9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Ganymede]

Day after day, week after week, month after month. Soon to be Year after Year.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

**************************************************
The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
**************************************************

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html

Firstly we still have no reliable evidence for molten steel.

I can believe that witnesses may have confused molten iron for molten steel. However, I think it's safe to say that the iron -came- from the steel. The most prominent evidence that there was molten iron comes from before the collapse itself. There is only one claim that I have only guessed at a solution, and I've requested more information on that particular issue here:
http://letsrollforums.com/debunker-claim-molten-iron-t18041.html?p=160507#post160507

Loizeaux did not see any steel himself and said this.
From http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President


So where are these videos?

Good question.

There have been claims but there still seems to be no photos or video showing molten steel.

With the exception I've already mentioned.

Secondly, if thermate or an explosive was used that would have no relevance to high temperatures five weeks later.

There were claims that the thermate (or perhaps it was thermite, both may have been used) was still reacting with the metal. Also, I believe that the fact that much of the rubble was buried would have allowed it to retain its heat.

Originally Posted by scott3x

The New York Times article doesn't specify how many people found evidence for the evaporated steel. The person who mentioned there was evidence of evaporated steel was Dr. Barnett. The New York times article said this:
***************************************
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

The problem is that the temperatures required are extremely unlikely

Extremely unlikely if fire was what brought down the building. Not so if it were explosives.

and it would leave much more evidence than a comment by an engineer which seems to be contradicted by his team's report.

Where was it contradicted? Furthermore, I agree that it would have left a lot more evidence, particularly in the steel. Sadly, most of the steel was carted off before anyone got a chance to analyze it...

 

[scott3x]

Day after day, week after week, month after month. Soon to be Year after Year.

I would argue that the truth is frequently hard to find. If it were so simple, corruption wouldn't exist; we'd all have moved beyond it. I believe Richard Dawkins, a noted biologist, has made the argument that the search for truth as well as the art of deception is something that's been with higher order animals for quite some time now.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Unlike the case of the firefighters, I haven't seen any FEMA employees saying that this was the case. A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack...

No but when you are taking something to be true when there is a lack of evidence you are using blind faith.

Who said I was taking it to be true? I merely mentioned it as a possibility.

Conspiracy theorists do not critically look at the evidence because they don't want to see that the conspiracy isn't there.

I'd argue it's more the other way around (official story believers...). After all, many 9/11 alternate story believers (such as myself, Steven Jones, the creator or 9/11 mysteries) originally believed the official story. It was only after closely examing the facts that they found that the official story was full of holes.

Originally Posted by scott3x

but there's no smoking gun there at any rate.

However, writing this got me to thinking of the one firefighter who -outright- said that there was high up interference, Paul Isaac Jr. I've now found the article from the reporter who spoke to him as well as to another firefighter. Here is the relevant excerpt:
***********************************
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had pancaked as its been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channels dont trust a truss explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building dont just implode like that; this was a demolition...
***********************************
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html

Paul Isaac did not actually see anything himself he is just making claims of conspiracies.

I never said that Paul Isaac saw anything, although he may have, being stationed so close to the buildings. What the above report makes clear, however, is that he is claiming that other firefighters know there were bombs in the buildings. If you want a more in depth look at all the evidence that firefighters heard explosions, I suggest you take a look at the following articles:
http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

He is clearly ill-informed when it comes to structural engineering so his comments there are irrelevant.

I have seen no evidence that he is ill-informed on the subject. In 2007, it can be seen that he was still showing evidence that suggest 9/11 was an inside job:
******************************************
Prothink Interviews NYC First Responder Paul Isaac

Leticia Martinez/Nierika
Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:42:08 -0800

http://www.prothink.org/

Saturday, November 24, 2007
Prothink Interviews NYC First Responder Paul Isaac

CLICK HERE FOR THE INTERVIEW
http://prothink.podomatic.com/

PICTURE TAKEN OF PAUL ISAAC AND MIKE DELANEY AT WTC
GROUND ZERO, NEW YORK, NY 9/11/2007
Paul is going to be presenting evidence of 9/11 to the courts and would like your support if you are in the Brooklyn area. This will be going on at the Brooklyn Circuit Court December 7th, 2007. He requests that people come to support him in his efforts to obtain justice for 9/11/01. Here is some of the evidence he will be presenting:
More Unanswered Questions re: Keyspan Tanks

Paul Isaac is an Auxiliary Fireman and first responder. He has spent an untold number of hours doing in-depth research compiling many areas of evidence challenging the official account of 9/11.

