BYU Professor: Explosives Used To Bring Down WTC

[genebujold]

This guy doesn't sound too much like the usual CT. But, what do the experts on this BB think?

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...160132,00.html

Evidently this guy has never heard of the "Collapsing Cola Can Trick," which you can try in the next few minutes in the safety and comfort of your own home.

Simply empty a can of cola. Ensure there are no dents in the edges. Grab a pencil.

While wearing tennis shoes, carefully stand on the can until all your weight's on the can and you're balanced.

Now rap the side of the can sharply with the pencil.

WHAM! The can collapses, the stresses of the collapsing area where you tapped it rapidly propogating around the can until the entire circumferencial supporting structure fails all at once.

It doesn't topple over.

As for the multiple explosions and puffs of smoke, all characteristics of collapsing buildings, whether charges were used or not.

In Seoul, Korea, there was a multi-floored shopping building which collapsed a couple decades ago, killing hundreds of people. Many people reported hearing a rapid series of explosions, but it was simply snapping and buckling columns, beams, floors, etc.

Back to the cola can trick - what did you hear as it collapsed?

My point exactly.

If you were listening carefully, you hear an initial CRACK followed by a very quick CRUNCH. The CRACK was the failure of the material propogating around the circumference of the can, and the CRUNCH was the remainder of the can as it was smooshed beneath your weight.

[Musashi]

I used to crush cans that way.

[genebujold]

I used to crush cans that way.

Thank you!

And I knew many others through the late 70s and early 80s who did the same!

Anyone else willing to say, "yeah, I can see the similiarities in catestrophic failure across scales of magnitude? Huh? Huh?"

Ok. I've taken my melatonin, and am ready for bed.

Goodnight, John-boy...

[Captain Kidd]

We used small rocks. Stand on the can and have a friend wing a pebble at it. It’s amazing how little force is required. Once you compromise any part of the structural integrity, the entire can collapses. I can remember the sound of the can collapsing just as you described. What is it about kids and the endless repetition of the same thing over and over? Although some of it was because we were crushing the cans for recycling and got bored with the stomping or hammer and board. It took longer but was far more fun.

As discussed over on Apollo Hoax (it might have been lost during the lost of the domain name fiasco), “pull it” is not the standard term used to fire off demolition charges. I think (no clue who did the research), all the demolition companies interviewed say they never use that term. My person guess he probably mean pull out or some other term of withdrawal.

[Maksutov]

Back in the 70s, we had a can crusher in the company cafeteria. One fellow who was new kept complaining about how the crusher was defective. I asked him to show me what the problem was. He put a can in and pushed the lever really hard and got nowhere. I poked a small dimple in the side of the can and asked him to try again. CRUSH!

[genebujold]

Wow. I've got tears in my eyes seeing the leaps of understanding going on here concerning the propogations of structural failures in complex objects.

Kudos (sniff!), all - just kudos.

And to think this began with a 25-cent can of coke and a 5-cent pencil.

"It's amazing to discover how unbelievably inexpensive it is to solve complex problems when the individual who's put in charge of solving the problem actually understands the problem." - Someone in the Navy, long ago.

The principle problem with Congress is that 200 years ago, they were the intellectual elite, as the landed gentry were the only ones able to afford both an education and the expense of running for Congress.

Today, while many are still quite smart, this is not necessarily the case. The biggest problem, however, is one of education. They're simply not up on the issues, and their Congressional staffers, always trying to appear their best, often have less of a clue than their Congressmen.

Before being allowed to run for Congress, I think all Congressmen (including incumbants) should take a test on their understanding of numerous topics including political science, social theory, anthropology, physics, chemistry, biology, principles of war, engineering, and music appreciation.

(sorry for that last - couldn't resist, and I was the better for it).

We're not looking for the person with the top score. We're looking for people who can score above average in most areas; in other words, with both a higher than average mean score and with a lower variance between subjects.

This isn't rocket science, folks. It's just the right way to guarantee the right people are in the job.

Hey - companies all across the globe select their folks via similar criteria.

