How Supporters of the Competing Hypotheses Have Accounted for Each Area of Evidence

Further Reading

• Beyond Misinformation

• Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

• Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction

• Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

I like your copyplopsta, Greg

September the 11 2001 was a first class demolition job, the airplanes were there to add drama, now 16 years later and after $ 5-10 trillion has been wasted on unwinnable wars. Worked like a charm for the culprits and traitors who pulled it off.

Not that is has anything at all to do with 9/11, but I wanted to add some context to 5-10 trillion spent on wars over 16 years.

Every single year the USA consumer spends over 11 trillion dollars.

176 TRILLION dollars spent by USA consumers in the last 16 years.

Clearly I am not for war and think it was a waste, but in context...

Tell that to your grand kids when they are still paying off the $ 20 trillion government debt created while making these wars :-)

I get what you're saying, but I do think it's irrelevant. You're comparing U.S. consumer spending to U.S. government spending. How can you justify these numbers as being related?

Because regardless, even if we give the benefit of the doubt and say the number is $5 trillion, then the wars are responsible for nearly a third of our entire national debt. If the $10 trillion is more accurate, now you're talking about over half the debt. That's inexcusable outside of a pertinent threat to our homeland security, and the absence of evidence supporting such a risk has always been murky or missing entirely.

In addition, we can never forget all the people injured and killed as a result of these wars.

How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Showing the Occurrence of High-Temperature Chemical Reactions

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues.

John Gross (NIST "investigator") next to a piece of sulfidated steel, from WTC7.

In conclusion, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic reactions

The "stabilized" molten steel video online is pretty damn subversive. I mean if you watch that and still don't get it, then there is no hope for you. I don't see how anyone reading beyond disinformation couldn't understand any of the several arguments for symmetrical freefall onto own footprint. Or consider the audacity in accepting the unlikelihood of 3 steel buildings in total collapse on one day, having never happened in history. This is like winning the biggest lottery in history 3 times in a row. Actually, no, it's like being the only winner of any jackpot in history 3 times in a row. That's better.

The molten metal 'squids' leaking out of the side of the building I could accept as being molten aluminum. There is plenty of aluminum in the offices. I don't think that particular thing detracts from the only reasonable conclusion of a controlled demolition, though.

That's a NIST claim though, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon and just made up a theory out of thin air, based on no actual science.

Aluminum pours silvery in daylight conditions

Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments proving this

As have many others.

Aluminum doesn't necessarily pour silvery. Aluminum can be cool enough to be silver and still be hot enough to be a melted liquid. Color is a pretty reliable indication of temperature. It can also be yellow, red, or white hot. Sure the color can be harder to see in daylight, especially if the temperature is on the low side. If it was good and hot in the first place, it can still be red hot as it pours. If it was barely red hot in the first place, by the time it pours it can already be cooled enough to be a silvery color. When casting aluminum you only need it melted, not glowing hot, that would just be a waste of energy. Overheating aluminum can cause casting defects, so many videos and images of pouring molten aluminum will be at a pretty low temperature, enough to lose its glow the second it is poured.

Anyone can easily find images of pouring aluminum still red/white hot on Google Images. Many of them pour silver because most of the time aluminum is worked with at lower temperatures, but there is enough of them to prove that it can pour orange/red/white.

My point is that this one issue doesn't make or break anything.

It is all semantics of course.

Black-body radiation applies to all metals, but jet fueled office fires do not produce enough heat to have aluminum or any other metal, glow red hot, this is basic high school science.

You can of course get most metal's to red hot temperatures, but the temperatures are well outside the range of any office fire.

For instance, my stove will burn coal and wood for 3 months 24/7, it will melt aluminum no problem, (if i crank it up) but will not pour like a liquid, but will never melt steel, you literally need a furnace for that.

The color chart I found said it only takes 1200 C to have white hot aluminum. That seems pretty low and within a reasonable temperature for the jet fuel fire, doesn't it? It does seem super convenient and unlikely to just spew out like that.

I think as more and more hard to ignore evidence becomes accepted, we will hear a lot about "abdicated"(sp?) temperatures, i.e. forced air. You know they've run out of excuses when they start suggesting there was wide spread forced air fires in this open air building fire. Forced air can explain tiny tiny pockets of melted/evaporated steel with a jet fuel fire if the conditions were just perfect. Shaky excuses like that tend to snowball into a big pile of obvious lies though.

The color chart I found said it only takes 1200 C to have white hot aluminum. That seems pretty low and within a reasonable temperature for the jet fuel fire, doesn't it? It does seem super convenient and unlikely to just spew out like that

1200 centigrade (2192 Fahrenheit)

We are on the same page here?

Yes, 1200 Celsius/Centigrade. Didn't NIST suggest the fire reached such temperatures, but not hot enough to melt industrial steel, which is more like 1500 C?

No, well yes is the answer.

The melting point of steel is about 1500 Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)

The temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1000 degrees.

NIST try and get around this fact by proclaiming there was no molten steel.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) - NIST

NIST stated that the steel softened and then melted, which led to interior core columns failure. Hence, the pancake theory was introduced, which is widely believed to be false. National GEO had temperatures of up to 2900 F. Secondly, steel melts at 2800 F and unless in a specific combustion chamber a jet fuel fire will burn at a max. of 1500 F. In the time temp. curve NIST is right that it was an abnormally high temperature fire, however, this quickly dissipated. Now NIST is saying that the fires merely needed to weaken the core columns for global collapse. NIST now says there were pockets of fire that reached a max. of 1832 F. First these temperature last no more than 15-20 minutes, secondly these temps are upper layer Temperatures (Gas Temps) and not the steel temperatures. Also, the fire’s were oxygen ridden, hence, incomplete combustion and a rather low temperature fire. I mean NIST’s paint temps, we can conclude that less than 2% of the samples saw 480 F. Thermal calculation 600 F. Steel looses half its strength at 1100 F. The WTC floor assemblies heated to 2100 F and didn’t collapse. And this was fireproof steel.