The image below illustrates a parallel between the demolition of the Keyspan Maspeth Holding Tanks in Queens, NY on July 15th, just a few months before 9/11. Although explosives were outlawed, somehow with the Giuliani administration in power, this demolition was carried out even though the surrounding area was residential. You can still see the Queens Gazette article from 7/18/01 here.

Also,

The height of the tanks is approximately the same as the height from where Flight 175 struck the south tower and the top of the building. The angle of the collapse of the South Tower (see Image 2) was almost identical to the angle of the demolition-cased collapse of the tanks (see Image 3). Also, the antenna from Tower One came down in the same direction, into Tobin Plaza rather than west towards the World Financial Centers. The demolition of the tanks was planned and carried out by Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Isn't it interesting that this company also was contracted to do the cleanup after the Oklahoma City Bombing, then again for cleanup of the World Trade Center towers? Also, see the Online Journal article here by Jerry Mazza.
****************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg09508.html


However, if you trust engineers more, you may want to look at the following article:
**Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" **
Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

 

[MacGyver1968]

Hm. Well, that sounds reasonable.

Holy shit on a shingle!!!!! Quick!!! Someone take a fucking picture of the screen...cause that right thar is rarer than seeing Bigfoot playing football with Jimmy Hoffa.

My Boy, Scott...I believe, has just conceded a point. Don't turn back now Scott!!!! Run towards the light!! Run Scott run!!!

 

[scott3x]

Once again, this incident was over seven years ago. In that time firemen have left the profession or retired. If hundreds of firemen had been murdered that day a simple 'gag order' would have come out by now.

Paul Isaac spoke of it in 2005:
*********************************************
Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski’s article:

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
*********************************************
http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

Originally Posted by scott3x

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, We think there were bombs set in the building. Notice he said we. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasnt a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.

You are sounding more desperate now.
http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

"Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."

When did I ever say that he felt that he had definite proof? I can certainly agree that he heard 'what sounded like bombs'. If you want to take a more in depth look at what Cacchioli had to say and his dislike of the way the 9/11 commission handled his testimony, you may want to look here:
"NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Says 9/11 Comission Twisted His Words"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/200705twistedwords.htm

 

[MacGyver1968]

Question for all who post or lurk this thread:

Would anyone have any objection to me asking the Mod to close this thread, and move say..the last 3 or 4 pages to a new "9/11 Conspiracy Thread - Mark II"

I sometimes view this thread on my mobile phone, on the way to work, and trying to navigate the pages without a mouse can be difficult with soooo many pages.

Any objections?

 

[MetaKron]

MacGyver, are you driving while you are attempting to access this thread?

 

[MetaKron]

I'm repeating myself, but I still think that it would have been too inconvenient and pointless to make the attempt to use enough thermite to create long-lasting pools of liquid steel. Has anyone observed this at other demolition sites? Omaha took down a 40 story bank building by implosion a few years ago. Simple impact is enough to melt metals.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Hearsay had nothing to do with it. Once again:
**********************************************
Janette MacKinlay is a visual artist, and a survivor of the World Trade Center attacks. On September 11th, she watched the drama unfold from her apartment across the street from the World Trade Center. Jim, a sculptor who shared the apartment, settled in to observe what was happening, thinking that the towers would burn "all day." When they started to come down, he warned Janette and they quickly hurried out their door as the debris shattered their windows and filled their apartment with dust and debris. Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal. Exhibitions of her artwork, included Deception Dollars.

By cosmic synchronicity, the Deception Dollar artist emailed me her name and phone number on the very day that I met Janette, in person, in San Francisco where members of the 9/11 Commission were speaking before the Commonwealth Club. I traded her a David Ray Griffin book- The New Pearl Harbor for a copy of her book, and that was the beginning of our friendship and collaboration. Janette joined the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and became a vital, active member, treasurer, host, organizer, speaker, as well as a liason between the West Coast and New York City, when she decided to return to her refurbished apartment when she discovered it was available to rent.

Janette also significantly contributed to our scientific understanding of the destruction of the towers, because she saved some of the dust that filled her apartment and passed it on to Steven Jones for analysis. Her sensitivty, experiences, insights, communications skills are acknowledged as priceless gifts to the Truth movement and she is deeply respected and loved by fellow activists.
************************************
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14609

Sir, it entirely did.

I looked up the term on wikipedia. In the U.S., it is defined thusly:
"Hearsay is the legal term that describes statements made outside of court or other judicial proceedings."