I wonder why?

[Graham2001]

I've been posting a bit to the other 11/09/01 thread and found an item that might be of use in this thread.

In 1997 the old Royal Canberra Hospital was demolished, for various reasons the event was allowed to become a virtual picnic.

When the 'implosion' charges detonated debris was thrown through the air and someone was killed.

This link is to the summary coroners report. It makes it quite clear that setting up a controlled demolition is not something that can be rushed or improvised.

[Superluminal]

Gene, the only problem with your test, most people who would pass your test, wouldn't want to put up with politics. Imagine your running for congress, your serious about making the country a better place, your leading in the poles. And the day before the election is the big headline: GENE BUJOLD IS A HOMO SAPIAN, you lose by 40% points.

[Captain Kidd]

What happened on November 9^th, 2001?

[Graham2001]

What happened on November 9^th, 2001?

Nothing that I can recall, the 11th of September however, I'll never forget that.

Especially after watching the pilot of 'Lone Gunmen'

I mean, E.Com.Con, really...

[genebujold]

Gene, the only problem with your test, most people who would pass your test, wouldn't want to put up with politics. Imagine your running for congress, your serious about making the country a better place, your leading in the poles. And the day before the election is the big headline: GENE BUJOLD IS A HOMO SAPIAN, you lose by 40% points.

Technically, I'm 100% qualified for the job.

Realistically, I'm less than 50% qualified to be elected.

I think that's rather telling with respect to how our election process has failed to keep up with historical progression.

[akirabakabaka]

I was pointed over here from another 9/11 thread on BAUT with the impression that someone had actually read Jones' paper, but that appears to be a mistake. Much thanks to Eta C for trying to at least get people thinking critically. All rebutals so far have concerned the press coverage. Has anyone read this paper yet?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[kookbreaker]

I was pointed over here from another 9/11 thread on BAUT with the impression that someone had actually read Jones' paper, but that appears to be a mistake. Much thanks to Eta C for trying to at least get people thinking critically. All rebutals so far have concerned the press coverage. Has anyone read this paper yet?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I don't have to read an entire steak to know that it is rotten meat.

I read his claims that explosives were used, and knowing what I know about the setup and explosives required for implosion, and I start to smell rotten meat.

I compare this comment:

"What did you observe?
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)"

No, 6.6 seconds is the time that the visible part of the building takes to reach the skyline of buidlings in front of it, not to reach the actual ground. That meat really reeks.

I read his point #3 where he says there was molten metal in the basements. I have been part of these arguements in the past, and to date there has been no real evidence for such molten metal. Quotes, anecdotes, and poetic lisence are not evidence.

The meat reeks so bad I gag.

I've read this thread and found some interesting stuff in it, but overall I considered Dr. Jones stuff to be crap from the beginning. I would question wether you actually read this thread.

[kookbreaker]

I'll give an example by grabbing a paragraph from this 'paper'. To give context, Dr. Jones is discussing the collapse of the South Tower;

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.

OK


They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Ummm, Thermodynamics? Huh?


The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum.


That would be true, yes.


But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!


Not true. Part of it at the bottom does turn into powder, and the remainder of that block then falls into the cloud. Dr. Jones description is not an accurate assesment of what the video shows us.


How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?


Actually, I would prefer the answer to this question: What explosive could reduce a block of that size into powder as Dr. Jones describes (which is not what happenes) without spread the target material far and wide. Instead the spread of material we get comes from the remaining collapse.

How is that the explosives were all conveniently place all over the block that breaks off. Not the remainder of the building.

How is that these super-special explosives were placed right above where the plane hit.

How is that these explosives are able to be detonated when any d-cord would be severed or damaged.

How is it that these explosives were place on the most populated and visited portion of the WTC?: The tops of the towers?


Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Because their concern was failure analysis, not 'why gravity works'. Nor is the NIST report there to explain things that Professors imagine they see.

So there you have it in just one paragraph: A misuse of a law of physics, and assertion of something happen that does not happen, and a declaration of a solution that has absolutely no viability.

