could have caused such a collapse by taking out 1 section couldnt explosives that took out the same small amount also have caused such a collapse?

Yes, but there's problems with this, as well. You'll still need clsoe to a ton of explosives to cut the core columns, and in this scenario the explosions would have all been in the upper part of the tower, around the impact floor.

You could take it down with less than would be needed for complete destruction, but a good demolition that's controlled in any way is going to require multiple tons of C-4. You could do it with about 1, in you knew exactly which floor would be impacted and from which direction, and knew what columns would already be weakened. It starts getting more and more improbable.

Also, the estimates on the amount of explosives only apply if you have direct access to the columns...meaning cutting through the walls to reach them. You're going to muliply by at least a factor of 4 if you go through wall and column.
there are people who supposedley heard explosions, but if the fire could destroy one small section and cause such a collapse, then why not just a few explosions to start the collapse?

The fire didn't destroy one small section. It burned across multiple floors. This caused the already overloaded beams around the impact floors (they were already weakened from impact and supporting more than usual load due to our columns that were destroyed) to weaken enough to fail. As I said earlier, you could replicate this with explosives, but you still need close to a ton and you'd have to have exact foreknowledge of where and how the impact was going to occur, almost down to the specific floor.
wouldnt it be possible to use have wireless explosives that are controlled remotley?
Possible, yes. Likely, no. You couldn't get a good signal inside the building, because of interference from the steel columns and the other metal and electronics within the structure. Not to mention that, if you place the explosives as you hinted before (do damage the already weakened section), then your explosive and detonators are going to be destroyed by the fire and impact (or at least severley damaged, you can't count on your explosives working anymore. C-4 burns really well).
do you mean the impact of the planes? if not what do you mean by pre-collapse explosions?

Assuming it was wired for demo, and people heard explosions, then you'd have to have explosions spaced out in time...some occuring before the actual collapse. People reported explosion sounds from the impact until the collapse, throughout that time period. So the theory is logically inconsistent, because explosions going off before the step of bringing the building down are going to damage other explosives and connections you have set in the building.
do you mean a signal wouldnt penetrate the steel, cause (ALL OF THIS IS JUST SPECULATION, IM NOT PRETENDING I KNOW ANTHING) couldnt a hole be drilled and a wireless reciever of some sorts be attached to the outside of the column with the wire running through the hole to the explosives?

Not just an individual column, you have to consider the entire building. The signal has to travel through the exterior aluminum cladding, through reinforced concrete floors, through water pipe, electrical cables, network cables, interior walls, electronics equipment, and the steel core. It's not a reliable method, and you still have the problems of your explosives and detonators being damaged in the fire and impact.

Not to mention that radio detonators are much larger than standard electric or MDI detonators, and no scrap was found afterwards. Not to mention, again, the difficulty in placing them. Also, another two points about remote detonators:
1. Batteries. They don't last forever, and would have a limited lifespan. This puts an upper limit on the time when the explosives could have been set.
2. Accidental detonation. IN areas where remote detonation is used, ALL types of radio broadcast within miles are banned and tightly controlled. Considering the amount of RF generated in a modern office building, by cordless phones, cell phones, wireless internet, walkie-talkies, etc, chances are some of the explosives would have been set off prematurely.
i would assume if the 'pankake' think is correct the explosions would be due to the impact of the floors rather then explosive materials
During the actuall collapse, yes. This is what produced the oft-mentioned "squibs" that are no such thing.

However, peopel were hearing sounds they described as "explosions" long before the actual collapse. These were likely due to debris falling down stairweels and elevator shafts, as well as flammable or combustible materials in the burning floors.
i have seen a picture of a steel beam on the debris that has a great deal of a melted metal like substance where it is broken, perhaps it was steel, if you would like to see it ill look for it, im not sure if its something besides steel that happened to get on the beam, but it does look like it ciuld be a steel beam blown in half

Well, first off, and explosion will NOT produce molten metal (with the exception of some specially designed anti-tank rounds). Explosions do their damage by force...blast and concussion, not by heat. Forget what you see in the movies and on TV...real explosions don't look like that. Movies use gasoline explosions just so they get those big orange fireballs. A real explosion is a suddenly appearing cloud of dust and a lot of pieces moving away at high speed. You'd see shear forces on the metal, it would look like it was torn off, not cut or melted. In addition, the one tone figure I gave above is just enough to cut the steel, and you'd see large, radial black blast marks on the metal around the charge point.