By that account, most of the official story is hearsay as well; after all, they didn't make it in a court or other 'judicial proceedings'. Here are what I find are the relevant statements from my quote above. Do you disagree with any of them? If so, why?

1- Janette MacKinlay is a visual artist, and a survivor of the World Trade Center attacks.

2- On September 11th, she watched the drama unfold from her apartment across the street from the World Trade Center.

3- Jim, a sculptor who shared the apartment, settled in to observe what was happening, thinking that the towers would burn "all day."

4- When they started to come down, he warned Janette and they quickly hurried out their door as the debris shattered their windows and filled their apartment with dust and debris.

5- Janette also significantly contributed to our scientific understanding of the destruction of the towers, because she saved some of the dust that filled her apartment and passed it on to Steven Jones for analysis.

The artist in question (a suspicious mote from the get-go)

A 'suspicious mote'? What's a 'mote'? Also, what do you find 'suspicious'?

...was a Troofer for years and years

She believed that the official story was full of holes, as do I. What's your point?

besides the analysis being so delayed.

For starters, do you even have any evidence that the analysis was delayed?

It's far too suspicious to be considered evidence.

In your mind perhaps. I and others disagree.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

The 'question' was, why would she fake it?

Who can say?

You can't even come up with a theory?

We are all very willing to ascribe the basest intentions to governmental sources.

Because their case is so full of holes and they constantly seem to want to obscure the truth.

Just the other day, a woman carved herself up and blamed it on Obama.

I heard of that. What's your point?

Perhaps you are employing a form of Bush Science, wherein sources aren't sources. Creating your own reality, if you will, something like what a New York Times magazine writer quoted a Bush aid as saying:
**********************************************
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
**********************************************
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html

I see. I demand authentication, so I am being "unreal" about 9/11.

I'm not sure what you're demanding anymore. You want to know who supplied Steven Jones with his sample. I tell you. You want to know why she supplied it. I tell you. You want to know why she collected the sample to begin with; I tell you. Now you seem to think she somehow managed to get a sample of thermate spherules just to undermine the official story, which you apparently belive is God's given truth.

Mackinlay's samples are not even the only spherules that were found, despite Rudi Giuliani's haste to remove all the debris:
*******************************
An earlier study notes the presence in the WTC dust of significant “metallic particles (mostly Ti and Fe [iron], although Zn, lead (Pb), Ba, and Cu were also found).”45 The USGS “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust” shows micrographs of a few metallic spherules which they also observed in the dust (see especially Iron-03 and Iron-04.)46
*******************************
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Surely, if I was more realistic, I would accept the easy authority of those who claim 9/11 was a secret demolition carried out by thousands of government spider-men, or a giant hologram. Or carried out by a giant "la-zer" in orbit.

I have claimed none of these things. Please stick to the facts Geoff.

She reverentially preserved dust? In a plastic bag. Again: it strikes me as highly unlikely.

Why does it strike you as highly unlikely?

Steven Jones' makes it clear that the -only- thing that could have done it was thermate. Not exactly something an artist would stock up on.

And a radical supporter of controlled demolition?

Steven Jones simply goes where the evidence leads him. Something you seem to have a hard time doing...

Thermate is only a series of its own components.

So you think you can cook some up?

I'm hell-bent not to be led down the garden path by a pack of fools.

Ok. Sometimes I get a bit frustrated, but I must admit that different people think differently.

I'm guessing from the above statement that you yourself are a republican. Is that the case?

No. I am a Marxist-Leninist. Is this the new dialectic in Canadian youth: accept our tall tale or be consigned to the reactionary opposition?

I'm simply trying to understand you better. Are you -really- a Marxist-Leninist?

You were mistaken as to when he received the sample, so perhaps you're also mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings.

Unfortunately, I'm not. My link states when he announced it. Perhaps Steven Jones is mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings?

Very funny. Alright, perhaps he did announce his findings in 2007. If so, I don't know why he took more then a year. However, I think the findings themselves are far more important then how long it took for him to get them.

Their reasoning has already been debunked. Here is its refutation once more:
********************************************
In question 12 NIST states that, “Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.”iv Now, bear in mind that NIST admittedly did not test available WTC steel samples for “explosives or thermite residues.”v Therefore, NIST’s above response seems more of a rhetorical answer to a hypothetical set of facts regarding the use of thermite. So, I will also address the use of thermite in hypothetical terms, as it is the scientists who must test the material (to the extent it still exists) for such substances. It is the scientists who must review and interpret the data.