[sfarq1]

They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Ummm, Thermodynamics? Huh?


So there you have it in just one paragraph: A misuse of a law of physics,.

Thank you for responding to the paper.

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely.”

I believe this is the full quote your refer to, were is the misuse of a law of physics?

[PhantomWolf]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

1. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.

2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

3. You cannot create a heat engine which extracts heat and converts it all to useful work.

4. There is a thermal bottleneck which contrains devices which convert stored energy to heat and then use the heat to accomplish work. For a given mechanical efficiency of the devices, a machine which includes the conversion to heat as one of the steps will be inherently less efficient than one which is purely mechanical.


Hmmm, I don't see how any of these apply although one might point out that when they collapsed the towers did indeed become more disordered. (aka #2)

[kookbreaker]

Phantomwolf beat me to it, so you can see how the 2nd law of TH does not apply.

The abuse of Thermodynamics here reminds me of how Creationists abuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[sfarq1]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

1. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.

2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

3. You cannot create a heat engine which extracts heat and converts it all to useful work.

4. There is a thermal bottleneck which contrains devices which convert stored energy to heat and then use the heat to accomplish work. For a given mechanical efficiency of the devices, a machine which includes the conversion to heat as one of the steps will be inherently less efficient than one which is purely mechanical.


Hmmm, I don't see how any of these apply although one might point out that when they collapsed the towers did indeed become more disordered. (aka #2)

He obviously was talking about the fire that initiated the collapse and it had to be very ordered to cause a symmetrical collapse. If you can find an expert or paper that shows this is incorrect please do.

[kookbreaker]

He obviously was talking about the fire that initiated the collapse and it had to be very ordered to cause a symmetrical collapse.

No. This has nothing to do with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. "ordered" in regards to Thermodynamics has little to do with what you are saying. What it means is that if you have a system where energy is in used, and nothing is added to it, eventually all you will end up with is the most disordered system of energy: typically meaning just waste heat. Fire itself is a an energy conversion system, and as such does not have "order".

If you can find an expert or paper that shows this is incorrect please do.

From where? "The Journal of Pointing out Misapplied Physics Laws"?

[akirabakabaka]

Thanks kookbreaker. That's why I was prodding everyone to actually read the paper, the opening paragraphs are so wide open to attack that obviously nobody had read them.

I agree that the videos showing the dust 'explosions' from any of the buildings isn't really indicative of actual explosives being used. This argument never appears to acknowledge the incredible pressures and forces from these huge structures collapsing, whose vectors you would imagine are largely downward and outward (as appears in all of the collapse videos).

How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?

Actually, I would prefer the answer to this question: What explosive could reduce a block of that size into powder as Dr. Jones describes (which is not what happenes) without spread the target material far and wide. Instead the spread of material we get comes from the remaining collapse.

How is that the explosives were all conveniently place all over the block that breaks off. Not the remainder of the building.

How is that these super-special explosives were placed right above where the plane hit.

How is that these explosives are able to be detonated when any d-cord would be severed or damaged.

How is it that these explosives were place on the most populated and visited portion of the WTC?: The tops of the towers?

Exactly, explosives planted at the tops of the towers where the planes were expected to impact is a complicated scenario. But Jones actually manages to mention a piece of important information here:

Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Because their concern was failure analysis, not 'why gravity works'. Nor is the NIST report there to explain things that Professors imagine they see.

We should take a look at the details of that analysis since they've been questioned. It's pretty long so I've only looked at a few parts of it so far. Here is the source: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)

Here is the entire quote used by Jones from the NIST report, which is actually a footnote that appears twice:

The combined knowledge from all the gathered data and analyses led to the development of a probable collapse sequence for each tower*, the identification of factors that contributed to the collapses, and a list of factors that could have improved building performance or otherwise mitigated the loss of life.

