Is this Thermite?

[Rocket Man]

doesnt aluminium burn like magnesium when it gets hot enough?

who needs the thermite reaction when you can go straight there?

the jet fuel could probably ignite the aluminium in the jet and keep the surroundings hot enough to keep the jet burning.

[SmallIsPower]

Uh, Oh! Is there a chemist in the house? Is 1000C hot enough to ignite aluminium? Does the 767-200 (United flight 175) have enough alumium to ignite?

 

Oh, Rocketman, I hope you haven't ruined my fanatasy of indicting Bush/Cheney on war crimes charges.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wikipedia says aluminum melts at 600C, and also mentions that aluminum will burn, especially in the presence of hydrocarbons (like jet fuel).

[insane_alien]

yeah aluminium burns readily in standard conditions(apart from temperature unless atomised) when the temp gets above about 500C.

 

also jet fuel can burn hotter under the right conditions. the surrounding building would act like insulationand you have a good supply of air fom directly underneath the fire(stairwells) so the temperature would probably exceed 1000C at the center by a few hundered degrees. and the steel doesn't need to melt to cause collapse. its just needs to get a bit squidgy

[bascule]

But is this termite?

 

You realize thermite is just a combination of aluminum and iron... aluminum skinned plane... steel (i.e. iron) frame building? HMMM... I'm not qualified to determine what's in that video upon solely a visual inspection, but there's certainly explanations for the presence of the component ingredients of thermite in that reaction, regardless of whether a "thermite"-like substance actually formed there or not.

 

also jet fuel can burn hotter under the right conditions.

 

Like, say, an entire skyscraper full of highly flammable petroleum-based office products?

 

All 3 buildings collapsed symetrically.

 

WTC1 and 2 "zippered" open as the weight from the structurally weakend floors pressed down on the floors below. This haphazardly showered debris all over the surrounding region. There was no energy to direct the majorty of the mass of the tower in any direction than it would naturally fall due to gravity, DOWN, however the debris covered a substantially larger region.

 

WTC7 collapsed asymmetrically. There's a kink in the roofline towards the east side, where an oil fire had weakened the structure.

 

WTC7 is the smoking gun! It could not be hit by falling debris, there was at least one building between it and WTC 1&2.

 

I just went to New York and took several pictures of the WTC site. There was one building between WTC1 and WTC7, WTC6, which was also condemned and demolished following the collapse of WTC1. WTC6 was 8 floors. WTC7 was 47.

 

As the most distant tower in the complex, the vibration of the fall would be the least.

 

WTC7 collapsed due to a prolonged fire which damaged the structure. WTC7 had been expanded, with several floors and additional floorspace added by tacking onto its existing steel structure. This made for a building which is weaker than you'd expect a skyscraper to typically be. WTC7's structural damage occured due to a prolonged fire.

 

Wouldn't buildings in downtown Manhattan be designed so they'd survive the fall of nearby buildings if there were no significant debris strikes?

 

There's something you're really not getting here.

 

As I walked down the streets of New York, I walked past fire department after fire department. On the walls of each one were plaques commemorating the firefighters at that department who died at 9/11.

 

These firefighters weren't just in the business district. They were from SoHo. From Greenwich Village. They were from boroughs all over southern Manhattan.

 

Thousands of firefighters were trapped or dead following the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

 

They didn't have water, either.

 

The collapse of WTC1 and 2, which rained flaming debris all over the surrounding area, set WTC7 on fire. It ignited a fuel supply for a backup generator in the building. That fuel supply fed a fire which lasted hours. Meanwhile thousands of firefighters remained trapped below the rubble of the collapsed towers.

 

WTC7 collapsed due to a prolonged oil fire. Had half of FDNY not been trapped due to the collapse of two of the world's tallest buildings, and had they had water (or foam, even more scarce) available to fight the fire, then they certainly could've managed to put it out before the building collapsed. But they didn't. So Larry Silverstein told them to pull firefighters from the building (which is specifically what he states he meant in the interview. He, a wealthy landowner, was not tossing around demolition expert slang)

 

Structural failure occured. One mechanical penthouse collapsed. 5 seconds later, another mechanical penthouse collapsed. One second later, the entire building collapsed.

 

Having the roof cave in, then count it off, a second at a time:

 

5...

 

4...

 

3...

 

2...

 

1...

 

(second mechanical penthouse collapses)

 

*collapse*

 

Is that how structural demolitions normally take place?

 

No. Structural demolitions do not first cause the roof to collapse, then 5 seconds later collapse the rest of the building.