The operative word used by NIST in their answer to question 12 regarding “duration for cut” is the word “can”.vi This is not a parsing of words. NIST states that thermite “can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.” In actual fact, thermite also “can” cut through a structural steel target material in less than one second.vii Moreover, there are at least two devices that have the capability of cutting through steel in a matter of fractions of a second.viii

Next, in NIST’s hypothetical, they state that the thermite would “need to have been somehow held in direct contact” with the target material (In this case, we are referring to structural steel). Here the operative words are “need to have been.” NIST claims that thermite must be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to slice through it.x

Does thermite have to be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to react and slice through the target material? No. To the contrary, an apparatus developed in 1999-2001 actually requires that the nozzle of the linear thermite cutting apparatus be at a “controlled stand-off” distance from the target material.” The term “stand-off distance” is defined as having the elongated nozzle positioned “generally adjacent” to a target material to be cut.xii The term “generally adjacent” is further defined as requiring the nozzle to be approximately 1/16 inch to 1⁄4 inch away from the target material (depending on the thickness of the material to be cut).xiii Moreover, the “somehow held” aspect of NIST’s statement is readily dealt with in available patents.xiv The ease that such devices can be attached to a target surface is quite evident, and can be accomplished by various conventional means.xv

NIST also raises the issue of inconspicuous placement of thermite in their hypothetical. NIST intimates that such surreptitious placement of hypothetical incendiaries would not be possible. Although the issue of inconspicuous behavior is not a scientific matter, the patents do suggest accommodations for ease of deployment in the field .xvi

NIST next states that ignition of the apparatus would likely be by remote. Assuming NIST’s claim regarding remote detonation is correct, it seems that various embodiments of the linear thermite cutting device do address NIST’s concerns quite admirably. For example, the device patented in February 2001 indicates that conventional fuses from “Pyrofuse Corporation in Mt. Vernon, N.Y.” may be utilized as the activation device and can be accessed for remote ignition.xvii

So as can be seen, NIST (in an apparent effort to “debunk” some sound questions surrounding the WTC disaster) has created an unnecessary mystique around data and technology--much of which has been available for over half a decade. Rather than dismiss such data, NIST should test available steel samples for residues of thermite and other anomalous substances.
********************************************

...how does what you posted constitute evidence of a controlled demolition??

The article simply pointed to the possibility that a controlled demolition may have taken place, with nano thermite being a possible explosive that was used, and that the NIST should test for it.

Evidence given by Steven Jones based on a sample of the WTC dust further corroborates this possibility. Yes, yes, you can believe that an artist, whose apartment was -filled- with WTC dust, got rid of all that and managed to get hold of some thermate, use it to make some iron rich spherules with the tell tale thermate fingerprint and pretend that -that- was the dust that was in her apartment. Why she would do this, even you can't say, but hey, it would mean you wouldn't have to question the official story.

 

[scott3x]

Oh I'll laugh alright... A conspiracy so vast that it involves not only the government, or those in the clean up operation, Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, the military, the woman who took a picture of the mushroom cloud from Flight 93, eye witnesses to the Pentagon crash, EVEN ME since you alluded that I may be a government agent!

...But you think the media is involved in the cover up too? Hahahahhahahahhahahah. Oh man... what is it like living in that head of yours?

I'm actually starting to think you should go see a professional.

Ok, continue laughing. I don't remember anything about a woman who took a picture, and I am more liable to believe that it was certain people in the clean up operations, as you said, not everyone, and more the heads of them then everyone in them. As to the witnesses of the pentagon plane crash, it has been argued in thepentacon.com that the plane apparently did a low flyover of the pentagon just as explosives were detonated within the pentagon, creating the illusion that the plane crashed in the pentagon, when in fact it merely flew over it. I have now heard that atleast 1 person apparently saw the flyover, apparently from one of the creators of thepentacon.com.

After having seen some stuff from Jonathan Barnett, for instance, it has led me to believe that he may have had little if anything to do with it; he actually seemed to be protesting that they removed the evidence so quickly and there is evidence that the investigators had no authority to keep the debris for a closer examination. Rudi Giuliani, on the other hand, seems to be a person who was integral in removing the debris at a rapid pace.

In any case, you may want to have a look at this:
************************************
ZERO : Europe for an Independent Inquiry into 9/11
BRUSSELS, European Parliament, 26th February 2008.

Mark Dermul (www.911belgium.be) reporting.