*The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (emphasis from Jones)

In simulations of the "probable collapse sequence" only the floors in the areas hit by the planes were considered, and only from the time they were hit by the planes until the point where it was decided collapse was imminent. How the collapse actually unfolded would appear to be an important bit of proof for any conclusions drawn from these simulations, but it is missing from the report, which is what Jones took issue with. So kookbreaker is right that the point was failure analysis, but it appears the analysis wasn't taken to it's conclusion. How certain was the entire collapse of the towers and WTC7 as determined by NIST?

"While NIST was not able to compile a complete documentation of the history of the towers, due to the loss of records over time and due to the collapses, the investigators were able to acquire information adequate to support the findings and recommendations" (p.171) -- I'm not quite as convinced yet as NIST is in their conclusions. In particular I don't think enough attention was paid to the basement levels, where eye-witnesses like William Rodrigeuz claim explosions caused heavy damage.

Here is the only instance of the basement levels being considered relative to the collapse that I could find: "Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building.Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors." (p.24)

We're also told about "Redundant Operations Control Centers" in the basements of both towers which were installed in response to the '93 basement bombings. They appear to essentially be the HQ for each tower's defense and response. Unfortunately for the investigation: "No documentation of the status of the replacement system survived the 2001 attack. However, a 2002 analysis estimated that over 80 percent of the towers had been retrofitted and that about 25 percent of the original system was still in use." (p.61)

What research has been done into the extent of the damage to the basement levels and exactly how it happened?

[akirabakabaka]

"Over a period of about 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation. These samples ranged in size and complexity from a nearly complete three-column, three-floor perimeter assembly to bolts and small fragments. Figures 6–3 through 6–5 show some of the recovered steel pieces. Seven of the pieces were from WTC 5. The remaining 229 samples represented roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. [...] In all, 42 exterior panels were positively identified: 26 from WTC 1 and 16 from WTC 2. Twelve core columns were positively identified: eight from WTC 1 and four from WTC 2. Twenty-three pieces were identified as being parts of trusses, although it was not possible to identify their locations within the buildings." (p.85)

I wonder if this is the same exact sample of 150 beams used by FEMA, just chopped up a bit more. The picture on page 86 of steel columns "hit by the fuselage of the aircraft" don't appear to have suffered the sulpheric reaction that severely melted and corroded the beams of WTC7 examined by WPI, but it's hard to tell. Given the extremely small amount of evidence they gathered of the wreckage, it's remarkable that they would find beams actually believed to have been hit by the plane. This supports what I've suggested earlier, that most of the WTC1/2 evidence was taken off the tops of the piles and is limited to upper levels. That's good for the investigation obviously, but is evidence that damage in the basement levels of the towers wasn't considered in the collapse.

[akirabakabaka]

He obviously was talking about the fire that initiated the collapse and it had to be very ordered to cause a symmetrical collapse. If you can find an expert or paper that shows this is incorrect please do.

No. This has nothing to do with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. "ordered" in regards to Thermodynamics has little to do with what you are saying. What it means is that if you have a system where energy is in used, and nothing is added to it, eventually all you will end up with is the most disordered system of energy: typically meaning just waste heat. Fire itself is a an energy conversion system, and as such does not have "order".

From the Jones paper: "The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…" (Harris, 2000, emphasis added)

Jones really does seem to be confusing entropy with something else. The point was that he claims it was far more likely for the towers to topple over in a disorderly way, and not as symmetrically as was observed. I believe some people have mentioned 'pancaking' but I'm not sure how well this issue has been explained WRT the towers. Would this sort of collapse have been more or less likely if core support was severed at the basement levels?

[kookbreaker]

What research has been done into the extent of the damage to the basement levels and exactly how it happened?

Its purely anectdotal, to be sure, but a friend of mine who works for the EPA was able to walk around in at least one of the garage levels a few days after the collapse. Cars that remained there were damaged, but drivable. They just weren't able to go anywhere.

[sfarq1]

<i></i><br>
<br>
Jones really does seem to be confusing entropy with something else.

If this is true what good is his paper? That is his field of expertise.

[akirabakabaka]

If this is true what good is his paper? That is his field of expertise.