The molten metal was likely aluminum. It has a relatively low melting point, and even regular house fires can reach temperatures of 1700 degrees. However, molten metal is not a sign of an explosion.


i have seen a picture of a steel beam on the debris that has a great deal of a melted metal like substance where it is broken, perhaps it was steel, if you would like to see it ill look for it, im not sure if its something besides steel that happened to get on the beam, but it does look like it ciuld be a steel beam blown in half[/QUOTE]

[DavidJames]

...couldnt explosives...
...why not just...
...wouldnt it be possible...
...couldnt a...
...i would assume...
Yes, questions and assumptions. Lots of things in this world are possible.

Some serious questions...

1. Do you really want to know what happened?
2. Have you read the official reports of what happened, If not, then I hope you didn't answer yes to the first question.
3. If you did read the report, On what specific areas do you have questions.

[Dr Adequate]

by section i mean what ever percentage of the building was effected and supposedley weakened/destroyed by the fire The problem there is that since the towers failed at the points where they were struck, these explosives would have to be in the floors struck by the planes.

But then they'd have been consumed in the fire. (To my surprise, not all explosives go bang when you set fire to them. But they do all burn.)

[Gravy]

i have seen a picture of a steel beam on the debris that has a great deal of a melted metal like substance where it is broken, perhaps it was steel, if you would like to see it ill look for it, im not sure if its something besides steel that happened to get on the beam, but it does look like it ciuld be a steel beam blown in half
Perhaps you're thinking of the photo of the column that was cut by a blowtorch. The subject came up in another thread today: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1731808&postcount=737

[kevin]

Possible, yes. Likely, no. You couldn't get a good signal inside the building, because of interference from the steel columns and the other metal and electronics within the structure.

The fire department was unable to recall many of the firefighters in the towers because their radios couldn't reach them.

When you pick the frequency for your detonators you better hope a pirate radio station doesn't popup, or some office decide to install wireless transmitters. One or two accidental dentonations might tip some people off.

Also the WTC, as the biggest metal things in Manhattan, took quite a few lightning strikes. Building steel is heavily grounded, if your explosives are going to be attached to steel they better protect against that.

[Gravy]

The fire department was unable to recall many of the firefighters in the towers because their radios couldn't reach them.
And that's WITH the radio repeater systems that were installed in the towers. When you ram an airliner into a building, it really screws up operations, as it would screw up any plan to use explosives on the affected floors.

NIST NCSTAR 1-8, WTC Investigation 5 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-8Executive%20Summary.pdf)

After the February 1993 bombing, the following changes were made at the World Trade Center by the PANYNJ that had a direct impact on emergency responder operations on September 11, 2001:

• Work on the installation of automatic sprinkler systems was accelerated. The installation of automatic sprinkler systems began prior to 1993 and involved WTC 1 and WTC 2.

• Improvements were made to the Concourse level of the WTC to improve egress.

• A new Port Authority Police Command Center was established inside WTC 5.

• Fire Command Desks were installed in the lobbies of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

• A radio repeater (radio repeater: an electronic device for amplifying and retransmitting a radio signal) was installed in WTC 5 that operated on the FDNY city-wide high-rise frequency. The antenna was located on the top of WTC 5 and was directed at WTC 1 and WTC 2. Controls for operating the repeater were originally located at the PAPD Police Command Center inside WTC 5. During the spring of 2001, controls for repeater operation were moved to the Fire Command Desks inside the lobby of each of the two towers.

• The elevator intercom system was upgraded and could be monitored at the Lobby Fire Command Desk in each tower.

• A new Operations Control Center with the capability to monitor all HVAC systems and elevators was constructed on the B1 level of WTC 2.

• Multiple power sources were installed for exit stairway lighting in the towers.

• WTC 1 and WTC 2 received a new decentralized Fire Alarm System, Class E (Style 7), with three separate data risers to transponders located every three floors, with redundant control panels and electronics, and multiple control station announcement capability.

• Fire drills were conducted in conjunction with FDNY. Changes Made by FDNY Following the February 1993 WTC Bombing Incident Command System: The scope of the February 1993 bombing was beyond anything ever experienced by FDNY, and information overload occurred at the incident command level. Tasks to resolve issues related to the 1993 bombing were delegated along the lines of the FDNY incident command system in the following areas: command, planning, operations, logistics, and finance. It was also recognized that all agencies must be sensitive to and coordinate operations for effective incident command. The May 1997, Incident Command System manual and its new policies had been in operation with FDNY for approximately four years when the WTC attack occurred on September 11, 2001.