 

9/11 is something that's only gotten more personal to me after visiting New York. I really hate it when people try to throw these contrived arguments against the mountains of evidence collected by the official report:

 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

 

The kerosene question is probably answered physics BYU paper that I linked on here. I don't know anything about Physics but the guy who wrote that is a physics professor.

 

Is his opinion on the WTC collapse peer-reviewed? Let's see what BYU has to say:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

 

The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.

 

Oh! Appeal to authority, sorry.

 

THE VIDEO SHOWED THE OWNER OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, WORLD TRADE CENTER 2, AND WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 ADMITTING THAT WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 WAS PULLED.

 

He said they decided to "pull it" (WTC7). He released a statement saying: This meant to pull the firefighters out.

 

TO "PULL" A BUILDING IS SLANG FOR DEMOLISHING A BUILDING.

 

Why is a wealthy landowner using demolition expert slang when issuing a public interview?

 

IT TAKES AROUND A MONTH TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILIDNG AND PLAN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. So if you think that there is some good reason as to why Building 7 was demolished, there isn't.

 

So... during this month you allege they were planting explosives:

 

Why didn't anyone notice?

 

Why hasn't anyone come forward?

 

Did people just go about their normal jobs as demolition experts ripped up the walls to plant explosives on structural supports?

 

Why did the roof collapse 6 seconds before the rest of the building?

 

Do you realize that only 3 steel buildings in history have fallen due to fires. They are the North Tower of the World Trade Center, the South Tower of the World Trade Center, and World Trade Center 7.

 

Can you provide any source on that which isn't a conspiracy theorist web site? This is something repeated over and over and over again in conspiracy theorist circles without anyone ever bothering to check if it's actually true.

 

Do you really believe jet fuel can bring down a building perfectly symmetrically.

 

Have you ever actually looked at a picture of the debris field?

 

 

You call that "symmetrical"?

 

The World Trade Centers were designed so that multiple 707 jets would hit them. Thats why the designers were stunned when the building fell.

 

They collapsed due to fire, not structural failure following the impact.

 

Prof. Steven Jones of BYU wrote a paper about how the World Trade Centers had to have been brought down with the use explosives, so it was a controlled demolition.

 

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

 

One physicist, not peer reviewed, vs. thousands of physicists and structural engineers, peer reviewed, and OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, along with all the dead FDNY firefighters, the passengers of Flight 93 whose bodies were recovered from the Pentagon site, their families, and all of the NYPD and DC law enforcement who handled the situation.

 

Seriously, do you realize what a ghoul you are to believe and propagate this stuff? What an incredible disservice you are doing to these people's memory, and their families?

[Rocket Man]

i read up on the design of the twin towers, they were NOT designed for a plane to hit them. they were designed to sheild each other from the wind, buildings designed to do that probaly wont survive a jet or they wouldnt need the wind sheilding.

 

thermite is a combination of aluminium and iron-oxide, so there is actually no chance of there being thermite anywhere near there, the aluminium would take the oxygen before the iron could get to it.

 

jet fuel can burn at any temperature, give it the right conditions, you can potentially burn it well beyond the capacities of thermite.

 

on the point of burning substances, the floors were built from thin trusses, these would break away quickly allowing an up-draft to occur through the shattered windows below to power a raging firestorm above.

 

as for structural damage, remove two or three floors, heat the iron supports till they're about as sound as lead, then try to hold up thirty floors of office...

not going to happen.

the buildings were designed with a central pillar for suppport, the plane buried itself most of the way through that, didnt you see debris coming out the sides almost all the way through it? then didnt you see debris ejected out the other side? "what central pillar?" you might say.

the way those buildings fell was one story after another, drop thity office floors about 2.5 metres, the next set of floors arent going to hold. it might stall the progression, but it will drop a further 2.5 metres to the next. and so on...

 

the top portion had enough vertical length to not tilt far due to inretia.

the whole thing did tilt slowly on the way down though, a minor tilt at the top would crumple the remaining supports enough to put breaking strain on the remaining ones. it only needs to tilt a few fractions of a degree to buckle verticle steel supports.

 

after a little thought, it seems likely that the buildings wouldnt cope.

 

oh, smallispower, i would try bush for the same charges.

[GutZ]

yeah aluminium burns readily in standard conditions(apart from temperature unless atomised) when the temp gets above about 500C.

 

At 500C it would take along time to melt. In our foundry most Al melts are pre heated at 450C and even at 600 - 700C it takes about 30 mins to melt.

 

We are talking about melting not vapourizing too right?

 

Magnesium on the other had melts at similiar tempertures but after 850C (approximately) it starts reacting with oxygen which has the possibility to reach up to 2000+C (It sure is fun to melt.)