The paper has no hint of a scientific analysis of the WTC tower collapses, so I'm not sure it really matters what he claims about thermodynamics. All this paper really does is collect a bunch of evidence supporting the assertion that the plane impacts and the ensuing fires weren't enough to collapse the towers:

* unexplained corrosion and melting of steel beams
* the inner steel core of WTC1 collapsed before the rest of the tower
* UL truss tests "sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"
* conflicting reports that the floors of the towers pulled the walls down:

"With the impact damage, the core subsystem leaned to the southeast and was supported by the south and east perimeter walls via the hat truss and floors. As the core weakened, it redistributed loads to the perimeter walls through the hat truss and floors. [...] The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns [...] There would have been no inward pull forces if the floors connections had failed and disconnected.[/b]" (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis from Jones)

The NIST analysis has been disputed:

"The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is also column behaviour in fire. However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displacement between the core and perimeter columns, much greater than the 300mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true. [...] If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed [...] the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening." (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis from Jones)

The whole argument re: Jones' credibility seems kind of irrelevant since he doesn't even discuss any matters of science. He just cites other people's research and inserts some flamboyant remarks in between. But he does manage to point to some discrepancies in the story.

[Jim]

Jones seems to do a massive job of cherry picking the Arup (Lane and Lamont) article.

This was a writeup of a talk given in April 2005. It included a commentary on NIST's probable collapse theory presented the week before. The "smoking gun" criticism Jones quotes simply reflects the opinion of Lane and Lamont that NIST did not properly consider thermal expansion. Nowhere in the article do they say the collapse was not "natural."

[SynKronoS]

Evidently this guy has never heard of the "Collapsing Cola Can Trick,"

this was the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard a propagandist say--to compare an aluminum can with a person standing on it to a solid steel structure with multiple load supporting beams is beyond stretching it--it amazes me when i think of all the hoops that the "deniars" will jump through just to keep their govt from turning into the blood thristy monster it is-- war is nothing more than a population control tool of the elite-- and the world is controled by an "occult elite" -- its almost as if georgie w bush was never investigated for six months on the charges of "mass murder" before he was govenor and his ties to the bin ladens never existed

[Captain Kidd]

The paper has no hint of a scientific analysis of the WTC tower collapses, so I'm not sure it really matters what he claims about thermodynamics.

Here's how it can matter. If he's using the 2nd law in a wrong way, then what about the basis for the rest of his claims?

[dinAlt]

The guy in this article is an expert on fusion and solar energy, he doesn't appear to have a background in failure analysis, mechanical engineering, explosives, materials science, or any number of other fields that would be needed to accurately assess what happened.

The professor's background is immaterial to his argument. If a sanitation engineer were to advance a sound argument within the domain of particle physics, would his occupation invalidate his argument? In order to falsify a hypothesis, one must either invalidate the premises or the inferences. Which of the professor's premises is incorrect or where did he go wrong in his reasoning?

He is assuming that this was done by explosives in a controlled manner, and basing his analysis off that conclusion. It is not a valid assumption.

Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers is the proposed hypothesis. It is no more of an assumption than the hypothesis of fire initiated collapse.

Symmetric damage would result in a symmetric collapse, there is nothing too amazing about that.

This is correct, although this is a straw-man argument, as the professor is not arguing symmetric damage would not result in symmetric collapse. His premises are:

1. The fire damage to the towers was asymmetric.
2. Symmetric collapse can not occur from asymmetric damage.

From this, he infers: The official hypothesis of fire initiated collapse is incorrect.

It should be possible to falsify either of these premises. To do so, you must demonstrate either:

1. The fire damage was symmetric in all three buildings. This might take the form of photographic evidence or eyewitness testimony. I am not aware of any evidence, which might support this position.

2. Symmetric collapse is not only possible, but probable with asymmetric damage. The qualifier of probably is necessary because we have three instances of this phenomenon, which tends to rule out the possibility of a freak occurrence. This evidence might take the form of experimental results, computer models, or a consensus of experts in the field of structural demolitions.