Communications:
• To improve communications at a large incident, the city purchased eighty 800-megahertz radios for use by deputy fire commissioners, each staff chief, and the Field Communications Unit. Twenty of the radios were to be distributed by the Field Communications unit at an incident, if needed.

• A high-rise repeater was requested by FDNY for operations in the WTC, and the Port Authority installed it in WTC 5.

• FDNY companies that were located near the WTC and often responded to the WTC were issued Port Authority radios that allowed them to communicate with the building’s Deputy Fire Safety Directors and with PAPD.

[Sal The Butcher]

Perhaps you're thinking of the photo of the column that was cut by a blowtorch. The subject came up in another thread today: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1731808&postcount=737
if the first picture was taken from a bigger image then im 99% sure thats the exact picture i was reffering to, im not doubting your explination, it sounds believable, but i would like to know how you know it was cut with a blow torch

[Gravy]

if the first picture was taken from a bigger image then im 99% sure thats the exact picture i was reffering to, im not doubting your explination, it sounds believable, but i would like to know how you know it was cut with a blow torch

You've compared it to the other photos, right? And you know that the columns were cut with torches, right? If not, I can provide lots of photos of that work being done, but perhaps you can just google the subject.

Now, what is it about that photo that leads you to believe the column was NOT cut with a torch?

[Sal The Butcher]

You've compared it to the other photos, right? And you know that the columns were cut with torches, right? If not, I can provide lots of photos of that work being done, but perhaps you can just google the subject.

Now, what is it about that photo that leads you to believe the column was NOT cut with a torch?
i dont have reason not to believe, i would assume you are correct, i was just wondering what made you conclude that

[Sal The Butcher]

have you ever seen the video that shows flashes at collapse? (i would assume its reflecting debris)

[Gravy]

i dont have reason not to believe, i would assume you are correct, i was just wondering what made you conclude that
I don't follow your logic at all.

[Gravy]

have you ever seen the video that shows flashes at collapse? (i would assume its reflecting debris)
It's good to post a link when you refer to something like that. I don't know what you mean, and I'm sure that many others don't either.

[Anacoluthon64]

(To my surprise, not all explosives go bang when you set fire to them. But they do all burn.)Yes, that is a fact that many people have difficulty accepting. It is almost impossible to set alight, among others, RDX, PETN, TNT or thermite using just a match or lighter. Many of these compounds melt long before they ignite. A blowtorch is more successful. Their detonation is precipitated through mechanical shock of sufficient intensity, rather than through heat or flame. So it isn't recommended to take a hammer and chisel to a block of TNT if you need only a small fragment...

Once alight, however, they burn with a fierce, fizzy, hissing and very hot flame. The worst thing one can do when facing such a situation is to throw water or attempt to use a fire extinguisher on the flames - the sudden change in temperature can result in a mechanical shock due to thermal contraction, which can produce a full-fledged detonation. Remember, such explosives supply their own oxygen for "combustion," so that, once burning, they are nigh impossible to extinguish and the best policy therefore is to evacuate post haste to a safe distance until they are completely consumed.

This misconception about explosives is most likely the result of peoples' experiences with fireworks and Hollywood's misrepresentations.

'Luthon64

[Sal The Butcher]

It's good to post a link when you refer to something like that. I don't know what you mean, and I'm sure that many others don't either.
ill look for it, i just thought you may have seen it, like i said, i think its probably debris reflecting light, but ive heard arguments that its actually explosive charges, i would assume you will agree with me on this one



--
ive seen the claim made that this was a thermite reaction, i have also heard the argument that it could be related to some wires in the building being severed
http://www.zippyvideos.com/4155033215388386/wtc_thermite_flashes/
--
still trying to find the video i referenced with the flashes, shouldnt be too much longer

[Sal The Butcher]

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

this one appears to show a flash right as collapse commences, still looking for the other video

[Ducky]

Well those flashes are consisten both with something reflecting the sun as the building moves, or with a transformer or someother industrial electrical device blowing. the electricity was on in those buildings when they fell, and some electrical explosions are to be expected as the building collapses and shorts happen.

