The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Let's cut the crap.

Show me pictures of the aftermath of the 2 first WTC tower collapses, where I can see heaps of broken and cracked floors, with their intact thin steel floor pans under them, stacked upon each other.

You should be aware by now, that there are reports from the cleanup guys AND PHOTOS of examples of just that.

No one but you are claiming that ALL the floors should be stacked up neatly. That's what we call a strawman. Therefore there's no need for me to make an effort to debunk your illogical argument.

Because that's what we see in all those videos, rings of dust spitting out of ONE whole 4-sides perimeter of ONE floor. REPEATEDLY.
Rings of dust that are then racing to the ground.
Not chaotic, as expected in a chaotic, natural collapse, but organized. As with explosives.

Go back to the 911 free forum. They have put your claim to rest. They were in fact chaotic.

that 2.5 first seconds period of the start of its global collapse. Those 2.5 first seconds showing a truly gravitational collapse speed. Proved first by Chandler, then admitted afterwards by NIST, whose calculations showed an even closer match.

I think you meant 1.75 seconds of less than FFA followed by 2.5 s of FFA.

Then explain to me, how your floor collapsing scenario can occur without failing of the core columns in those first three seconds of the collapse of the WTC-1N tower, taking in account that while at the same time CLEARLY all the 47 core columns (or 51 according to Beck) are failing and SINKING AS ONE ENTITY. Because we all see that roof line coming down as one entity.
With its hat truss clearly intact connected to the 3 top floors perimeters, during those first, three seconds of measurements.

Yet another misrepresentation of what I and NIST endorse.

So another strawman.

And yes, there's 47 core columns. It's a fact. If you haven't got this right by now, nor Beck, why would anyone take you seriously? Cuz this proves extremely poor research on your part.

And Chandler's WTC-1N tower graph indicates that in the first three seconds, there's no BUILD-UP of resistance.

Yep. Cuz the floors and their connection system are providing the resistance to the falling part, not the ever increasingly stronger columns.

As is normal for a natural collapse.

Prove it.

As is demonstrated in the French demolition which was executed without explosions, but with hydraulic jacks that pressed/scattered all the columns at one floor halfway up the total height of that building. To force a natural collapse.
In that French graph we see already after 1 second that the upper parts meet INCREASING deceleration. Shown by an upwards dip in Chandler's collapse graph line. (see my signature LINKS French demolition video)

That's ONE anecdotal piece of evidence. But it is most definitely not proof.

Try again.

There is a constant 0.67 % of G acceleration speed,

Yep.

as if there is the same resistance

Yep. provided by the same strength floor/connection

That can only be achieved by explosives which cut/displaced the core columns,

Let's see some photos of these columns that were cut.

Bet you can't find any.

Why is the whole intact roof rim also sinking down as one intact entity?

Cuz it's intact.

According to your above quote, the columns were not involved in the collapse mechanism initiation.

That's a lie.

originally posted by: LaBTop
I would also like to ad the missing glass from the 68,000 windows.
We should expect to find HUGE amounts of broken glass, and shards of it, in the two rubble piles.

Prove it.

Thus we may expect to find lots of broken THICK glass pieces still embedded in those Vierendeel triplet panels.
If it was a NATURAL collapse.

Prove it.

plywood dust. Formed in those TB explosions clouds.

Plywood?

What?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LT :""Thus you mean a pancaking collapse, solely by floors failing, then falling around the core, and inside the space between exterior and core columns,""

lexyghot : ""A pancake collapse progression. Not a pancake collapse initiation. there's a difference here that you are apparently, intentionally confusing. And no, not solely the floors. The core columns above the impact/initiation zone were also obviously falling on the floors. I don't, however, see a whole lot of ext columns in the falling mass impacting the floors.
All this is well documented at this truther forum in many threads.""
the911forum.freeforums.org...

I am really confused what the hell you mean to express as your theory.
In every collapse, there's an initiation moment.

Which is it?
1. Floors starting to collapse?
2. Core columns tipping over, falling on floors and then the floors are failing?

Case 1 is already covered; impossible, since we see core columns failing first in the 3 first seconds.

Case 2. How did those failing core columns tip over?

It means in your thoughts, they were NOT buckling, but must have NATURALLY broken loose, at their bolts, at BOTH ends, at the initiating floors, and then some mysterious force must have pushed them 180 degrees over, to let them fall on those still firmly attached floors, which then were breaking loose from their connections to the core and perimeter columns. And starting to fall.

Do you realize how strange that sounds as an explanation, since we see the top 7 floors sink VERTICALLY into the next 8 floors, as one entity. That entity being all 236 perimeter column packets, and the whole radio mast on top of the hat truss that was firmly attached to all still intact perimeter columns from the top 3 floors. Thus, the whole top core plus top 3 floors their perimeter walls were FALLING on some FAILING and also falling core columns somewhere lower down.

Your scenario can only happen when the whole top part of 15 floors would tip over 180 degrees, then fall sideways off the rest of the North Tower.
Then core columns would be able to tip over 180 degrees, impacting floors at the hinged floor.