On Tuesday 26th February, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11’. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.

Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.

After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe...
************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14103

 

[scott3x]

Holy shit on a shingle!!!!! Quick!!! Someone take a fucking picture of the screen...cause that right thar is rarer than seeing Bigfoot playing football with Jimmy Hoffa.

My Boy, Scott...I believe, has just conceded a point. Don't turn back now Scott!!!! Run towards the light!! Run Scott run!!!

MacGyver, this isn't the first time that I've 'conceded a point'. However, I notice that you failed to respond to the -rest- of my post. I invite you to do so; it's all here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063944&postcount=1703

 

[scott3x]

Question for all who post or lurk this thread:

Would anyone have any objection to me asking the Mod to close this thread, and move say..the last 3 or 4 pages to a new "9/11 Conspiracy Thread - Mark II"

I sometimes view this thread on my mobile phone, on the way to work, and trying to navigate the pages without a mouse can be difficult with soooo many pages.

Any objections?

I've wanted to split this thread up since the threads I started with were put into this 'mighty tangle'. If you look at the first post in this thread, you'll see that the argument for having everything in one thread is that "9/11 Conspiracist's have been over killing the forum". The solution, in my view, is rather simple; create a forum that is tailored for conspiracists alone. Other posters who are here for topics -other- then conspiracies also agreed. The admins preferred to spend their time disagreeing with alternate story theories instead of addressing the issue at hand and that's where it ended.

 

[MacGyver1968]

MacGyver, are you driving while you are attempting to access this thread?

LOL...no..I ride a city bus to work..it's an hour and half ride each way.

 

[scott3x]

I'm repeating myself, but I still think that it would have been too inconvenient and pointless to make the attempt to use enough thermite to create long-lasting pools of liquid steel. Has anyone observed this at other demolition sites?

As far as I know, nano thermites have never been used in demolitions before. Why nano thermites were used, I don't know. How much nano thermite was used and whether or not other explosives were used in conjunction is also an unknown.

I believe Steven Jones puts it well in his conclusion of his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
******************************************
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings — acquired mostly by private parties — which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.
******************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

Omaha took down a 40 story bank building by implosion a few years ago. Simple impact is enough to melt metals.

Omaha? In any case, even NIST doesn't believe that the impact and the fires melted anything other then aluminum. Which is why it can't admit that any metal (other then molten aluminum) was ever found. It also seems to be why it's refusing to release the "6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings — acquired mostly by private parties — which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81)"

 

[shaman_]

I have seen no evidence of it turning yellow under any conditions, but perhaps in dark conditions. However, Steven Jones et al have from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Bringham Young University have made it clear that it -never- appears so under daylight conditions:
***************************************

http://www.nomoregames.net/911/helping_jones/600_v_1000.jpg

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/

http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech gallery.htm

http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data...ation_edit.asp?ele_ch_id=A0000000000000001326

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280681.html?page=2

It isn't that dark in these photos and there is definitely a glow.

Interestingly if you look at this picture
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

wouldn’t you say the drops near the bottom which are cooler are more silvery?

Since not even NIST has considered those possibilities, I won't speculate on them. However, the alternate theory movement, which includes many scientists, believe that the only logical expalanation was that it was molten iron.

By ‘many’ scientists you mean a few people mentioned on the internet who are not experts in that field and won’t ever submit this work to a relevant peer reviewed journal.

Why have you reached the conclusion that it is almost certainly not iron?

There is no evidence that the fire reached temperatures to melt iron or steel.

I believe the answer to that is that thermite placement wasn't uniform.

That does not answer the question at all.

Why do you believe that it wasn't affected?

Can you see the steel melting?

It has already been argued that the bowing may have been a simple refraction of light.

It has already been pointed out to you how stupid that is. Photographs from different angles confirm the bowing. From http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm


“Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.”

Personally, I wouldn't rule out the idea that things like thermite might have caused some bowing, but the alternate movement experts haven't addressed that possibility.

You wouldn’t rule out missiles, nuclear bombs or death rays either.

I'll see if this point can be addressed. I'm guessing the reason it didn't, however, is that it was still reacting with the thermite, keeping it hot.




From the plane? From what I remember, there is evidence that a lot of it shot straight through the building and fell on the other side.

No a few pieces were found but most of the plane was in the building.

Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures.

So why do you keep spamming cherry picked comments on the temperatures recorded?

I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks.

What, in all your years of investigating fires?

