Undetonated Explosive Material from 9/11 Rubble

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by hooper

 

How are you not understanding this?

Its an almost simultaneous event.
All of the interconnections in the building (roughly below the impact point) are severed or weakened to the point. Then, the weight from the top section of the building initiates the total collapse of the building. And as Anok said, IF there were no explosives in the building, then the collapse of the building SHOULD have shown some resistance, in the form of a slower collapse time. The only way for something to fall at free fall speed is to have ZERO resistance, or upward force.

This is not true.

There are many videos out about a French technique where they cause a section of a building to pulverise the entire rest of the building below it. This has precedence.

The "it can't accelerate and have resistance at the same time" is bunk. I'm sorry.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by truthquest

 

The article researchers initially believed the explosive chips found to be paint chips. Their paper details a number of tests they did to determine whether the substance was paint. For example, the chips did not significantly respond to paint thinner, whereas all known paint do respond to paint thinner.

Where was the control group? A true scientific examination would have included a control group. Did they find samples of 40 year old paint and expose that paint to MEK? Or did they assume the expected reaction?

They didn't mention much about a control group, so I doubt one was used. I suppose it would be easy to buy some MEK and test it out against various paints from buildings built in 1970. Since multiple methods were used to test whether the chips were paint chips, I wouldn't find the test useful. The most important test they did was the detonation test. It produced "a spark". I suppose they should have run a control group for the detonation test... maybe that was the weak point in the study. Maybe some paint starts to get explosive as it ages, as one person has suggested.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

What's funnier is that I care enough that bullsh*t artists spouting lies and half-truths and who are being used to further a political agenda, piss me off. Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion, but, until that happens I consider this subject and the Truther movement to be bullsh*t!

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

If there were any explosives in the towers, the impact of the aircraft would have caused them to sympathetically detonate, collapsing the towers immediately or the impact would have damaged their detonating system and they wouldn't have fired and the towers would be still standing.

I have often questioned whether anyone has truly investigated just where such a specialized weapons grade explosive material was manufactured.

The reason I concern myself with this thought is primarily because the large amount of such material needed would have been into the hundreds of thousands of tons. So much in fact that it would have taken serious labor and special material handling equipment to deliver and off load and install such large amounts of explosives. This logistics concern is somehow key to understanding the how of 911 and I do not intend to drop this concern.

Such an enormous amount of specialized explosives would have registered on someones records that such a large amount was sold, to whom it was sold and when and where it was delivered. Who took delivery of such an amount would be key to an investigation and any look into the material handling equipment that would be needed to offload at the Twin Towers would have been noticeable, specialized and big enough for permits and such. It would logically take about 2 to 3 three weeks to deliver, off load and install prior to the date of 911.

There are reports of the Twin Towers being shut down for two weeks prior to 911 and that was supposedly because of security upgrades. It was pretty convenient that during that period of time, the surveillance cameras were not functioning. I have always felt that a key area of weakness to the official story is the logistical data and material handling equipment and trucks and personnel that would have had to be in place to deliver, off load and install such a large quantity of such specialized weapons grade explosives.

I suspect that during the period of explosives delivery, off load and transport to the various levels of floors needed to be pre-wired that whatever team did the deed, they ate somewhere, slept somewhere, drank somewhere and worked somewhere and spent their money somewhere for someone to notice.

It is at this juncture that some of you will be puzzled with where I am going with this, but for those of you who have read my previous ATS postings and my concern with time travel abuse of secret technology will understand that this thought about the explosive material used to help blow up the Twin Towers is related to my time travel abuse postings.

If the specialized nano particle explosive material cannot be attributed to any known explosives manufacturer in the 911 time line, then it opens up the possibility that the specialized explosives came from a manufacturer from the future. It would begin to explain where such specialized explosives came from but it would not explain how they could have been placed into position without anyone seeing or knowing.

I mention this last remark about the materials coming from the future because if my suspicions are correct, some future company that will manufacture the specialized explosives will suffer some loss of tons of materials in the future as a result of some fire or some theft or some claimed manufacturing accident.