Do you understand at all what it means; the fact that we see the top 7 floors and the WHOLE INTACT ROOF LINE sink vertically, still mainly INTACT, in those first three seconds of the collapse of the North Tower?
It means that there must have been immense VERTICAL progressing forces being applied to the tops of ALL core columns and perimeter columns in the NEXT 8 floors, if it was a naturally induced event.
Which Beck proves mathematically impossible for a NATURAL collapse, using the known facts about the structural steels used in that North Tower.

Only severing all core columns on the initiating floors by means of huge explosive forces (TB's) that ""blew-up and -down"" those COMPOSITE floors, thus severing ALL their core column bolts and displaced/uplifted these core columns f.ex. a foot high, can explain what we see in those first three seconds, and what Chandler measured in those first visible three seconds of collapse. He found no PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING resistance. As in a natural collapse.
Clearly only left-over resistance of the underlaying floors and only a few perimeter columns that were not exploded laterally, which added together, was not enough to halt or slow down the calculated collapse.

As perfectly explained by the equations made by Beck.
It was mainly the core that delivered the bulk of resistance. When that was eliminated, the floors plus perimeter could NEVER slow or halt the inevitable collapse.
And got helped on the way down with some additional exploding TB's. To be sure of a total collapse.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: LaBTop

""Strains are dimensionless and are usually expressed as a decimal fraction, or a percentage or in parts-per notation.""

Ok.

Then .2% is .002.

NOT .2

You're seemingly the only one that does not understand that this type of stubborn ongoing argumentation is usually classified as childish.
You already lost that whole 4 points argument from you, where you tried to paint Beck's article as a joke, the same article that in fact proves that NIST's theory (your theory? ) is a joke, and now you try to partly quote my post, and then use really wicked logic.

Again, strain is dimensionless, you can't use .2 PERCENT, you must use 0.2 in the equations. As Beck did.
Some people use percentages to describe strain in textual descriptive form, as the author did that Beck referenced, but you can't use percentages in the mathematical equations. Read the book he referenced, then you'll understand.

This is the next piece of my post, crystal clear for everybody, even your fans got it, that last bolded line, except you.

From my Beck-excerpt post above that post :

In our model this (LT : yield strain ) is represented by λ1, which we take to be λ1 = 0.2.

I see your 0.2 value, you see Beck's 0.2 value for the yield strain of the WTC steel at the failing floors.
He took the ~21 - 25 percentage value from a by him referenced book about the properties of steel, where the writer used percentages.
He himself CLEARLY used the CORRECT decimal fraction value in his mathematical equations.

PS : What the heck is your theory, I lost you completely on that.
If it is the same as the NIST theory (which it is, is my guess), good riddance with debunking Beck.

My guess is, that this is your theory (=NIST's theory), quoted by me in my post HERE.

I debunked your hastely written 4 points list where you were trying to mock Beck's article with erratic arguments.
Beck's article is still standing, your arguments are not.
Thus, Beck's rebuttal of the NIST initiation theory, also your theory, is still firmly upright.

lexyghot : I explained in no uncertain terms that what you are describing here - a pancaking collapse initiation - is not anything that I endorse, nor does NIST.
Therefore, you are a liar when you characterize it as "my" scenario.
And as such, deserves no rebuttal.

You use the term "liar" quite enthusiastically in this thread, while I just debunked your erratic 4 points list, describing why you think a real mathematician like Beck, is a joke.
I could also use the word liar in this context, but I follow decorum and prefer the words "in error" regarding your list.
I remember you using the same evasive ""deserves no rebuttal"" argument regarding Beck's article.
Thus, back to Beck.

I advice you to re-read Beck's NIST theory rebuttal chapter.
Or to ask advice at the911forum.freeforums.org...

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: LaBTop
Let's cut the crap.

Show me pictures of the aftermath of the 2 first WTC tower collapses, where I can see heaps of broken and cracked floors, with their intact thin steel floor pans under them, stacked upon each other.

lexyghot : ""You should be aware by now, that there are reports from the cleanup guys AND PHOTOS of examples of just that.""

LT : Let me guess, you mean those photos wmd_2008 posted? Those were the two LOWEST from 7 basement levels, THICK re-barred concrete basement decks. Still reasonably intact.
Now read this excerpt from the links of Matt Nelson,
the911forum.freeforums.org...
and ask Tom Petrizzo if he found ANY floor sections from above ground ( he called it "grade" ), since you seemed to have missed it :

Bringing those floor sections into lower Manhattan was one of the biggest challenges of the construction era. During a tugboat strike there were midnight caravans of flatbed trucks with police escorts who cleared the roads. The guy who organized the truck runs actually helped truck away the debris after 9/11. Tom Petrizzo.

When WTC steel erector Karl Koch “asked him if he'd seen any floor sections,” Tom replied :

“No, that's what I don't understand. […] I didn't see one goddamn floor deck come here with a bar joist in it. They must have disintegrated. Because they did not get here. And I handled this from day fu*kin' one.”
“Did they send you any decking that was loose, no joists?” [Koch] asked.
“None,” Tom said.
“None? Well, that's impossible. There were six thousand of them.”
“There's stuff crumpled up, but go identify it as a floor deck if you can. Impossible. A lot of guys come and ask me, they know I was involved in bringing 'em over, but Karl, not one came where I could say, 'Oh, here's one.' I could not show anybody a floor deck and say, 'This is what I hauled over.'”
I [Karl] couldn't believe it. Not one goddamn floor panel.

- Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men of Steel: The Story of the Family that Built the World Trade Center, Crown Publishers, New York, 2002, p. 375.

So, lexyghot, where are your failed, stacked up floor panels?
They were DISINTEGRATED ! Ask Tom Petrizzo.

And not by some severed core columns, AFTER these floors pancaked onto each other, as evidenced by the still standing spires after a few seconds into the collapses.
And we saw those spires SINK down, not laterally tip over.
Thus, they could not break those top floors that should have been laying as a stack of partly broken floors on top of the rest of the rubble. INCLUDING their steel floor panels.
Because they were the last floors to reach the underlaying already formed rubble pile. They should lay ON TOP of that.


I am waiting for your stack of photos from floor decks originating from above the 7th floor.

lexyghot :""No one but you are claiming that ALL the floors should be stacked up neatly. That's what we call a strawman. Therefore there's no need for me to make an effort to debunk your illogical argument.""

LT : You should better re-read my above last lines. The top seven floors are meant clearly. Just as can be seen in the WTC 7 rubble pile.

Because that's what we see in all those videos, rings of dust spitting out of ONE whole 4-sides perimeter of ONE floor. REPEATEDLY.
Rings of dust that are then racing to the ground.
Not chaotic, as expected in a chaotic, natural collapse, but organized. As with explosives.

lexyghot : ""Go back to the 911 free forum. They have put your claim to rest. They were in fact chaotic.""

LT : Of course they were chaotic, AFTER THE INITIATING explosive EVENT, I already explained that clearly. The NOT LATERALLY EXPELLED steel rubble then followed the path of least resistance straight down, helped on the way down per three floors each with some additional core columns bolds-cutting and dislodging, causing the other dust rings.

that 2.5 first seconds period of the start of its global collapse. Those 2.5 first seconds showing a truly gravitational collapse speed. Proved first by Chandler, then admitted afterwards by NIST, whose calculations showed an even closer match.

lexyghot : ""I think you meant 1.75 seconds of less than FFA followed by 2.5 s of FFA.""

LT : I mistrust a lot of what NIST brings up. And if you still can't grasp what 2.5 secs of free fall acceleration means for their fire induced WTC 7 theory, then you are a lost case. Read in my signature LINKS my own seismic posts about WTC 7, and its clear conclusion of explosives used. Together with Chandler's evidence of those 2.5 secs of FFA, it should be the death blow to the OS theory. But main stream news ignores any evidence.

Then explain to me, how your floor collapsing scenario can occur without failing of the core columns in those first three seconds of the collapse of the WTC-1N tower, taking in account that while at the same time CLEARLY all the 47 core columns (or 51 according to Beck) are failing and SINKING AS ONE ENTITY. Because we all see that roof line coming down as one entity.
With its hat truss clearly intact connected to the 3 top floors perimeters, during those first, three seconds of measurements.

lexyghot : ""Yet another misrepresentation of what I and NIST endorse.
So another strawman.
And yes, there's 47 core columns. It's a fact. If you haven't got this right by now, nor Beck, why would anyone take you seriously? Cuz this proves extremely poor research on your part.""

LT : If you had checked it before shouting out, you should know that I have used the figure of 47 core columns in all my posts in this forum, from 2005 on.
Perhaps Beck found some 4 columns we all missed all these years in some recent recovered drawings?
Anyway, it won't change the outcome of his calculations, since he already nicely excluded HALF of all core columns from them. And a lot more load-bearing perimeter stuff, and still that tower's core under its failing top part was several orders stronger than could fail in a natural collapse. In fact the whole core was far too strong to have failed naturally. Even with a few core columns been severed by a plane wreck. Which is by the way never proven. Show me a definitely severed by a plane, core column. Where I can't counter that with explosive means instead of plane means.

originally posted by: lexyghot

plywood dust. Formed in those TB explosions clouds.

Plywood?

What?

He thinks "thermobaric" explosives produce plywood dust....

And Chandler's WTC-1N tower graph indicates that in the first three seconds, there's no BUILD-UP of resistance.

lexyghot : ""Yep. Cuz the floors and their connection system are providing the resistance to the falling part, not the ever increasingly stronger columns.""

LT: Mysteriously, we seem to agree here. That's why there were no failing core columns possible in the NIST (your? ) scenario. See Beck.

As is normal for a natural collapse.

lexyghot : ""Prove it.""

LT : see below.

As is demonstrated in the French demolition which was executed without explosions, but with hydraulic jacks that pressed/scattered all the columns at one floor halfway up the total height of that building. To force a natural collapse.
In that French graph we see already after 1 second that the upper parts meet INCREASING deceleration. Shown by an upwards dip in Chandler's collapse graph line. (see my signature LINKS French demolition video)

lexyghot : ""That's ONE anecdotal piece of evidence. But it is most definitely not proof.
Try again.""

LT : That's ONE anecdotal piece of INCREASING deceleration evidence in a natural collapse aftermath.! Within the FIRST second ALREADY.
Got one for your side of the fence.? Try to find one.
At least Chandler and aides found one. I salute them for the effort.
I never saw a natural one you preach for. Three seconds of constant DOWNWARD acceleration, not 1 second.! In a natural induced collapse. F.ex., by an earthquake, a concrete or steel failure, a hurricane, whatever natural cause.
There's lots of demolition videos.
But nearly no natural occurring ones. And if you find one, I'll assure you to find the same first second already of deceleration. Try again. Prove your "most definitely not proof".

There is a constant 0.67 % of G acceleration speed,

lexyghot : ""Yep.""

as if there is the same resistance

lexyghot : ""Yep. provided by the same strength floor/connection.""

That can only be achieved by explosives which cut/displaced the core columns,

lexyghot : ""Let's see some photos of these columns that were cut.
Bet you can't find any.""

LT : I have hundreds. You again missed something, the word "displaced".
Read my above explanation about TBs their blowing-up and-down effect on floors. Then you understand how literally all bolds in the 3 stories high core column segments that littered the debris heap, were absent or sheared off.
In their bottom ends, but also their top ends. No serious numbers of buckled ones.
But amazing numbers of intact but always three floors-high core columns were present.
Which fitted nicely on the standard-length flat-bed trucks.
That can only happen when these core columns were dislodged by the force of the upper floor lifting the above core columns up by all its numerous connections to those floors, breaking the bolds they were connected with to the to be severed in between columns, while at the same time the lower floor did the same but reversed action at the lower end of the in between columns that were (had to be) severed also.
And exploding those TBs inside the core columns spaces had the added camouflage effect, it was not visible from far away, like for all those video cameras.
And remember that video of the perfectly vertically sinking leftover core column spire. Why did it not topple over?
And buckled thinner core columns from somewhere in the top 15 floors should have laid on TOP of the debris pile. Show me some, in place photographed.
Btw, taking photographs was explicitly forbidden, see the photo of the signs at Ground Zero in Matt Nelson's links. Only accredited photographers were granted that right.
All rescue workers got checked when they left, and painstakingly interviewed by FBI and god knows who more.

Why is the whole intact roof rim also sinking down as one intact entity?

lexyghot :""Cuz it's intact.""

LT : Failed attempt on slapstick.

According to your above quote, the columns were not involved in the collapse mechanism initiation.

lexyghot : ""That's a lie.""

LT : Who again, was the liar here? When do you learn simple respect and decorum?
You need them to buckle, Beck proved they could not. In the first three seconds.
But something (explosives) happened to them, otherwise we should have seen already a core column spire in the first three seconds sticking out from the ongoing collapse.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: LaBTop
I would also like to ad the missing glass from the 68,000 windows. (LT : actually 43,600)
We should expect to find HUGE amounts of broken glass, and shards of it, in the two rubble piles.

Prove it.

LT : Read it.

Thus we may expect to find lots of broken THICK glass pieces still embedded in those Vierendeel triplet panels.
If it was a NATURAL collapse.

Prove it.

LT : Read it. In Matt Nelson's pdf and 3 other links (2 videos) I just posted a page back, it's in the first few lines of the thousandths of it. ""There is no glass. It just disappeared and has become part of this fluffy white or gray dust."" Read his page 118, 119 (photo) and 120/121; from 176 :

Another part of the building many people noticed not literally everywhere as it should
have been, was the window glass. Of course it shattered, but listen to this:
“I went to the NYC Police Museum today to verify that the article and accompanying
text were genuine. They are, indeed. Furthermore, there were a few shards of glass,
with the following text, which I copied down:
'Glass was a rare find at Ground Zero, where these shards were recovered. The
collapse and fires pulverized and melted most of the glass from the Twin Towers
43,600 windows.' - Metamars, Jan. 8, 2009 at the 9/11 Forum

Well, it were not 68,000 windows, just a mere 43,600.

There were 600,000 square feet of glass in the two towers, according to Robert
Krulwich, ABC News (aired 9/13 at 7:35 p.m.)
More about the glass: “Powerful gusts can shatter windows, so for the sake of safety
tempered glass eight times stronger than needed was specified. Planners designed the
towers to withstand prolonged winds of 150 miles per hour.” (Angus Gillespie, Ibid., p. 81.)
“The twenty-two-inch spaces between the columns are for the windows, which are recessed
ten inches in order to shade them from all but direct sunlight. The architect specified a
bronze-tinted, heat-reflective glass for the 43,600 windows.” (Gillespie, Ibid., p. 108.) The
glass itself was eighteen and a half inches wide. The 107th floor of the north tower had 30-inch
wide windows, for the Windows on the World restaurant. Likewise, “extra-wide windows” were
needed for the interior observation deck of the South Tower. (Ibid., p. 216.)
The windows spanned from just above the floor to the ceiling. The foot-high air vents
ran the length of the floor. (See them in this video [mirror], source: NIST FOIA,
911datasets.org release 30, 42A0353 – G30D7.) Gillespie estimates the surface area of the
towers to be about 30% glass (p. 165), as opposed to the predominant style of modern
architecture known as the “International Style,” which uses on average about 60% glass... like
WTC Building 7, whose glass was also a part of the WTC dust.

There's a nice photo in page 119 of the only still embedded shard of glass in a window pane rubber piece and one lone small glass shard. That was all.
Page 120 : “The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass"

plywood dust. Formed in those TB explosions clouds.

Plywood? What?

LT : Slip of the tongue. You know what I mean. Ceiling tiles, Separation panels, Gypsum wallboards.
Or office space their cubicles walls, from possibly light plywood covered with glued-on prints or thin textiles. Or just color painted.

Page 120 from Matt Nelson's PDF :

Silicate, or SiO2, is mixed with other materials to lower the melting point of glass to
about 1500ｰC (2700ｰF) – see en.wikipedia.org... – so if the NYPD Museum and
the above photo are correct and the glass did melt, then there were some extraordinarily hot
temps going on. WTC fire temperature: 1000ｰC (NIST faqs [7]).
USG S [emphasis added]: “Glass shards, fragments, and spheres are also present
in the dust samples. The microscopic glass shards and fragments are less abundant than
the ubiquitous slag wool fibers in the fine dust ( 90%) of glass spheres, generally less than 500 μm in
diameter, are of slag wool composition.” So that 10% found in the dust... makes me wonder.
Glass was found mostly by mechanical means, when the Fresh Kills shaker screens
separated the debris into different size classes. (See above.) “Upon their collapse, the twin
towers were literally pulverized. Workers at the Staten Island Landfill reported not finding
glass pieces larger than three inches.” (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers website [cached])
To find the glass, one had to look in the dust.
“Small shards of glass containing mostly silica and
magnesium were also found.[...]
This cloud comprised a complex mix of pollutants, among
them the products of combustion of 91,000 L jet fuel,
pulverized building materials, cement dust, asbestos,
microscopic shards of glass, silica, heavy metals, and
numerous organic compounds....”
- Maoxin Wu, et. al., “Case Report: Lung Disease in
World Trade Center Responders Exposed to Dust and
Smoke: Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs of World
Trade Center Patients and Dust Samples,” EHP, Dec.
2009. [emphasis added]
The WTC dust was composed of 40 percent glass
fiber, according to one of the most comprehensive
studies done. (Paul J. Lioy, et. al., “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001,”
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, Number 7, July 2002.)

Those 90 % was turned to dust (generally less than 500 μm in diameter).
Makes you not wonder?

It would be interesting to sift through the Kurt Sonnenfeld photos, to look for broken windows in the WTC 7 debris pile photos of them. If he was ever allowed there? WTC 7 came down, after the initial blow, as a pancake collision collapse. As can be seen in the debris photos of its stacked up top floors.
Btw, he became a whistleblower, fled to Argentina, got indicted by some US prosecutor for the murder of his wife, and as far as I know, Argentina did not extradite him back, since he was now married to an Argentine wife, and because the evidence handed over by that US prosecutor was thin at most.
He was one of the few official photographers allowed at Ground Zero, always accompanied by another guy (FBI, ? ) who decided what to snip and what not.
He said he saw many indications of foul play there.
See the photo of the two "no cameras or video equipment allowed" WARNING posters at Matt's page 162 / 176. See those checkpoint controlling uniformed Army and ? personnel, behind him?

What has become of him and his US court case? Is he still in Argentina, if so, I will send some friends to him to ask him personally about his 9/11 and later, experiences, if he wants to do it.

And can anybody supply another case of a PROVEN NATURAL high rise collapse that formed so much dust, caused disappearance of all steel floor decks, and >90 % of their windows glass ? And also missed all recognizable office furniture, computers, telephones, doors, door knobs, and about 1000 bodies or their body parts. Persons never to be found a TRACE of....to hand over to family or friends, for a decent burial.

Page 121 of Matt Nelson's PDF :

“The dust also contained a large amount of an unusual material: glass fibers. Both towers were
110 stories high and had 880 stories of windows in total since there were 110 stories with four walls
times two sides of windows. These windows had been crushed by the collapse of the towers.
These were different than other materials since the glass windows disintegrated into fibrous
dust as well as glass chards [sic].”
- Paul J. Lioy, Dust: The Inside Story of Its Role in the September 11th Aftermath, Rowman &
Littlefield, New York, 2010, p. 96.
“[O]ver 50 percent of the mass of the WTC dust was made up of the cement and carbonaceous
materials. (Carbon is the fourth most abundant element found in inorganic and organic forms.) As
part of the carbonaceous materials, there were significant quantities of cellulose (paper). Most of the
rest of the mass was made up of the glass fiber materials. Some of the glass fibers were formed
from the disintegration of glass windows. Other fibers released during the collapse would have
been part of interior wall board and ceiling tiles. Some of the fibers were characterized as slag wool
and would become known as a specific and identifiable component of the WTC dust.”
- Paul J. Lioy, Ibid., pp. 96-97.
“The fibrous material was composed of disintegrated material that was present in building interiors
or on the exterior. As time went on, we would call a large portion of it slag wool, based on work by
the United States Geological Survey. However, there were other types of fibers that became of
interest, including glass. The composition of the nonfibrous portion of the dust is simple to
understand....” - Paul J. Lioy, Ibid., p. 101.
...as opposed to the abundant, microscopic fibers of glass which is hard to understand,
right? See my article "Glass a 'Rare Find' at Ground Zero" for even more on this topic.

READ... Matt's last link !
Glass a 'Rare Find' at Ground Zero

Note that Thermobaric Bombs (TBs) leave no discernible chemical traces, as high explosives clearly do.... It's 99.99 % gases. TBs leave only burn scars. Which are of course abundant in a collapse after by a plane's jet fuel ignited and shortly ( 30 min ) fed fires. Then the office furnitures take over as the ignition sources.
The use of TBs also result in the extreme heat and temperatures needed to form all those micro-spheres of iron, aluminosilicates, glass spheres, etc.

Matt's page 134 :

Previously seen melted glass (silicate, not
necessarily window glass) also contained iron
particles, as described by investigator Mark Basile in
his WTC dust study. (“ 9/11 Dust Raises Questions ,”
Lancaster, New Hampshire on June 26th, 2010.)
Silicates should not have been magnetic, but were.
Basile made an interesting point that the
majority of his dust sample's iron spheres were not
from A36 structural steel. (See his video at 35:30.)
This has agreed with the photographic record, which
has found little evidence of melted beams. Steel
cubicle partitions and filing cabinets, maybe. Still:
“Pieces of steel have also been found that were
apparently melted and vaporized not solely because
of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive
contaminant that was somehow released in the
conflagrations.” (James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A
Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers
Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards,” New York Times, Feb. 2, 2002.)
Where this has been found (in one instance for example), it originated from WTC Building 7.

READ.. Matt's page 139 - 141, his chapter named : HOT CLOUD.
There was extreme heat...etc.

Then READ all his SCIENTIFIC STUDIES links from page 142 on to 146.

And READ his CONCLUSION on page 153-154.

Then READ page 170 - 176, Appendix 3 :

The U.S. House Committee on Science reported, in March 2002:
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the
[FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel
from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and
either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S.. Some of the critical
pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the
internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever
reached the site.” 54 (Report from the Committee on Science, US House of
Representatives, March 6, 2002)

Then read up on all the names involved with the clean-up mentioned, and their inter connectivities and new jobs after 9/11.

You see the extensive amount of information I offer to the readers.
I see nothing alike that, from you. Only some sparse remarks about me having to read up that 911forums.freeforums.org pages, which is worth at least 3 months of intensive reading and following their links.
You haven't offered ONE link to that forum you seem to hold up so high.
I do however.
Are you perhaps the kind of selective reader I suspect you to be? Only interested in details that could strengthen your side of the debate.

A real honest researcher does accept solid evidence, even when it shatters his former beliefs.

Btw, your proposed way of collapse initiation, point 10, Buckling of core columns now began, is non-provable, regarding what I just linked to in my above post. They were all shipped out and gone, before any real collection of them, or any form of investigation on the cause of collapse could have even started.

This is Your collapse theory, which is the NIST theory :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The sequence, from memory, goes something like this:
1- impact damage redistributes gravity loads and removes fire protection
2- fires heat the core columns and they creep shorten, removing load from them
3- core loads are redistributed through the hat truss onto ext columns, which are also being heated by fire
4- fire is causing the floor trusses to sag in the middle, causing a pull in on the ext columns
5- the combined effects of fire, truss pull in, and increased loads via the hat truss cause the ext columns to bend
6- the ext column bending cause them to shorten and the hat truss transfers loads back to the core columns
7- the core columns continue to creep shorten
8- the bending continues until the ext columns completely buckle
9- loads from the now buckled ext columns are redistributed back onto the core completely
10-NOW the core columns buckle and the antenna begins moving
11- the hat truss moves loads to the other ext columns, but they cannot hold the load
12- global collapse begins and the upper part tilts, which means that all columns cannot be aligned now, thus rendering any analysis by Chandler to be not valid.

The NIST theory :

The hat truss structure strengthened the core structure, unified the core and perimeter structures, and helped to support the large antenna mounted atop the North Tower. The hat truss, which contained both horizontal and sloping I-beams, connected core columns to each other, and connected the core to the perimeter walls. Most the beams connected core columns to each other, while a set of sixteen horizontal and sloping beams spanned the distance the core and perimeter walls. Eight of these, the outrigger trusses, connected the corners of the core to the perimeter walls, while another eight connected the centers of the core's periphery to the perimeter walls.

The hat trusses are central to the "probable collapse sequence" described by NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers. It blames the hat truss for transferring "column instability" between the core structures and the perimeter walls. In other words, it asserts that reinforcing structures caused the Towers to self-destruct. Its section entitled "Results of Global Analysis" describes the "structural deterioration" of the North Tower as follows:

6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1 : NIST theory :

After the aircraft impact, gravity loads that were previously carried by severed columns were redistributed to other columns. The north wall lost about 7 percent of its loads after impact. Most of the load was transferred by the hat truss, and the rest was redistributed to the adjacent exterior walls by spandrels. Due to the impact damage and the tilting of the building to the north after impact, the south wall also lost gravity load, and about 7 percent was transferred by the hat truss. As a result, the east and west walls and the core gained the redistributed loads through the hat truss.

Structural steel expands when heated. In the early stages of the fire, structural temperatures in the core rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls. About 20 min. after the aircraft impact, the difference in the thermal expansion between the core and exterior walls, which was resisted by the hat truss, caused the core column loads to increase. As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward. At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads were transferred by the hat truss to the exterior walls due to thermal weakening of the core; the north and south walls each gained about 10 percent more loads, and the east and west walls each gained about 25 percent higher loads. Since the hat truss outriggers to the east and west walls were stiffer than the outriggers to the north and south walls, they transferred more loads to the east and west exterior walls.

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.

Reference :
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, nist.gov, , page 144-5 (PDF pages 194-5)

--more--

Beck's full Article : LINK
Review again, also the videos and animated gifs of the collapse of WTC 1N on page 14 and 13 of this thread, to see again what really happened.

Beck's rebuttal of the NIST theory :
Page 10 of 15, last few chapter lines :

IV. FAILURE OF THE NIST SCENARIO

( LT : Lots of mathematical discussion and equations, drawings and diagrams, followed by this : )
--snip--
This means that in each building the collapse initiation and duration are consistent with the NIST(μ x ν) scenario being applied to the perimeter columns (PCs) only, while the stronger core columns (CCs) are not present at all. This in turn implies that the NIST scenario is incomplete: the collapse of the buildings to the ground requires yet another damaging event, the sole purpose of which is a destruction of the CCs in the secondary zone. We label this damaging event the “wave of massive destruction” (WMD), because of its catastrophic nature.

Interestingly, the avalanche we have discussed so far can only appear in its wake, and is thus a result of the “wave of massive destruction” (WMD) rather then the other way around.

V. CONCLUSION
We have determined the static and the dynamic features of a progressive collapse in the WTCs using the structural properties of the building and the mathematical models of the avalanche propagation. We have formally expressed the destruction scenarios proposed by NIST as a sequence of damaging events in the primary (or impact) zone of each building, which leave the secondary zone (below) intact. We have shown that the static and dynamic features of collapse are mutually consistent. On the other hand, we have demonstrated that the NIST scenarios are inconsistent with the structural parameters of the building.
More precisely, the features of the avalanche propagation ( initiation and duration ) indicate that in their final moments the buildings did not have the core columns (CCs).
We conclude that the buildings did not perish because of combined mechanical and heat damage to their primary zones, but because of yet another catastrophic event: a wave of massive destruction (WMD) that destroyed the CCs, following which the buildings collapsed to the ground.

It's advisable to READ his chapter VI. DISCUSSION, its points 1 and 2, COMPLETELY.
Beck explains it in no mis-understandable way :

--snip--
We get 1p = 0.025 KSI for WTC 1, and 2p = 0.05 KSI for WTC 2, which is three orders of magnitude smaller than the nominal 36-100 KSI (ultimate 58-110 KSI) the vertical columns were able to maintain while yielding in plastic deformation.
Bazant et al.(10) argued that an avalanche propagating through the primary zone would get sufficiently compacted so that it could provide necessary pressure.

We see two insurmountable problems with this suggestion.
First, the avalanche front can only “grow” thicker - it cannot expand laterally in such a fashion that would allow its edges to be strong enough to crush the vertical columns.
Second, for compaction to happen the floor material has to be compressed between two solid surfaces, and we see that there are no such surfaces on either end of the avalanche front. In fact, the strength of the vertical columns will redirect the avalanche (which now consists only of destroyed floor material) to the region in-between the columns. The formation of such avalanche is promoted by the relative weakness of the floors, the resistive force f of which is f ~ 0.02,(16) per each floor, as compared to the resistive force of the intact vertical columns, fCC + fPC ~/= 0.8 + 2.7 x z.

Read his point 2. Rigidity assumption, also.

However, this is a slow compression of the column (the velocity of the source of compression is much smaller than the sound velocity in the steel) so the stress has time to propagate throughout the whole column causing the strain to do the same.
--snipped formulas--
We leave it as an exercise to the reader to show that these distances are sufficient to stop the fall of the top section even if one makes a radical assumption that the avalanche propagated through the primary zone without resistance (r = s = 0).
--snipped formula--

We find 1λ = 0.013 for WTC 1, and 2λ = 0.029 for WTC 2,which are considerably smaller then their yield strains λy’s . Thus, contrary to the NIST claim, the total plastic deformation of the intact vertical columns in the secondary zone was more than sufficient to arrest the fall of the top section.

--snipped-- the most important, following long explanation.
Thus, READ it.

This is a film made by David Hooper, who started to doubt the official story of 9/11 around 2010. He then got sucked in, and spend heaps of his hours to investigate it, as much of it that he could find, still with the intention to find holes in the OS, that could prove incompetence and especially, deliberately hidden knowledge that those Saudi hijackers also had planted explosives at the three towers.

www.youtube.com...


Slowly, he awoke to the fact that it were not those hijackers, but had to be a very powerful faction of global power dimensions that orchestrated 9/11.
So powerful, that they had access to all the main media, the military, the agencies and even the administrative levels, to cover up their deeds.

He advocates to research 9/11 all on yourself, and not to get sucked in too early, by someone or some persons beliefs. Do it all on yourself, and then make up your mind, slowly but surely.
After absorbing as many facts as you can find; online, in books, blogs, the Library of Congress, many 9/11 websites, and especially, consulting experts in their fields.
Just as I advised you to do from day eleven in September 2001.

Take your time to sit out this full 1:31:58 film, it's worth your time.
You will for example see stunning pictures of explosive squibs spitting out of the Twin Towers just below the collapsing floors, at the corners and far below the collapse fronts.He talks about, and shows explosions and witnesses, from 40:00 on, to around 50:00 to 53:00 when you begin to see his filmed squibs.
And do not believe that small distracting group of OS supporters, filling up space at this and other 9/11 forums and boards, that those squibs were compressed air bursts. Just ask a real engineer, architect, demolition expert if you know some, what they think about that.
Measure by yourself the speed of those squibs. Find the free Tracker software David Chandler and others used to find the outcome : over 60 to 72 miles/sec.
And observe those squibs at tens of floors lower than the collapse fronts, out of floors still totally rigid and unaffected.

Then you will start to doubt the OS (the official story).

Now that you the reader, have read all the pro- and contra-arguments on the last five pages, it's time to re-read all my posts in the whole pages 13 and 14 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know by now, after you reviewed those posts of mine, and the videos and animated GIFs of the North Tower collapse initiation, that all the posted contra arguments at and after page 13 and 14 were inadequate at best, to say it gently.

If still partly in doubt, just review those 5 videos in this post of mine at page 13 and listen VERY CONCENTRATED with good headphones on, to these CLEAR sounds of HUGE EXPLOSIONS. Especially the nr 5 video of WTC 7, at the beginning of those first video pictures of WTC 7, when you clearly hear that huge, low frequency explosion, a second before that east penthouse starts to collapse. But the global collapse sounds are not picked up by that same camera's microphone, which means that that explosion must have been enormous. Much bigger than the sound of a sole column 79 failing, like Shyam Sunder, director at NIST, tried to let us believe at that press conference in 2008.
In that case, the sound of all its columns failing directly afterwards, would have been much louder than the silence we hear after that first huge explosion. You only hear shouting of the bystanders, that's all. WTC 7 sunk away in near silence in that video....Just some very soft rumbling sounds at the end of that WTC 7 demolition, if you listen careful enough.


Can I now go on, at last, and read all the other highly interesting earlier posts at the 911forum.freeforums.org, posted before Matt Nelson his recent excellent post.?

Which is by the way the last entry there, by now. So I will go backwards from newest to older posts. To avoid lots of already stale, counter-arguments, or quasi facts. Hopefully that saves me some reading time.
As I said before, I've read a lot of posts of most of the freeforum members during the last decade, and their arguments are of an unheard of in other forums, high informative and detailed level.
Let's see if they have some new viewpoints for me.

originally posted by: LaBTop
: over 60 to 72 miles/sec.

That is 337 x the speed of sound.

Exceeding the speed of sound produces a bang,

Exceeding the speed of sound by 337 times produces a big bang.

Where is the bang ?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: LaBTop
: over 60 to 72 miles/sec.

That is 337 x the speed of sound.

Exceeding the speed of sound produces a bang,

Exceeding the speed of sound by 337 times produces a big bang.

Where is the bang ?

The speed of sound is 340 m/s. 60-72 m/s is only 1/5 the speed of sound.

Thats very nice.... but LaBTop is claiming " 72 miles/sec" which is 337 times the speed of sound.