For the 62nd time you have been shown a steel building which collapsed due to a paper fire and you have been shown a bridge which collapsed when a gas tanker crashed. You will no doubt ignore these and head back to your conspiracy sites to maintain your religion.

And remember that a lot of those huge steel beams were nowhere near the impact zone.

You have no idea where the steel beams were from. The ones I am referring to were mentioned in the articles regarding Prof Astaneh-Asl.

Not by a long shot.
Kevin Ryan handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
***************************************************
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

Scott it was that very comment that Mackey was addressing.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
***************************************************
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Wow good graphics?! Scott you spam so much nonsense over and over I’m not going to read an article on your suggestion. I will look at various points though.

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?

?

I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past

Only in the eyes of a gullible lazy conspiracy theorist. Mackey’s document is pretty much the definitive debunking on all of Griffin’s claims and I think a few others are in there. The crackpots have returned fire with that one page which I think Mackey may have even addressed in the second version of his document.

At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************

Where was the good point in that? They are making excuses why they are too scared or inept to reply to Mackey’s essay in entirety and then just whine on that he is debunking them.

Here you go ...

ooh look smoke (rising)! ?

I have never claimed that it was done before or after 9/11. Clearly, the people who did it had deep pockets (perhaps using some of the money 'dissapearing' from the military's coffers: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063758&postcount=1690) and a lot of expertise in nano-thermites. Like certain individuals in NIST, for example:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html

You claimed “its capabilities have been proven.”. Show me nanosuperultramegathermite demolishing something as an example.

From what I've heard, the most likely explanation for those twisted steel girders are explosives, not the relatively small fires that were only on a few floors.

Yes small fires.

Just a little campfire put it out with an extinguisher.. nothing to see here people move along.

Only one floor needed to fail for the collapse to start.

But you are still evading or not getting my point. Explosives blow things up don’t they? They could be used to damage a structure, not just heat it up. So does an explosive explain softened steel?

I'll excerpt Steven Jones' explanation for the collapse:
**********************************************
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.
**********************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

How can you read that without laughing? The squibs thing was debunked years ago. A straightforward hypothesis? Flying a plane into a building secretly loaded with invisible explosives which aren’t even that effective for demolition and they have to go off in perfect timing starting on the floors the plane had to hit to create an appearance that the building is collapsing. Even though it has been demonstrated that fire alone can weaken steel they have to use secret explosives because if the building didn’t collapse the conspiracy wouldn’t work.. The government, firemen, police, media, NIST, scrap yards, fema, norad ect ect are all behind it keeping it secret. Yeah pretty straightforward. … It’s so simple really.

just looking at the pictures makes it clear that this was a controlled demolition:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/

That’s because you are a religious nut. Please point out which picture makes it clear it was a CD.

Such as?

Squibs for one. Scott I, and others, have posted articles which address his claims. You won’t read them. It’s like trying to convince a priest that god doesn’t exist.

No; many alternate theory believers don't believe that a missile hit the pentagon. Right now, I'm going for what is mentioned in www.thepentacon.com; that a plane approached the pentagon but then flew over it, and that explosives were used on the pentagon.

Even though there isn’t one witness who saw that plane fly over the pentagon and there is no evidence for explosives….

I admit that he might not have known about nanothermite at the beginning and instead of realizing that this signifies that I can question his reasoning, you somehow take it as a sign that I would believe him 'regardless'. You may want to review your logic.


I imply no such thing. I'm only implying that if no plane hit WTC 7, it was even -less- likely to collapse then the WTC buildings if no explosives were used.

lol right.

A theory which has been discredited even by NIST.

The point was that the crew there did not come to a conclusion that had anything to do with the amazing temperatures required for evaporating steel.

You'd have to ask Jonathan Barnett and/or members of his assessment team. As the New York Times states, "Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker [were] part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks."

You may want to see a small youtube clip wherein he talks of surprise that tower 7 collapsed. He also states this:
"When you have a structural failure,
you carefully go through the debris field,
looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed
and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element.
We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7"

This suggests that Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering, was on the mark when he said the following:
********************************************
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
********************************************
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225



I think the following statement sums it up nicely:
***************************************
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1
***************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

The steel was at the site for six months! There was nothing hasty about it’s removal. The investigators had access to all the steel at the scrap yards. Leave the fantasy behind and come back to reality.

The main issue is this: most people 'just follow orders'. Only the people at the top actually have the power to make certain decisions. For instance, -why- did the FEMA investigators not "have the authority to preserve the wreckage"? Who wanted it destroyed so fast?