In affect if you stole tons of explosives and wanted to hide that fact you would set a fire or some explosion that would not allow for anyone to concern themselves that the explosives were removed and in fact not even present when the manufacturing plant or warehouse is set on fire or blown up. No one would suspect that the explosives were removed to be used in a criminal operation conducted in the past. Such a company could even create false foreign sales in the future with front companies and divert the shipments to the past time line for criminal use. The point is one would need the secret technology to make this theory work.

The fire and or theft of such a large amount of explosives would in fact be a false flag operation to hide the fact that tons of nano particle explosives were stolen to transport into the past in order to leave no trail of where the explosives actually came from. No one would suspect that the explosives came from the future. A future far from Sept. 11, 2001. A future where such material is abundant and where its removal would in no way associate it to a past terrorist event such as 911 because really, who would believe such a thing? Let alone how could anyone prove it?

I realize my remarks are indeed conspiratorial, but then again this is ATS and my thoughts on this matter may help someone somewhere to discover something important to everyone concerning 911. As for me, I will continue to consider that time travel technology was used to assist in the planning and execution of 911.

Wild theory and speculation, yes I know, but if I have learned anything about 911 is that the logistical planning and assets needed to prepare the buildings is a key area of investigation that needs some attention. I just happen to believe that any attention placed on the logistical enormity of the 911 will show anomalies that could imply time travel abuse of secret technology currently being used to commit time crimes.

Anyway, there it is. Food for thought and a good research topic for some 911 researcher. I call it the logistics key to 911 and I pray someone uses it to unlock the doors to truth and justice.

The obvious fact surrounding 9/11 - a fact that is made such simply by the good common sense that the Creator imbued each of us with, is this:

Three otherwise well-built commercial structures each separately fell at near terminal velocity into relatively neat little rubble piles. In fact, the narrow containment of the debris field would have made any commercial demolition service hire a PR firm to advertise the precision with which they did the deed.

WTC7 is the best example of all. It is such a classic controlled demolition (center structure failing first, four corners then folding/falling toward the center) that not even MSNBC can defend it.

Why then would anyone be surprised if something like thermite were found in the debris? And still, no one is surprised.

Watch an hour of controlled demolition jobs on youtube. Saturate yourself with those pictures. Then watch the world trade center collapses.

What does your common sense say? Can you find any other historical events where skyscrapers fell into neat piles after fires? No. What you will find are pictures of modern skyscrapers that burned for (in some cases) several days and yet still stood.

So if someone says they found thermite in the rubble of 9/11, one might ask: how did it get there? Was there a logical reason it may have been there, for example, was there a prior plan and means implemented to deliberately create a controlled collapse of the twin towers in an emergency? Certainly that's understandable. Imagine Manhattan with 2,000 foot long debris fields helter skelter across the neighborhoods.

Consider: the WTC had been previously been attacked in a tower basement with the clear design being to topple rather than collapse the tower. Had the foundations been shattered and the towers to fall from their bases the death and destruction would have been even more horrific. Or maybe the Masters of Disaster simply planned to drop the towers neatly, collect the insurance, and invade the middle east.

Whatever, we all need the truth. We deserve the truth and it is the truth we shall eventually have, regardless of how long it takes to get it.

In events such as 9/11, there is no such thing as a coincidence. The truth needs to be told and the truly guilty . . . they need to be truly punished.

Johnson had the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident," which later surprised no one. Bush and his crew had 9/11.

Originally posted by Nutter
There are many videos out about a French technique where they cause a section of a building to pulverise the entire rest of the building below it. This has precedence.

The "it can't accelerate and have resistance at the same time" is bunk. I'm sorry.

For that method to work lower structures still have to be pre-weakened depending on the building design. It is also a CONTROLLED method, not the chaotic result of asymmetrical damage and fires. You can't expect a non-chaotic event from natural occurrences.

A controlled demo is not precedence for a natural collapse.

You claim that it can have resistance and accelerate is ridiculous. Resistance is the friction created by objects colliding, any amount of friction/resistance will create an unbalance condition in the mechanism and will slow and deflect towards the path of least resistance.
But you miss the fact the the speed of the collapse, and it's acceleration, is not the only proof of there being no resistance.