But unfortunately, there's no good hi-res view of them to determine anything conclusively.

[Sal The Butcher]

what do you thinkl about this
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

these apparentley show imense temperatures quite a while after 911

[Ducky]

considering the temperatures that would have been generated by the fires burning out of control, and that they were then collapsed down unto themselves, offering more fuel and in effect creating a smoldering environment that's not that surprising.

Next time you go camping for more than a day or two do this: build yourself a roaring campfire. Get a really good bed of coals going. Then let it be. Over the next few days you'll still have smoldering coals in that firepit. Now multiply that by a degree of a few thousand and you start to approach ground zero.

[Sal The Butcher]

if you wanna hear jones explain what he found there is a link here, its on alex jones' site, he says he found sulfer and he says something about 'thermade' and he says he found iron, i dont know the signifigance of any of this

(its pretty biased towards jones' theory, as it IS on the other jones' show and website, and he is a huge supporter of the professor)

i will be honest and say i dont know a thing about thermite

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm

[Ducky]

Yeah. Finding sulfur in a fire isn't hard to do, and doesn't make the jump to theremite (an industrial grade explosive charge apparently) logical at all.

[Sal The Butcher]

he says something about thermite not being explosive, besides some variety he refers to as 'super thermite'

[Sal The Butcher]

Yeah. Finding sulfur in a fire isn't hard to do, and doesn't make the jump to theremite (an industrial grade explosive charge apparently) logical at all.
im listening to it now and so far he hasnt referenced anything but sulfur and iron, i may have missed something but i dont think i did

[Ducky]

Or super-bs. The theremite stuff is discussed in the Loose Change PT 3 thread pretty extensively. Though I didn't join in on that aspect. From what I understand the sheetrock used could give off sulfer when burned in the towers, so the source of the sulfur could be very normal.

Explosive wasn't the right word, but I don't know what the specific description of the type of ordinance that is.

[gruk]

Yeah. Finding sulfur in a fire isn't hard to do, and doesn't make the jump to theremite (an industrial grade explosive charge apparently) logical at all.

Theremite is a music-playing insect (playing on a theremine, obviously), isn't it? Thermite is a heat charge, rather than an explosive (it does produce a lot of gas, so if contained in a container might cause an explosion). It's used for cutting and welding, since the rest products is elemental iron and some metal oxide gas.

[Anacoluthon64]

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

this one appears to show a flash right as collapse commences, ...If you are referring to the "flash" at the right-hand (rear) edge roughly at the elevation of the impact site, then look again frame by frame. The flash occurred very shortly after collapse had already begun. For the flash to have been produced by explosives would require a very odd set of circumstances, not least of which is that they would have to have been planted outside the building. Moreover, looking at the footage it is clear that, as the collapse proceeded, the upper falling portion leaned progressively further south, that collapse commenced at the apparent impact site, and that there was a complete absence of any telltale sudden dust billowings. All three of these observations strongly conflict with the idea of any "controlled demolition" - in fact, my experience in these matters and a frame-by-frame view of the footage lead me to conclude that the collapse was decidedly uncontrolled, which, no doubt, is because the demolition was specifically designed to fool people afterwards and maximise the death toll during ;) .

But never mind such trifling technicalities. The apparent colour of the flash, the angle of view, time of day and the position of the sun (more or less behind the camera) inferred from these considerations lead me to conclude that the flash was the sun's brief reflection off a pane or shard of glass ejected outward by collapse-induced airblast or simple mechanical stress release. A similar flash was briefly seen somewhat higher up, about halfway up the collapsing section, near the edge closest to the camera. This flash clearly occurred well after the collapse had started.

Unfortunately, I am unable to view or access the other links you have provided and so cannot comment on them.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

"Thermite" is about eight parts (by mass) ferric oxide (basically iron rust) and three parts fine aluminium flakes. "Thermate" is "Thermite" with small amounts of sulphur and barium nitrate added to regulate the "burning velocity."

As ordinarily used, both are incendiaries, instead of proper explosives, in that they deflagrate rather than detonate. However, at a sufficient packing density, they will detonate, meaning that the reaction zone travels through the mixture at a velocity greater than the speed of sound in that mixture.

'Luthon64

[articulett]

You know, you are right. I was confusing the Jones's :)

However, Stephen Jones is the one I intended to talk about.

Alex Jones has been mentioned recently, which is where my typo came from.

