[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Source? No source that I've seen shows the composition of any molten metal in either direction. How has aluminum been ruled out?

The colour of molten aluminum and the color of the molten metal and the reported temperatures don't match up. You can't have one without the other being affected and the two variables never meet.

The photos I've seen from Jone's paper ...

Interesting. The photographic evidence always seems to be discounted by those who are trying to debunk any theory as to why thinks happened on 9/11. Thankfully Jones' paper is not based solely on some photographic evidence and uses other data, verified in the lab, so state his case. As to his work, his peer reviewers seem to disagree with you and your opinion.

Sure thermite would produce molten metal ...

Those byproducts you speak of are also the result of thermite being used. Your attempt to discredit the use of thermite by saying that these by products can be produced naturally doesn't fly. The by products support the potential for thermite being used just as much as it does that it doesn't. That is an obfuscation defense. Sure, those by products could form naturally, but there would have to be a whole string of coincidences for that possibly to exist. I can see why you like that defense, as it perfectly aligns with everything else in the "official story". All the evidence in the world to the contrary is just "a coincidence". Conditions have to be perfect for those by products to develop. Sure, its possible they formed naturally, but that doesn't explain away the other evidence that suggests the demolition (the angular cuts in the support columns, the consistency in the length of the columns, the way the cement was pulverized into a fine powder, etc.).

Scholars for 911 have their own problems...

And these two links prove what exactly? That BYU, an ultra-conservative pro-Republican university, is suspending a professor for speaking on something they did not want spoken on? That the "conservatives" can be just as whacky in developing their own conspiracy theories as the "liberals"? The only thing it proves is that the conservative approach to making matters go away is to attack the individual, not the actual thought and science behind it. Frankly, if NIST and the 9/11 Commission did their job in the first place, Jones wouldn't have a voice or an axe to grind.

Some shots of the fires with smoke:

Links don't work, I get nothing but ascii code.

Videos can be decieving though.. Here are accounts from firefighters (this is their trade) at the scene...

You'll have to give me time to go through each individual's testimony from the NYC study completed right after the events. It'll take some time though. None of this data is online anymore, but I did save copies of all of the testimony before it was restricted. This does not jibe with the information I read from what I recall. I'll seach for each of the people listed and get back to you on this testimony.

As for the damage, the damage to the single corner was 18 stories tall (as shown in a Police Dept photo). The newer report says WTC7 was more damaged than the FEMA report indicated...

Interesting stuff. Nice contradictory testimony though. For the building to collapse it would have required the central core to have been destroyed. The exterior fascia is not foing to cause a major collapse.

My point is if it is code to do something, there's a reason to do it. That reason is fires of only office contents can and have compromised the structure of a steel building.

And the contents of a building do not burn with the intensity to generate the heat suggested. It would have taken days for the fires to cause the damage suggested.

Every modern steel-framed skyscraper that has been subjected to these three interdependant conditions has collapsed: 1) Severe structural damage 2) Damage to the thermal protection 3) Numerous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.

Bull****. There never has been an incident like you suggest, not even on 9/11. All three variables did NOT happen to each and every building and in to the extent you suggest. The whole thermal protection theory is the 9/11 Commission/NIST Resport's magic bullet. All of this happened because the thermal protection shook loose. Another unbeilevable coincidence!

The often talked about Madrid Windsor Building fire had the unprotected steel fail due to fire (though the concrete core still stood; the new WTC7 has a concrete core as opposed to steel core, and has very thick fire resistant coatings on its structural steel).

After burning for 36 hours, and the structure NEVER collapsed!!! Have you seen the pictures from this fire?







And here is the aftermath.



Oh look, it didn't collapse!!! Not even having every single floor completely burned away did the structure collapse. Oh, and look up top. That's the construction crane still standing. The crane, a steel structure with NO fireproofing at all, remianed in tact and standing after being subjected to an inferno that raged on for over a day.

NIST's final report on WTC7 is due out in 2007, so we have to wait until then for the final

Well, if its half as good and near as concise as the first one, it will worthy of being a door stop! But I agree, lets wait and see what they have to say. I must say, it is strange that the WTC reports came out in no time, but WTC7 is taking six years to write? This one must be a page turner!!!

No comment on the EOC stuff, haven't read anything about that before. Though a coincidence isn't evidence.

It's not A coincidence, its a SERIES of coincidences. This series of coincidences don't add up. It is sooooooooo against SOP to not use your EOC, especially when it is right on site. Gulliani has never been able to explain why he made the decision to go to a different location, he just did. Wow, what a stroke of luck! Imagine what would have happened if that temporary FEMA EOC wasn't available??? Unthinkable!

That's what I was saying, that 130 Liberty had very few fires and had little if any structural damage due to fires (sorry, I wasn't implying that the small fires had still caused it to need to be taken down, my sentence wasn't clear).

The building did not collapse and the building wasn't damaged as part of the attack or the demolition of the towers. This building is irrelevant. It's smoke and mirrors used to obfuscate the facts.

Hadn't seen that about the mold problem though, that's interesting. I haven't been able to find that on the EPA site though.

Doesn't matter to my point though, I was just trying to show that fires with office contents only are sufficient to compromise structural steel. There's tons of info on it.

There's no info on it because it has never happened before. Fires generated from office products do not generate enough heat to cause a collapse. It's never happened and likely never will.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/demolish_deco...0wbroadway.htm

According to that info the building was gutted and being rehabed, not demoed. It was almost finished being completely rehabilitated, including removing asbestos, when 911 happened. It was due to damage from WTC7 that the building is being demolished.

And that the building was in the process of being demolished or not doesn't change the amount of damage it took from WTC7.

I don't see how I missed any mark.

It is the intent of CUNY and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York to first abate and decontaminate the building and then demolish it. The plan is to replace the building with a new classroom building similar in size to Fiterman Hall.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the demolition of buildings that have hazardous products in them, but what is described is SOP. If the building has asbestos as insulation or fireproofing, and the building is earmarked for demolition it (the material) must be completely removed before the shell can come down. It had always been the intention of CUNY to have the building gutted, destroyed, and a new building erected in its place. The demolition of the building was NOT a result of anything to do with 9/11. This is another red herring that is meant to give validity to the every growing legend about the damage to/from WTC7.