 

This all is under the assumption of pure metals too.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Try throwing on some hydrocarbons. Wikipedia mentions those as helping the melting/burning process.

[SmallIsPower]

There may have been aluminium burning at the top of the Towers, that does not explain why they fell without any resistance(at the speed of gravity) Even if the steel all heated up at once, there would have been a lower heat flow through the rest of the components.

 

WTC7 collapsed asymmetrically.

 

I googled video of wtc7' date=' and it sure looks symetric to me. http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html . The first CBS video shows shaking before the collapse , but not during or after. I doubt that the networks by then didn't need to rely on ameteurs, whose cameras might wobble.

 

Firemen were coming in from as far as California.

 

Water: Couldn't it be airlifted? Or was Bush too busy thinking of giving his next reading lesson to schoolkids?

 

Seriously, do you realize what a ghoul you are to believe and propagate this stuff? What an incredible disservice you are doing to these people's memory, and their families?

 

You think I like looking at these videos, you think I like remembering 9/11? It's not only a horrible atrocity, it's extremely graphic, too. Like it or not there are people who do have technical backgrounds who do see reasons to think not everything is as it appears, and your attempt at character assasinatination as well as the earlier:

 

Small is power, you wouldn't happen to be ghost009, would you?

 

Is the furthest thing from scientific discourse, it's intimidation, and it reminds me of this quote:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia' date=' nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and [b']denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.[/b]

[GutZ]

Try throwing on some hydrocarbons. Wikipedia mentions those as helping the melting/burning process.

 

hehe well we could do that in our lab/foundry but that might throw off the chemistry/composition of the alloy, that and control is a good thing.

 

 

p.s.

 

Bascule nice post that was flawless.

 

Bascule 1 conspiracists 0

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There may have been aluminium burning at the top of the Towers, that does not explain why they fell without any resistance(at the speed of gravity) Even if the steel all heated up at once, there would have been a lower heat flow through the rest of the components.

A large amount of mass (several hundred or thousand tons) that begins falling isn't going to slow down very easily, and once it gets going (which would be easy, due to weakened steel), the framework of the lower stories wouldn't be able to stop it.

 

Firemen were coming in from as far as California.

 

Water: Couldn't it be airlifted? Or was Bush too busy thinking of giving his next reading lesson to schoolkids?

I'd like to see you manage to whistle up some firefighting helicopters in thirty minutes or less, in a state where there is very little need for them (no wildfires).

[bascule]

There may have been aluminium burning at the top of the Towers, that does not explain why they fell without any resistance(at the speed of gravity) Even if the steel all heated up at once, there would have been a lower heat flow through the rest of the components.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

 

I googled video of wtc7, and it sure looks symetric to me. http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

 

How about you actually read the FEMA report (complete with photos) rather than trying to judge what happened for yourself from some grainy video on the Internet?

 

Here it is again:

 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

 

I'm sorry, I just can't respond to the rest of your post. People like you make me furious. Eventually I'm going to have to Podcast my rage in an enormous tirade against bullshit conspiracy theories.

 

But I'll leave you with this:

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LOOK AT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE RATHER THAN JUST CONSPIRACY THEORIST WEB SITES

[SmallIsPower]

Tomas Eagar, in the NOVA piece, Isn't a structural engineer. Assuming he is right, he does not mention why the building fell with no drag. Even worse dust plumes were expelled several floors below the collapsing top of the building. This dust would have to have fallen faster than gravity. I look foward, bascule, on your theory of MOND that will explain this.

 

As for FEMA, who appoints it's head? Oh that would be the people were investigating! I'm sure if Al Capone wrote a report on Chicago, it would show that he had no responiciblity for the problems there.

 

Remember Katrina? WalMart, the Mexican army, and even Canadian college students got there before FEMA, in fact once they got there,

they were accused of using extreme measures to cover up what was really going on.

 

You wouldn't be the first one to get furious at me, the last time, Feb 2003, lots of people were flipping me off, because I was holding a sign that said esentially, invading Iraq would be a very costly affair.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Tomas Eagar, in the NOVA piece, Isn't a structural engineer. Assuming he is right, he does not mention why the building fell with no drag. Even worse dust plumes were expelled several floors below the collapsing top of the building. This dust would have to have fallen faster than gravity.[/color'] I look foward, bascule, on your theory of MOND that will explain this.

He does mention why it fell with no drag. The dust plumes could have easily been expelled by air pressure inside the building - a rush of air caused by the collapsing floors.

 

He is also a professor of materials engineering, meaning, in other terms, a professor of "how to put materials together." You know, a structural engineer.

 

As for FEMA, who appoints it's head? Oh that would be the people were investigating! I'm sure if Al Capone wrote a report on Chicago, it would show that he had no responiciblity for the problems there.

Oh, so now everybody in FEMA involved with the report (it wasn't written by the head, you know) is involved in the conspiracy? That's a pretty (#$*ing stupid way to keep a secret.

[bascule]

Tomas Eagar, in the NOVA piece, Isn't a structural engineer.

 

He's a PhD materials engineer from MIT. You think he's unqualified to give an opinion on this? He's infinitely more qualified than anyone you've trotted out so far.

 

Assuming he is right, he does not mention why the building fell with no drag.

 

"no drag"? Uhh, the building certainly fell a bit slower than g (in a vacuum).

 

Since you're too lazy to look it up yourself, here's the explanation from the FEMA report on WTC1 & WTC2 (this particular excerpt relates specifically to WTC1)

 

2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse

Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x109 joules of potential energy were stored in the

upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse initiated, much of this potential energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy. As the large mass of the

collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed. As

the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns.

 

As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and

fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner.

 

The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below.

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at

the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. This is consistent with the observations of debris patterns from the 91st floor, previously discussed.

This is also supported by preliminary evaluation of the load carrying capacity of these columns, discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.2. The core columns were not designed to resist wind loads and, therefore, had

less reserve capacity than perimeter columns. As some exterior and core columns were damaged by the aircraft impact, the outrigger trusses at the top of the building shifted additional loads to the remaining core columns,

further eroding the available factor of safety. This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower

floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the aircraft impact could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, so that relatively little additional effects due to fire would have been required to initiate the collapse. Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion.

 

Although the building appeared to collapse within its own footprint, a review of aerial photographs of the site following the collapse, as well as damage to adjacent structures, suggests that debris impacted the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), the Customs House (WTC 6), the Morgan Stanley building (WTC 5), WTC 7, and the American Express and Winter Garden buildings located across West Street (Figure 2-23). The debris field extended as far as 400–500 feet from the tower base.

 

Even worse dust plumes were expelled several floors below the collapsing top of the building. This dust would have to have fallen faster than gravity. I look foward, bascule, on your theory of MOND that will explain this.

 

You're trying to interpret the video here yourself. The columns surrounding the impact became progressively loaded with pressure as the fire burned, weaking the columns and causing them to bow downwards under the weight. When the towers did collapse, all that material was ejected from the building as the available open space was crushed by the weight of the material above.

 

As for FEMA, who appoints it's head? Oh that would be the people were investigating! I'm sure if Al Capone wrote a report on Chicago, it would show that he had no responiciblity for the problems there.

 

Of course, they're part of the conspiracy! It makes perfect sense.

 

Along with the DC Metro police.

 

And the NYPD.

 

And the FDNY.

 

You wouldn't be the first one to get furious at me, the last time, Feb 2003, lots of people were flipping me off, because I was holding a sign that said esentially, invading Iraq would be a very costly affair.

 

You were right about that, so you must be right about this. Flawless specious reasoning!

 

I hate Bush. I voted against him... twice. I've been a vocal opponent of the Iraq war since before it started.

 

None of that has anything to do with 9/11. It's just a horrible, pathetic red herring.

 

It's one thing for a president to lead us into a stupid, costly war which has taken the lives of thousands of American soliders. That doesn't say anything good about that president, but it isn't the first time this has happened either.

 

What you're incinuating here is not only completely unsubstantiated, it would have to be the act of a vicious, bloodthirsty diabolical genius. The scale of this operation would surpass millions of involved parties. And yet NOBODY HAS BLOWN THE WHISTLE. Yet... we've had leaks and whistleblowers on relatively small (i.e. a few hundred people) NSA operations. How is it Bush has managed to prevent anyone coming forward on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What you're incinuating here is not only completely unsubstantiated, it would have to be the act of a vicious, bloodthirsty diabolical genius. The scale of this operation would surpass millions of involved parties. And yet NOBODY HAS BLOWN THE WHISTLE[/i']. Yet... we've had leaks and whistleblowers on relatively small (i.e. a few hundred people) NSA operations. How is it Bush has managed to prevent anyone coming forward on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy?

Everybody involved in the planning was on the airplanes!

 

</sarcasm>

[SmallIsPower]

I'm amazed at the lack of skeptism here. You believe a phenomena that is not obvious, as a certain explanation. One thing beaurocrats are good at is bsing people, blaming others for their failures (they get lots of practice).

 

It's not like the US hasn't lied us into war before. Three words: "Remember the Maine". Four words: "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution", and Daddy Bush told Saddam it was OK to invade Kuwait? Grandpa Bush may never have been President, but he was selling arms to Hitler until Oct '42, when Congress seized those assets.

 

It's going to take me a few weeks to go through this malarky, and I hope I have the technical proficency to debunk it, so don't expect an immediate responce, but I will as I get through it.

 

One doubt arises from bascule's quote, and there may be something testable here:

2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse

Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x109 joules of potential energy were stored in the

upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.

.

.

.

Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion.

 

Question: Why haven't we ever seen a these "illusory secondary explosions" as well as real ones in controlled demolitions?

 

Testable hypothesis: as the structure fell, there was more energy and more dust for each "illusory secondary explosion", they would have appeared larger more violent as the collapse progressed.

 

This is just a very preliminary reply.

[bascule]

I'm amazed at the lack of skeptism here.

 

On the contrary, I'm being skeptical of the conspiracy theorist claims. The official report is substantiated by a mountain of evidence. Conspiracy theories are fueled by logical fallacies, specious reasoning, hearsay, and half-truths.

 

Before you go accusing others of a lack of skepticism, maybe you should try applying a skeptical eye to the conspiracy theory.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Question: Why haven't we ever seen a these "illusory secondary explosions" as well as real ones in controlled demolitions?

1. Nobody's bothered to look (would anybody care when they were watching a controlled demolition?).
   
2. When there are numerous other explosions going on, it's hard to tell.

 

Testable hypothesis: as the structure fell, there was more energy and more dust for each "illusory secondary explosion", they would have appeared larger more violent as the collapse progressed.

Not if that energy was being released at each "illusory secondary explosion" by the release of gas and dust.

[bascule]

Question: Why haven't we ever seen a these "illusory secondary explosions" as well as real ones in controlled demolitions?

 

In a controlled demolition, the building's structure doesn't end up "loaded" as load-bearing trusses bend under the weight as they are heated by fire.

[Rocket Man]

look, smallispower, the bush administration has a LOT going against it, but that doesnt mean you can blame them for everything... they're not that clever.

 

the taliban enthusiastically claimed responsibility for the attack. do you think that they would have agreed to ANYTHING America, "the head of the serpent" suggested?

 

the dust leaving the building DID leave more violently as it collapsed, to a point. generally known as a cruise speed. the resistance provided by the floors slowly increased as the top half accelerated. so the dust left faster as the building went down then leveled off before it hit the ground.

 

the resistance increases because it needs to accelerate a mass of floor to an ever increasing velocity(requiring more energy each time) and the pressure of trapped gas under the falling half.

who was it who said that the building fell symetrically? take a look at the videos, the top half leaned at least five degrees as it fell.

 

in a controlled demolition, there is usually an explosion just before the building falls. in all the videos i saw, the plane hit, big fireball, lots of smoke, then the building starts to collapse with a plume of smoke ejected from the holes the plane made. when the sound reaches the camera, there is a rumble that gets louder, not the sudden sound of an explosive.

 

just a point, wasn't this five years ago? and yet we're still bickering over whos fault it was.

[Genecks]

Neat video. Someone close the thread.

 

How do you really expect them to get thermite bombs on the plane?

Most people believe it wasn't the fuel at all; it was the collision force.

[SmallIsPower]

Genecks, you don't need a plane to fly in the thermite when your brother is head of security. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

 

Rocket Man, the neocons are huge liars, I'll be able to cover the science in the following weeks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Genecks, you don't need a plane to fly in the thermite when your brother is head of security. [url']http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm[/url]

Electronic security. Read the (#$*ing article before you try to use it against us.

[Rocket Man]

Rocket Man' date=' the neocons are huge liars, I'll be able to cover the science in the following weeks.[/quote']

 

i havent read any reports or explanations, i did read up on the construction of the towers, but i dont have a clue who you are refering to when you say "neocons". the collapse looked right, it didnt need more coaxing to collapse, the plane took out the majority of the suporting pillar over almost three floors, i gather that from just the video. there was a jet of flame ejected out the center of the back wall.

that collapse was caused by JUST a plane and its fuel and the aluminium. it was not brought down by a deliberate demolition nor was it a conspiracy by anyone but the terrorist group that flew the planes.

after all the media hype and bullshit going around, i gave up on trusting organisations/most other public announcements. media gives a distorted veiw of the world. go out, get information, draw your own conclusions.

it was an attack that seemed convenient to distort into a cause for war and thus, re-election. it was not a conspiracy nor a demolition.