Steve Jones is fab geneticist in UK--wrote The Descent of Y.

If Stephen Jones is at BYU, then it's probably safe to say that he believes gold plates floated into the sky in the 80's after having messages translated via a magic hat and seeing stone. This indicates a differing level of scientific understanding, I imagine. But I don't believe in floating gold plates.

[kevin]

"Thermite" is about eight parts (by mass) ferric oxide (basically iron rust) and three parts fine aluminium flakes. "Thermate" is "Thermite" with small amounts of sulphur and barium nitrate added to regulate the "burning velocity."


http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Notice in the first part the thermite burns straight down, doesn't even hurt the flower pot it's contained that much. Try and take a column out with that.

Second part the only way they got an explosion was by loading a liquid (presumably gasoline) into the gas tank.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

what do you thinkl about this
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

these apparentley show imense temperatures quite a while after 911

Yeah, fire is hot.

LLH

[Mancman]

Yeah, fire is hot.

LLH

There is NO evidence of that! You've obviously been brainwashed by the media! ;)

[Kent1]

Yeah, fire is hot.

LLH

I hope you guys don't mind, but I am going to do an info dump here on the WTC fires. I believe there is a lot of useful information here.


http://wardgriffin.com/fire.htm

It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.
The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.
"When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire," said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. "Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=trad...&icp=1&.intl=us

"So what you've got is a smoldering situation," said George Miller,
president of the National Association of State Fire Marshals.
"Judging from my 32 years of experience, this could burn for a long
time."

Exactly how long "a long time" is, no one knows for sure. But fire
engineers and safety experts told the Daily News that the blaze
likely will continue burning for months -- until most of the 1.2
million tons of debris are hauled away.

A fire needs three things to survive: fuel, oxygen and a heat source.

"If you can break that formula in any way, it will go out," said
Marko Bourne, a spokesman for the fire administration of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. "The problem is how to do that with this
fire."

While the blaze is starved for oxygen, the scalding steel buried
below ground will retain its heat until enough air reaches it or
water douses it, said Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert for
the National Operating Engineers Union.

"There are pieces of steel being pulled out that are still cherry
red," Carson said as he stood amid the smoking debris this week.
"It's like the charcoal that you put in your grill. ... You light it
and it stays hot."


http://www.geospatial-online.com/geospatia...ail.jsp?id=1325

Thermal. To monitor the fires that burned for weeks within the rubble, EarthData used a thermal sensor flown from 3,000 feet AGL. Figure 5 is a computer composite of an orthophoto map image (horizontally accurate to 53 feet) of the WTC site acquired on September 17, 2001 combined with a thermal image. EarthData generated the color composite overlay using a thermal sensor that is sensitive to infrared radiation rather than light. Thus, it revealed the location of hot spots within the debris field, indicating a strong probability of lingering underground fires.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm

World Trade Centre still burns because of major oil spills

05-12-01 More than 130,000 gallons of oil from transformers and high-voltage lines -- most of it containing low levels of hazardous PCBs -- were lost at the World Trade Centre on Sept. 11 when two downtown Con Edison substations were destroyed. In addition to the Con Ed release, confirmed by company spokesman Mike Clendenin, the Port Authority is unable to account for 50,000 of 70,000 gallons of diesel and fuel oil stored in belowground tanks at the Trade Centre complex to power emergency generators.
As much as 180,000 gallons of flammable oil -- roughly equivalent to 10 times the amount of jet fuel in the two airliners that crashed into the twin towers -- may be feeding the fires that have been burning for more than two months at the site. Con Ed and Port Authority officials say they don't know whether the contaminants seeped into the soil, burned or drained off into the Hudson River. Environmental Protection Agency officials confirmed they are searching for the oil and pumping it out when they find it.

A private environmental data firm hired by the city to report on known hazardous materials at the Trade Centre warned in a letter to federal and state environmental officials that the oil "could be fuelling the onsite fires", a letter from Walter Hang, president of Ithaca, NY-based Toxics Targeting, said. "That's exactly what's burning," said a Fire Department source. "All that fuel, all those cars that were in parking lots down there, all kinds of stuff."

http://www.firefighting.com/articles/namFu....asp?namID=5071

High-Tech Maps Track Ground Zero's Endless Flames

Several experts consulted by the New York Fire Department have said the fires have burned for so long for several reasons: they cannot be fought directly; they feed off of a huge reserve of combustible materials; and, they are fed in a restricted but regular manner by air currents filtering into the rubble from above.

When the giant cranes at Ground Zero lift off carbonized and bent steel beams that once formed the twin towers, sometimes so hot they gleam red, they create a flow of air that can rekindle an underground fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_TOPO.html
Detailed maps

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

When untreated water meets a greasy or painted surface it forms beads. "But FEF is a blend of surfactants that reduce the surface tension of water," explains Robert Tinsley of Pyrocool.

This makes the water in the foam much "wetter" so that it flows over and coats surfaces.. Paul Berger, a chemist at Pyrocool told New Scientist: "Pyrocool-treated water is able to develop a high surface area relative to total mass, permitting a very rapid heat transfer from the hot object to the water."

The use of FEF foam began on 28 September, with thousands of gallons being pumped into the rubble. One target was the large Freon tanks that had served the WTC air-conditioning system and might have exploded. Blaich told New Scientist: "The foam also extinguished the fires in World Trade Center No 7, the wreckage of a 40-story office tower."

Another strategy that can be used to put out difficult fires is pumping an enclosed area full of the inert gas nitrogen, starving the fire of oxygen. But Ground Zero is thought to be too large and porous for this to be effective.
Rescue operation

Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."

The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."

And there is the issue of human remains. These are still being found and removed and, since the fires are not threatening any property or lives, they are being allowed to burn on.

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html

The parking garage under the WTC held nearly 2,000 automobiles, each tank holding an estimated five gallons of gasoline. When recovery workers reached the cars, they found that some had exploded and burned while others remained intact.

HOT STEEL
Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.


http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf

In addition to the sulfur in gypsum there were 10,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil and 1,000 gallons of diesel oil from ruptured petroleum storage tanks at 130 Liberty Street.

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/fstc/do...s/appendixl.pdf
Also see some of 911myths great information
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[CurtC]

Excellent fact-laden post, Kent1. One thing I'd like to add: not only are long-lasting hot spots typical for fires, they are inconsistent with the thermite/thermate idea. Thermite burns quickly, even underground, because it doesn't require oxygen from the air. Any thermite reaction that happened would be over with by 11:00 am on 9/11, and would start the cooling down process.

[Hellbound]

Excellent fact-laden post, Kent1. One thing I'd like to add: not only are long-lasting hot spots typical for fires, they are inconsistent with the thermite/thermate idea. Thermite burns quickly, even underground, because it doesn't require oxygen from the air. Any thermite reaction that happened would be over with by 11:00 am on 9/11, and would start the cooling down process.

Actually, unless they had some sort of additive to retard or slow the reaction, any thermite reaction likely would have been over by the time the towers hit the ground. Military Thermate grenades are gone in 5 to 10 seconds or so.

The stuff burns FAST, and hot. Long term it ain't.

[Kent1]

Actually, unless they had some sort of additive to retard or slow the reaction, any thermite reaction likely would have been over by the time the towers hit the ground. Military Thermate grenades are gone in 5 to 10 seconds or so.

The stuff burns FAST, and hot. Long term it ain't.
I agree thermite is a quick process. Jones knows this is a problem, so he has just made a new change to his paper.
He now claims that there were various thermite charges that didn't go off.


He is also going to have to explain the molten metal in building 6 also. I'm guessing he will claim that building 6 was rigged also. Or that somehow a large amount of thermite debris found its way into the basement levels causing running molten metal and metal dripping down the sides of the wall.

LOL!! As he moves farther and farther away from occam's razor.....
He still can't even explain his diagonal cuts or why so much liquid was pouring out of the towers.
If there was this large amount of liquid flowing from the towers before collapse (which there was) he has to explain what beams were being cut to cause such a large amount of liquid flow. How much liquid does a column or many colunms have? Core columns wouldn't work very well it would flow down the core. Any perimeter columns burning would likely be seen from windows. The floors were damaged and constricting flows to certain areas.

Its a lot more logical that it was aluminum from the plane (that we know was in that area) mixed with other dirty matericals to raise the blackbody. Some plate(lime) glass maybe. Pipes, possibly some coin metals from the Fuji bank on that floor.

Anyway here are some links also that I've helped a little with.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm#Aluminum
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/thermite.htm

[pgwenthold]

The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.


How long has the pile of tires been burning on the outskirts of Springfield, USA...

(sorry)