In conclusion, of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter columns, only three columns had evidence that steel temperatures reached 480 F. NIST admits that in only three spots temperatures could have reached 480 F, less than half of what is needed to weaken steel. NIST_WTC7_Tech_Briefing Page 50 Re:Column 79

"Calculations showed that even if the entire column were immersed in a flame as hot as 1400 °C, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness.”

nothing will be done by anyone.

Has anyone ever heard how loud demolition charges are?

Collapse or explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue by Adam Taylor

Loud Explosion on 911. "We gotta get back, Sevens exploding!" https://youtu.be/_kOIvwThj-U

7 might have been different but the towers had already fallen here. There are no noises like this before the towers fell and there are hundreds of videos.

Edit: I personally believe you're hearing the interior cantilever beams over the diesel substation on the 6th floor collapsing here. We studied WTC 7 as a case study in Structural Steel back in college. These beams failed a while before the entire interior structure collapsed, followed by the exterior shell.

I personally believe you're hearing the interior cantilever beams over the diesel substation on the 6th floor collapsing here.

1. Why would that sound exactly like a linear shaped cutter charge?

2. NIST investigated the possibility of fires from diesel fuel tanks, but they couldn't come up with much and concluded that office furnishings alone were the cause of the fires. In their final report of WTC 7, we read:

"Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed."

Furthermore, there are no witnesses who reported smelling burning fuel in the area.

These beams failed a while before the entire interior structure collapsed, followed by the exterior shell.

I'm sure you've heard that WTC 7 fell at freefall, but one study on the photographic evidence found that part of the perimeter actually fell faster than freefall. I think this indicates that the exterior was not a hollow shell during it's descend and the core structure itself was falling at or near freefall, which provided a force strong enough to pull the perimeter down like a rubber band.

From what I gather, a demolition of WTC 7 would look like this: Remove column 79 at some high point in the building (to make the east penthouse cave in and achieve the "kink"), and then remove 8 stories of core columns to achieve 100 feet of freefall, after which the building could have enough momentum to continue destroying itself. IMO this fits the photographic evidence pretty well.

Maybe it is? Sources for this info?

Firefighter Eye Witnesses describing what they thought looked like planned detonations https://youtu.be/eAAveeeVVfM

This is another good example of the possibilities that exist to explain eyewitness accounts: https://youtu.be/XIMgx8ayNeU

Oh no, not another "the Twins fell soundlessly" theorist.

https://youtu.be/echZ0EE_JoI

You're hearing the rhythmic progression of floor plates collapsing here. Demolition charges are much, much louder than this.

Demolition charges that are designed to literally rip through solid steel or concrete, yes. If the welds, joints, or bolts were attacked in a way that wouldn't be as loud, no.

The collapse of the three towers were not quiet.

You wouldn't have to amplify the video to hear a linear charge. You would hear the floor plates collapsing though.

Do you have any tangible evidence that these kinder, gentler, silent charges actually exist and can do the job?

I'd hate to think they are just figments of your imagination.

Like a patent? I could look through patents, but in the meantime, it's a pretty simple concept: instead of explosive devices made to blow through solid steel, they would be made to knock off steel columns by their weld points.

Is it a simple concept to demolish a building in this way? Or are you just filling in the blanks with more imagined stuff?

Didn't you already address the "quiet explosions" argument when you posted this link? Which was, of course, ignored.

Yes. I also posted that on a JREF comment when the users kept badgering me about "silent explosives". The responce I got was an ad hominem attack against Adam Taylor.

Sounds about right.

Seems like all of the Official Conspiracy Theorists really hate the NFPA, which states:

Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion

I said without demolition charges. Do you hear any before the twin towers fell? On any video?

I said without demolition charges. Do you hear any before the twin towers fell? On any video?

You're hearing the rhythmic progression of floor plates collapsing here. Demolition charges are much, much louder than this.

Since you are going to tell me what I hear or don't hear anyways, I do not believe that this discussion will progress in an honest manner. If you insist, however, I will gladly take my time and explain to you why your initial post ("Has anyone ever heard how loud demolition charges are? ") is misleading.

Yes, dozens of eyewitnesses, many of them professionals, reported loud booms and explosions. Yes, several loud booms and explosions are heard before the Twins fall on some of the footage. Yes, the fall of the Twins is accompanied by plenty of loud noise. No, that is not the sound of "the rhythmic progression of floor plates collapsing", because you do not have the faintest idea how that would sound because neither you nor I nor anyone else has ever heard or seen such a thing before or after, and no, it is not the sound of the wind against the microphone or of transformers exploding or whatever nonsense handwaving speculation you come up with like so many before you. So please stop talking out of your hat and shifting the goalposts.

The fall of the Twins made plenty of noise, completely in line with lots of demolition charges going off in quick succession, and you can try yourself if you know how to operate a sequencer or a tracker: a 4/4 kick drum sounds like four kick drums. A 64/64 kick drum sounds like noise.

If you want to hear a demolition charge, you don't have to amplify a video. But go ahead and keep believing that's what you're hearing. I'm sure you're certain of it.

I am sure that I am certain that I know that steel skyscrapers don't simply violently completely disintegrate from top to bottom an hour or so after a plane crashes into them.

All else follows.

Yes, look up seismic data prior to penthouse falling.

Could be the govt without farfetched controlled demo. People that support this idea discredit the rest.