How many steel frame building have been soaked in burning jet fuel?

None, that I am aware of, although this misses the point. Steel frame building have been subjected to fires of greater duration, similar temperature, and greater extent in the past without failure. No one has proposed a plausible hypothesis as to why these fires were materially different than past fires.

Why would they demolish a building that is not connected to the main two buildings? Seems like a bit of a waste of time. Besides, that is assuming it fell from the top down, if it fell from the bottom up or all floors at the same time then there wouldn't be anything in the way of upper floors as they fell.

The professors arguments do not depend on the motivations of the responsible party. If the official hypothesis is demonstrably false, then the controlled demolition hypothesis is the next best alternative and should be investigated further.

The empirical evidence suggests that building 7 fell from the bottom up or experienced simultaneous failure. You are in agreement with the professor on this matter. Where is the contradiction?

Why would explosive convert it to flour-like powder any more than a conventional collapse? In fact, I would expect an explosion would send out far more solid debris from the high force of the shock-wave, while a collapse would crush everything below it into a fine powder, which is what we see.

Without further supporting evidence, this is a valid criticism. This is something which should be testable. Given the other evidence, I would like to see it tested, as it would add further insight to this debate.

I would have to see this, but once again begging the question. He is using explosives terminology under the assumption that it is a controlled implosion. I can think of a number of reasons that we could see such puffs of smoke: stress on the building cracking windows or concrete; dust, some or debris falling down the stairwell, or in fact the stairwell itself collapsing; or water pipes bursting or exploding.

The puffs proceed the actual collapse. They are consistent with controlled demolition and their absence would tend to undermine the controlled demolition hypothesis. Again, in light of other evidence, this matter requires further investigation. If it can be shown an alternative hypothesis can account for the puffs, then it would weaken the argument for controlled demolition. If nothing else can account for the puffs, it would be a very strong argument for controlled demolition.

Even if it only burned for a few minutes, if it burned at or above 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit than the jet fuel would caused the observed effect. The temperature of vaporization is the temperature of vaporization, no matter how short a time something burned at. As a metal, steel has relatively low heat capacity so it would heat up relatively quickly.

It has already been well established, by the proponents of the fire collapse theory, that the temperatures did not exceed 5,000 degrees for any length of time. The only counter arguments to this point would be:

1. Establish the reports of vaporized material are false.
2. Establish the presence of large quantities of combustibles, capable of burning at excess of 5000 degrees, within all three towers in the vicinity of the fires. There are not many materials, which fit this criteria, as even thermite has a limit of about 4500 degrees F.

What about high-temperature fires from jet fuel? High temperature is high temperature. And although I am no expert, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression they usually didn't use thermite in controlled demolitions. I was under the impression they used explosives, specifically shaped charged explosives for cutting and slurries or plastic explosives inserted into drilled holes for breaking support columns. I do not think thermite is an explosive, it produces an extremely exothermic reaction but does not actually explode, which would make it of limited use for demolitions.

We have already established that fires resulting from burning jet fuel or office materials can not account for the temperatures needed to melt steel, by the admission of the official reports.

You are correct, in that thermite is not an explosive, it is an incendiary. It is capable of quickly cutting thick steel, although not as fast as an explosive. It would be worth consulting with structural demolitions experts, to determine the applicability of thermite in the demolition of high rise buildings.

There is one very simple question I have regarding all this. How could someone set up a controlled demolition in a building packed with people? It requires drilling, extensive wiring (probably miles of wiring for a building that size), cutting out sections of the ceiling or walls, careful measurements. It probably would have taken weeks, maybe months to set up. Don't you think somebody would have noticed them setting up explosives throughout the building?

That is a very good question. Such an accomplishment appears improbable, but not impossible.

“Improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still.” -- Sherlock Holmes

[Alan G. Archer]

...its almost as if georgie w bush was never investigated for six months on the charges of "mass murder" before he was govenor and his ties to the bin ladens never existed

George W. Bush was the subject of a murder investigation before he was governor of Texas?