:wallbang:

 

[shaman_]

I can believe that witnesses may have confused molten iron for molten steel. However, I think it's safe to say that the iron -came- from the steel. The most prominent evidence that there was molten iron comes from before the collapse itself. There is only one claim that I have only guessed at a solution, and I've requested more information on that particular issue here:
http://letsrollforums.com/debunker-claim-molten-iron-t18041.html?p=160507#post160507



Good question.




With the exception I've already mentioned.

Post a link to the photos or video please.

There were claims that the thermate (or perhaps it was thermite, both may have been used) was still reacting with the metal. Also, I believe that the fact that much of the rubble was buried would have allowed it to retain its heat.

Supermegathermite doesn’t react for that long. Even if it did it would require a ridiculous amount to do so. So no not relevant.

Extremely unlikely if fire was what brought down the building. Not so if it were explosives.

Extremely unlikely considering there is no reliable evidence for temperatures that high or for explosives.

Where was it contradicted? Furthermore, I agree that it would have left a lot more evidence, particularly in the steel. Sadly, most of the steel was carted off before anyone got a chance to analyze it...

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

“Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap”

Plenty of the steel was analyzed. Stop trying to pretend everything is suspicious.

Who said I was taking it to be true? I merely mentioned it as a possibility. ...

You are claiming that there was molten and evaporated steel though.

I'd argue it's more the other way around (official story believers...). After all, many 9/11 alternate story believers (such as myself, Steven Jones, the creator or 9/11 mysteries) originally believed the official story. It was only after closely examing the facts that they found that the official story was full of holes. ...

We have examined these ‘holes’ and they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

I never said that Paul Isaac saw anything, although he may have, being stationed so close to the buildings. What the above report makes clear, however, is that he is claiming that other firefighters know there were bombs in the buildings. If you want a more in depth look at all the evidence that firefighters heard explosions, I suggest you take a look at the following articles:
http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html
...

Scott, once again if other firefighters ‘know’ that there were bombs responsible for killing their friends then why don’t they say something? If you say because they are scared to lose their jobs I am going to reach though the monitor and slap you. I can do it.

All you have is someone saying he heard that firefighters knew there were bombs. If that is all you have then you don’t have anything.

I have seen no evidence that he is ill-informed on the subject. In 2007, it can be seen that he was still showing evidence that suggest 9/11 was an inside job:
******************************************
Prothink Interviews NYC First Responder Paul Isaac

Leticia Martinez/Nierika
Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:42:08 -0800

http://www.prothink.org/

Saturday, November 24, 2007
Prothink Interviews NYC First Responder Paul Isaac

CLICK HERE FOR THE INTERVIEW
http://prothink.podomatic.com/

PICTURE TAKEN OF PAUL ISAAC AND MIKE DELANEY AT WTC
GROUND ZERO, NEW YORK, NY 9/11/2007
Paul is going to be presenting evidence of 9/11 to the courts and would like your support if you are in the Brooklyn area. This will be going on at the Brooklyn Circuit Court December 7th, 2007. He requests that people come to support him in his efforts to obtain justice for 9/11/01. Here is some of the evidence he will be presenting:
More Unanswered Questions re: Keyspan Tanks

Paul Isaac is an Auxiliary Fireman and first responder. He has spent an untold number of hours doing in-depth research compiling many areas of evidence challenging the official account of 9/11.

The image below illustrates a parallel between the demolition of the Keyspan Maspeth Holding Tanks in Queens, NY on July 15th, just a few months before 9/11. Although explosives were outlawed, somehow with the Giuliani administration in power, this demolition was carried out even though the surrounding area was residential. You can still see the Queens Gazette article from 7/18/01 here.

Also,

The height of the tanks is approximately the same as the height from where Flight 175 struck the south tower and the top of the building. The angle of the collapse of the South Tower (see Image 2) was almost identical to the angle of the demolition-cased collapse of the tanks (see Image 3). Also, the antenna from Tower One came down in the same direction, into Tobin Plaza rather than west towards the World Financial Centers. The demolition of the tanks was planned and carried out by Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Isn't it interesting that this company also was contracted to do the cleanup after the Oklahoma City Bombing, then again for cleanup of the World Trade Center towers? Also, see the Online Journal article here by Jerry Mazza.
****************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg09508.html


However, if you trust engineers more, you may want to look at the following article:
**Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" **
Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Isaac has no actual evidence himself though does he? Please answer this question without cutting and pasting someone else’s work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true

I’ve posted this before but I’ll do so again. He doesn’t seem to like the loose change guys. Go to 6:48

That guy is begging to get hit.