Even if the tower took 60 seconds to collapse, if the structure collapses symmetrically with no retardation, or deflecting to the path of least resistance, of the collapse wave then there was no resistance. ANY amount of resistance would have caused an imbalance in the collapse, and an asymmetrical collapse would have been the result. Please try to understand this before making more irrelevant assumptions about collapse speed.


BUT having said that, once again, there is NO proof any floors were able to completely and symmetrically (they would have to be) fall on floors bellow to cause a perfectly downward force and a symmetrical collapse without slowing or deflecting from resistance of undamaged structure (which WTC2 obviously, didn't yet cause the same outcome). That is something a 3 year old might buy into, who has never had a basic physics class.

[edit on 1/30/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion,

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

WTC 7

Theres your evidence, according to your set parameter's .

Originally posted by MaxBlack
There are reports of the Twin Towers being shut down for two weeks prior to 911 and that was supposedly because of security upgrades.

Actually there is one report of one person claiming one tower was shut down, however there is evidence that the rooftop viewing platform was not shut down that day, although the lifts were not supposed to be working.

The "truthers" constantly ignore the fact that rigging a building for demolition takes man months of work, and involves many tonnes of material, and also involves in knocking holes in the walls etc. They all just ignore how this could be done, with no one noticing

It was pretty convenient that during that period of time, the surveillance cameras were not functioning.

except that they were functioning...

and no trace of any explosive residue were found, no det cord etc.

reply to post by dereks


Your claim of it taking months to prepare a demo is ignored because it's irrelevant.

Just because you can't imagine how it was done doesn't negate all the evidence that the collapses were NOT natural, and had to have had help from some form of energy other than plane impacts and fire.

It's not facts keeping you from the truth it's lack of imagination. These were not conventional demos and conventional equipment was more than likely not used. I have no idea what was because it's not required.
I don't need to know the weapon to know someone was killed by unnatural causes, the proof is in the known outcome not what actually caused it.

[edit on 1/30/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

What's funnier is that I care enough that bullsh*t artists spouting lies and half-truths and who are being used to further a political agenda, piss me off. Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion, but, until that happens I consider this subject and the Truther movement to be bullsh*t!

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

If there were any explosives in the towers, the impact of the aircraft would have caused them to sympathetically detonate, collapsing the towers immediately or the impact would have damaged their detonating system and they wouldn't have fired and the towers would be still standing.

Airplanes hit the towers as a diversion. Jet fuel (Kerosene) burns at 1700F. Structural steel STARTS to be weakened at 2500F. The temp from the jet fuel didn't do squat to weaken the steel.

Thermite burns at 5000F. Melts steel in a jiffy. Nano-thermites combine the temperature of thermite with explosive force.

If there had been any explosives on the floors the planes hit, the explosives MAY have detonated. Maybe. However, the explosives were spread out from top to bottom(including the sub-basements). They were detonated by a radio signal from B7.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by MaxBlack
There are reports of the Twin Towers being shut down for two weeks prior to 911 and that was supposedly because of security upgrades.

Actually there is one report of one person claiming one tower was shut down, however there is evidence that the rooftop viewing platform was not shut down that day, although the lifts were not supposed to be working.

The "truthers" constantly ignore the fact that rigging a building for demolition takes man months of work, and involves many tonnes of material, and also involves in knocking holes in the walls etc. They all just ignore how this could be done, with no one noticing

It was pretty convenient that during that period of time, the surveillance cameras were not functioning.

except that they were functioning...

and no trace of any explosive residue were found, no det cord etc.

Dereks, I found your post to be quite amusing...."The "truthers" constantly ignore the fact that rigging a building for demolition takes man months of work, and involves many tonnes of material, and also involves in knocking holes in the walls etc. They all just ignore how this could be done, with no one noticing.And no trace of any explosive residue were found, no det cord etc."

Yes, the rigging for the building DID take awhile. Most likely during the 2 weeks preceding 911 but it may well have taken months to rig the towers and Building 7.

And yes, the amount of explosives was tonnes. Neils Harrit, the chief scientist of the group that published the report on Danish TV2 news estimated that 10 tons were likely used to rig all 3 buildings.

No trace of explosive residue, eh ? What do you think the "Thermitic Material Found in Dust of 911 Ground Zero" was all about ? Obviously you haven't even read the report when you make outrageous claims about "no explosive residue was found".

How you manage to sleep at night is beyond my comprehension.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by Longbob]

Originally posted by Longbob
"Thermitic Material Found in Dust of 911 Ground Zero" was all about ? Obviously you haven't even read the report when you make outrageous claims about "no explosive residue was found".

Except thermite/thermate is not a explosive.... typical you never even knew that!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Longbob
"Thermitic Material Found in Dust of 911 Ground Zero" was all about ? Obviously you haven't even read the report when you make outrageous claims about "no explosive residue was found".

Except thermite/thermate is not a explosive.... typical you never even knew that!

Nano-thermites are what the report talks about. Nano-thermite is a military grade explosive that has the same temperature as ordinary thermite.

Nano-thermite and ordinary thermite is not the same thing. Naturally you don't want to realize that.

It's ok. I understand. I really do.

And I know that it would be too much to ask for you to read the report before making your mendacious claims. Far too much of an imposition, right ?

Far, far, easier to scoff and try to mislead, like any other troll and/or disinfo agent, right dereks ?

Originally posted by Longbob

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

What's funnier is that I care enough that bullsh*t artists spouting lies and half-truths and who are being used to further a political agenda, piss me off. Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion, but, until that happens I consider this subject and the Truther movement to be bullsh*t!

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

If there were any explosives in the towers, the impact of the aircraft would have caused them to sympathetically detonate, collapsing the towers immediately or the impact would have damaged their detonating system and they wouldn't have fired and the towers would be still standing.

Airplanes hit the towers as a diversion. Jet fuel (Kerosene) burns at 1700F. Structural steel STARTS to be weakened at 2500F. The temp from the jet fuel didn't do squat to weaken the steel.

Thermite burns at 5000F. Melts steel in a jiffy. Nano-thermites combine the temperature of thermite with explosive force.

If there had been any explosives on the floors the planes hit, the explosives MAY have detonated. Maybe. However, the explosives were spread out from top to bottom(including the sub-basements). They were detonated by a radio signal from B7.

You try and write with such confidence but you simply do not check your supposed facts. I wouldn't dispute that jet fuel can burn at 1700 degrees F but steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees F. Check it out.

Given that the jet fuel initiated fires in everything else it could reach within the towers to what temp. did that bring the steel ? Why is steel fire-proofed in the first place ?

If any sort of charges were detonated in the WTC towers by radio what happened to all the radio receivers and detonators ? Not a scrap was found .

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Longbob

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

What's funnier is that I care enough that bullsh*t artists spouting lies and half-truths and who are being used to further a political agenda, piss me off. Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion, but, until that happens I consider this subject and the Truther movement to be bullsh*t!

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

If there were any explosives in the towers, the impact of the aircraft would have caused them to sympathetically detonate, collapsing the towers immediately or the impact would have damaged their detonating system and they wouldn't have fired and the towers would be still standing.

Airplanes hit the towers as a diversion. Jet fuel (Kerosene) burns at 1700F. Structural steel STARTS to be weakened at 2500F. The temp from the jet fuel didn't do squat to weaken the steel.

Thermite burns at 5000F. Melts steel in a jiffy. Nano-thermites combine the temperature of thermite with explosive force.

If there had been any explosives on the floors the planes hit, the explosives MAY have detonated. Maybe. However, the explosives were spread out from top to bottom(including the sub-basements). They were detonated by a radio signal from B7.

You try and write with such confidence but you simply do not check your supposed facts. I wouldn't dispute that jet fuel can burn at 1700 degrees F but steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees F. Check it out.

Given that the jet fuel initiated fires in everything else it could reach within the towers to what temp. did that bring the steel ? Why is steel fire-proofed in the first place ?

If any sort of charges were detonated in the WTC towers by radio what happened to all the radio receivers and detonators ? Not a scrap was found .

Did you miss the part where I said "structural steel" ? Maybe you ought to check your facts instead, eh ? I guess you think that all steel is the same and that it all has the same temperature level where all types of steel weaken ? Laughing at you, Bud.

"No radio receivers and detonators or scraps" were found in the rubble, eh. Now I'm really laughing at your ludicrous allegation. I guess because some guys passport was (miraculously) "found" that lots of other stuff should have been found too ?

BTW, as I have pointed out a time or two before, 96% of the western media is owned and/or controlled by Zionists. Suppose radio receivers and detonators were found ? Do you really think the media would have reported it ? Especially after they had already named a patsy for the terrorist act ?

Try again, Bud. I KNOW that you can lie better that that !

Originally posted by Longbob

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Longbob

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

You know what's even funnier.

I'm not even an American , and I care more for what happened than you people.

That's Funny

What's funnier is that I care enough that bullsh*t artists spouting lies and half-truths and who are being used to further a political agenda, piss me off. Somebody comes up with some creditable evidence I'll change my opinion, but, until that happens I consider this subject and the Truther movement to be bullsh*t!

Airplanes hit the towers, weakening their structure. The resulting fires weakened the structure further unti the failure point was reached and the towers collapsed. End of story.

If there were any explosives in the towers, the impact of the aircraft would have caused them to sympathetically detonate, collapsing the towers immediately or the impact would have damaged their detonating system and they wouldn't have fired and the towers would be still standing.

Airplanes hit the towers as a diversion. Jet fuel (Kerosene) burns at 1700F. Structural steel STARTS to be weakened at 2500F. The temp from the jet fuel didn't do squat to weaken the steel.

Thermite burns at 5000F. Melts steel in a jiffy. Nano-thermites combine the temperature of thermite with explosive force.

If there had been any explosives on the floors the planes hit, the explosives MAY have detonated. Maybe. However, the explosives were spread out from top to bottom(including the sub-basements). They were detonated by a radio signal from B7.

You try and write with such confidence but you simply do not check your supposed facts. I wouldn't dispute that jet fuel can burn at 1700 degrees F but steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees F. Check it out.

Given that the jet fuel initiated fires in everything else it could reach within the towers to what temp. did that bring the steel ? Why is steel fire-proofed in the first place ?

If any sort of charges were detonated in the WTC towers by radio what happened to all the radio receivers and detonators ? Not a scrap was found .

Did you miss the part where I said "structural steel" ? Maybe you ought to check your facts instead, eh ? I guess you think that all steel is the same and that it all has the same temperature level where all types of steel weaken ? Laughing at you, Bud.

"No radio receivers and detonators or scraps" were found in the rubble, eh. Now I'm really laughing at your ludicrous allegation. I guess because some guys passport was (miraculously) "found" that lots of other stuff should have been found too ?

BTW, as I have pointed out a time or two before, 96% of the western media is owned and/or controlled by Zionists. Suppose radio receivers and detonators were found ? Do you really think the media would have reported it ? Especially after they had already named a patsy for the terrorist act ?

Try again, Bud. I KNOW that you can lie better that that !

Longbob

What is the magic bit about " Structural steel " ? Here is some relevant info. from NIST. :-

wtc.nist.gov...

I appreciate they haven't got your expertise but they point out that the melting point of steel is 2,800 degrees F. The maximum fire temp. was 1800 degrees F which reduced the strength of the " structural steel " to 10 % of it's normal capacity.

So, you admit that there isn't a sliver of evidence to support your charges set off by wireless theory. Not a fragment of a detonater ? not a mangled part of a wireless receiver ? not a single unfired charge ? You might just as well say the big bad wolf blew the towers down for all the evidence you have.

I was sorry to see anti-semitism raising it's head again in your post. What is it with some truthers, not all, and anti-semitism ?

Ah do the maths...

If the buildings has a 2x safety margin (it's higher but I forget exactly what it was so 2x will suffice and work in your favour) then the building losing half it's strength will still hold up because it is still not over it's designed ability to hold it's own weight, 2x which is 50%. If it was a 4x margin it could hold itself at 25% of it's strength.

But regardless it comes back to the 'thermal energy transfer' and how you get thousands of tons of steel to get hot enough to get anywhere close enough to the temperature that will cause it to even lose 50% of it's strength.

The temperature of the fires has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the steel, if you understood thermal (heat) energy transfer this would be obvious. It would take FAR longer than an hour, and heat far in excess of what carbon fuel can supply, to heat up that amount of steel to lose 50% of it's strength. Most of the heat from the fire is lost in the air before it reaches the steel, and then the steel will wick the heat along it's length until the whole of the length of steel is heated equally, only then will the steels temp at the point of direct contact with the fire increase. This will not create enough heat energy to cause failure, and you can test this yourself as has been suggested in these threads many times.

reply to post by Alfie1


Longbob

What is the magic bit about " Structural steel " ? Here is some relevant info. from NIST. :-

wtc.nist.gov...

""I appreciate they haven't got your expertise but they point out that the melting point of steel is 2,800 degrees F. The maximum fire temp. was 1800 degrees F which reduced the strength of the " structural steel " to 10 % of it's normal capacity.

So, you admit that there isn't a sliver of evidence to support your charges set off by wireless theory. Not a fragment of a detonater ? not a mangled part of a wireless receiver ? not a single unfired charge ? You might just as well say the big bad wolf blew the towers down for all the evidence you have.

I was sorry to see anti-semitism raising it's head again in your post. What is it with some truthers, not all, and anti-semitism""

And you do realize the NISt didn't test for explosives ? You do realize the NIST report is a cover-up ?

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

Thermite Use as an Explanation

The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

911research.wtc7.net...

Pools of Molten Metal



It is not easy to “melt” structural steel / iron. (Keep in mind, we're not talking about the temperature at which steel weakens and loses its structural integrity, we're talking about the temperature at which it is literally reduced to a liquid / molten state.)



To date, nobody has suggested the fires on 9/11 reached the required 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit needed to produce molten steel / iron. Why? Because just as steel / iron have a “maximum temperature” they can withstand before turning liquid, a typical building fire has “maximum temperatures” it is capable of producing. NONE of the known fuel sources burning in the buildings on 9/11 could have reached the required threshold.



As a matter of fact, the widely touted culprit of 9/11 (jet fuel) has a maximum burn temperature far lower than what is required to melt steel. (Jet Fuel's maximum burn temperature is less than 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit.) The other fuel sources, (Desks, carpet, paper, etc.) could have reached temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit under ideal conditions. -Closer, but still nowhere near hot enough to create the widely reported "pools of molten steel."



Because it is impossible for temperatures less than the melting point of steel to melt steel, we may reasonably conclude the following:



1) Something that "burns" much hotter than jet fuel, diesel fuel, desks, carpet, paper (and other office and building materials) must have been present (and active) in the WTC buildings; otherwise, there would have been no molten iron. ***Note: Physical samples of the (previously) molten iron have been retrieved from the WTC wreckage; the jury is no longer "out" on whether or not it existed.



2) Whatever was hot enough to create the molten iron was also hot enough to cut through the steel support columns.



3) By deliberately ignoring this "smoking gun" physical evidence, the official account is a demonstrable fraud.

reply to post by MaxBlack


MaxBlack, I think you have gone way overboard in estimating the amount of explosives needed. Extremely tall structures are brought down frequently with less than 1,000 pounds of explosives. So all the explosives used in WTC1 & WTC2 should have taken less than 2 elevator trips to distribute.

While the paper does say nanothermite was found, it does not indicate nanothermite was the primary means to bring down the structures. Nanothermite may have been one small piece of the explosives puzzle. If I remember correctly the paper said that 20 tons of nanothermite may have been used based on how much was found in the dust samples. That is much more than the roughly 500 pounds used to bring down several tall buildings, but the WTC is exceptionally large and that may have been needed.

The explosives could have been planted in such a way that the people planting them did not realize they were planting explosives. For example, they could have believed they were simply painting a thick protective coating on the beams, when in fact it was an explosive compound.

As others have noted, the WTC1 and WTC2 already had very beefy power systems wired through the building. Therefore, its questionable whether a large amount of new wiring would have been needed. Furthermore, radio detonation was also an option as other people have pointed out. The detonators could have been quite tiny if they used for example something similar to a cellphone.

See: www.liveleak.com...
for a building brought down using 350kg(roughly 800Ibs) of explosives.

reply to post by truthquest


I find it funny

That people (OS) say simple fires brought down these buildings .

But when it comes to Demolition , they say you need 100 tonnes to bring them down because the buildings are strong.