 

[scott3x]

http://www.nomoregames.net/911/helping_jones/600_v_1000.jpg

The aluminum in that picture is at 1000C and in a very dark environment.

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/

There is no mention of what metal is in those bins, nor what temperature -and- it's also fairly dark.

http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech gallery.htm

This is perhaps your best picture for your argument. However, it too has already been debunked here:
**************************************
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.

The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf

http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data...ation_edit.asp?ele_ch_id=A0000000000000001326

Dark environment, unknown temperature, metal (not sure if it's aluminum, but perhaps) is in a ladle.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280681.html?page=2

Dark environment, unknown temperature, metal is in a ladle.

It isn't that dark in these photos and there is definitely a glow.

I'd say it wasn't all that dark in only -one- of those photos and even then it was in a ladle.

Interestingly if you look at this picture
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

wouldn’t you say the drops near the bottom which are cooler are more silvery?

No, I wouldn't, although you may feel that way simply because the drops are surrounded by the grey tower.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Since not even NIST has considered those possibilities, I won't speculate on them. However, the alternate theory movement, which includes many scientists, believe that the only logical expalanation was that it was molten iron.

By ‘many’ scientists you mean a few people mentioned on the internet who are not experts in that field

In what field, precisely, do you feel they would have to be in? Personally, I think that a physicist who can make discoveries on muon catalyzed fusion is more then a match for this, but by all means, attempt to prove me wrong.

and won’t ever submit this work to a relevant peer reviewed journal.

You may want to take a look at this:
*********************************************
Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):

· J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

· S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).

# S.E. Jones, et al. "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", Open Civil Engineering Journal, April 2008.

# K. Ryan, J. Gourley and S.E. Jones, "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials", Environmentalist, August 2008.
*********************************************
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

Originally Posted by scott3x
Why have you reached the conclusion that it is almost certainly not iron?

There is no evidence that the fire reached temperatures to melt iron or steel.

It's true that there is no evidence that the -plane- induced fires could have reached those temperatures. However, if one accounts for the iron rich spherules collected from Janette Mackinlay's apartment, one must conclude that -something- must have liquified the iron. The USGS survey of the WTC dust and the R. J. Lee study also noted the presence of metallic spheres in the WTC dust, even iron-rich spherules.

In only one of the above studies, however, was the dust tested for a thermite fingerprint; Steven Jones'. It is -this- sample that gives the clearest indication as to -what- heated the metal so much.

Originally Posted by scott3x

If there was molten steel/iron flowing for a few minutes why is the steel around the area of the flow keeping its strength?

I believe the answer to that is that thermite placement wasn't uniform.

That does not answer the question at all.

Thinking about it, I will concede that one.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Why do you believe that it wasn't affected?

Can you see the steel melting?

Clearly, some did (or nothing would have fallen out of the building). The surrounding metal may have been softened, but that's something else...

Originally Posted by scott3x

It has already been argued that the bowing may have been a simple refraction of light.

It has already been pointed out to you how stupid that is. Photographs from different angles confirm the bowing. From http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

I remember that even the alternate theory source wasn't sure that bowing didn't occur. However, molten iron also fell out of the window before the collapse, possibly due to a thermite reaction. So perhaps there was bowing, but not from the plane induced fires, but from thermite.

“Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.”

My explanation could be the solution.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Personally, I wouldn't rule out the idea that things like thermite might have caused some bowing, but the alternate movement experts haven't addressed that possibility.

You wouldn’t rule out missiles, nuclear bombs or death rays either.

I examined the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon and dismissed it. I also considered the evidence for mini nukes on the WTC towers, but have yet to find anything solid. I have never claimed that 'death rays' were used.

From the plane? From what I remember, there is evidence that a lot of it shot straight through the building and fell on the other side.

No a few pieces were found but most of the plane was in the building.

Even if this is so, it doesn't mean that the metal had to spew out of the windows; it could have stayed within the building.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures.

So why do you keep spamming cherry picked comments on the temperatures recorded?

Can you give me an example of one of these 'cherry picked comments'?

Originally Posted by scott3x

I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks.

What, in all your years of investigating fires?

You may have noticed that I've researched quite a bit concerning the WTC buildings, but this view is not mine alone. I believe the following story makes it clear how dangerous the notion is to the official story that the plane induced fires had nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers is:
***************************************
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001....

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
***************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired