Honest question for the 911 conspiracy buffs.

[Azrael]

No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.

1st question:

Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?

I am one of the open minded theorist so I will not claim "that they did in fact do it!"

However they would have had every thing to gain, at least the people at the top who own the big businesses would have.
First you hire a bunch of people not connected in any way with the U.S. Government to carry out the attacks, then you give them free range to carry it out. Even if you have to hire the people that hate you most so they can take credit for it.
This allows both sides to have the war they always wanted, the terrorist just want attention, the business men just want to make money off of war, and they all live happily ever after, since no one would ever be able to prove any of it.
After all the number one rule of all plots is to leave no lose ends.

I think their where explosives set up in the buildings that helped them come down, I think some one knew about the planes ahead of time and put them their. I also think that their where documents in building 7 that some one didn't want to get leaked to the public. As far as I am concerned the buildings where structurally sound and those planes should not have been enough to bring them down, they where designed to survive the natural shifts of an earth quake and the high winds.

The lies and propaganda that lead to the Iraq war only help prove that certain individuals in our government want Imperialism and will do any thing to get it.

The fact that the Right is so dedicated to keeping the poor weak and the people who own them strong shows where our governments loyalties lay.
There are those right wingers who think they are just for trying to extend the bush tax cuts and taking away all forms of aid that FDR fought to help create, the Right wishes to suck the life, liberty, happiness, and equality out of this country for the sake of a lil more coin in their pockets.
This country was started in part do to a Tax,
and if this union bound long ago should ever be severed let it be for the same very reasons it was that established.
Proverbs 28:27 “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.”

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fixed.

:really, really slow and condescending clap:

And yet when I did debate this subject here, with you as a participant. I ran you the fuck over too. because there are a lot of things that can not be explained. Whether you want to fall back on your cognitive dissonance or not. I even offered one of many up here and it went unmatched.

So, laugh it up. The jokes on you.

Before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back show us where you "ran the fuck over me".
You might do that if you could make up your (mind) whether 9/11 was intentional or not. You twofers are all over the board. If Rimjob was on my "side" I would change in a heartbeat. He's a fucking idiot.

I'm not interested in a high school flame war personal attack. I ran you over because you can not provide an explanation for the items like the above regarding the cars in the park across West St. So, explain them and the eye witness testimony. Otherwise, you got ran the fuck over.

Whether or not 9/11 was intentional, is not the issue at hand. Whether you believe Al Qaeda did it or not, the fucking event was intentional. The question is whether we A) know everything about the event and B) if the information we don't know, is sufficient to call for a new investigation.

 

[cooky]

This is what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. The first two photos are of the massive fire that consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Spain. That very large building did not collapse despite the extensive fire damage it received. The fire consumed the steel & concrete tower for 24 hours. The other photos are of the WTC buildings located right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7, yet were still standing...



finally back.I see someone beat me to the punch that there were other buildings closer to bld 7 damaged far more extensive than bld 7 yet THEY remained standing.thats the important fact!! that there were buildings closer with far more extensive damage than bld 7 yet unlike bld 7,did not collapse. as those pics prove,there have been fires in high rise towers far more serious than then ones in the twin towers but for the first time in history,these towers collapsed due to fires even though they were not lit up like a torch like those were.and you cant come back with jet fuel weakened them to make them collapse either because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to have that kind of effect and as i have said many times before on this thread,the towers were designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.

I don't believe much of the official explanation of 9/11 but I also do not believe that there were explosives in the towers. I believe that a combination of impacts and fire brought down the twin towers and that bldg 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage inflicted by the twin towers. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to make me believe that there was a controlled demolition. I understand why certain pieces of circumstantial evidence would lead people to believe that there was controlled demolition however, I have not seen any direct evidence of a controlled demolition nor have I seen any analysis which concludes their was a controlled demolition in what I consider a scientific or academic publication.

Fire resistance issues in the collapse of the WTC towers - NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Role of fire resistance issues in the first ever collapse of a steel framed building - WTC7 - NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions | Browse - Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1 - Irfanoglu - 2010 - Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering - Wiley Online Library

I would really encourage all those interested in the topic to do a google scholar search on the mechanism of collapse for the buildings effected on 9/11. I'm interested in other peoples opinions and am most certainly not one to think our gov't is without sin. That being said, I just don't think there were explosives in any of the buildings

 

[GuyPinestra]

This is what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. The first two photos are of the massive fire that consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Spain. That very large building did not collapse despite the extensive fire damage it received. The fire consumed the steel & concrete tower for 24 hours. The other photos are of the WTC buildings located right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7, yet were still standing...



finally back.I see someone beat me to the punch that there were other buildings closer to bld 7 damaged far more extensive than bld 7 yet THEY remained standing.thats the important fact!! that there were buildings closer with far more extensive damage than bld 7 yet unlike bld 7,did not collapse. as those pics prove,there have been fires in high rise towers far more serious than then ones in the twin towers but for the first time in history,these towers collapsed due to fires even though they were not lit up like a torch like those were.and you cant come back with jet fuel weakened them to make them collapse either because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to have that kind of effect and as i have said many times before on this thread,the towers were designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.

I don't believe much of the official explanation of 9/11 but I also do not believe that there were explosives in the towers. I believe that a combination of impacts and fire brought down the twin towers and that bldg 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage inflicted by the twin towers. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to make me believe that there was a controlled demolition. I understand why certain pieces of circumstantial evidence would lead people to believe that there was controlled demolition however, I have not seen any direct evidence of a controlled demolition nor have I seen any analysis which concludes their was a controlled demolition in what I consider a scientific or academic publication.

Fire resistance issues in the collapse of the WTC towers*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Role of fire resistance issues in the first ever collapse of a steel framed building - WTC7*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions | Browse - Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1 - Irfanoglu - 2010 - Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering - Wiley Online Library

I would really encourage all those interested in the topic to do a google scholar search on the mechanism of collapse for the buildings effected on 9/11. I'm interested in other peoples opinions and am most certainly not one to think our gov't is without sin. That being said, I just don't think there were explosives in any of the buildings

If there were no explosives, how do you explain the eyewitness testimony of dozens of firemen who saw, heard and felt the explosions?

 

[candycorn]

I don't believe much of the official explanation of 9/11 but I also do not believe that there were explosives in the towers. I believe that a combination of impacts and fire brought down the twin towers and that bldg 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage inflicted by the twin towers. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to make me believe that there was a controlled demolition. I understand why certain pieces of circumstantial evidence would lead people to believe that there was controlled demolition however, I have not seen any direct evidence of a controlled demolition nor have I seen any analysis which concludes their was a controlled demolition in what I consider a scientific or academic publication.

Fire resistance issues in the collapse of the WTC towers*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Role of fire resistance issues in the first ever collapse of a steel framed building - WTC7*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions | Browse - Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1 - Irfanoglu - 2010 - Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering - Wiley Online Library

I would really encourage all those interested in the topic to do a google scholar search on the mechanism of collapse for the buildings effected on 9/11. I'm interested in other peoples opinions and am most certainly not one to think our gov't is without sin. That being said, I just don't think there were explosives in any of the buildings

If there were no explosives, how do you explain the eyewitness testimony of dozens of firemen who saw, heard and felt the explosions?

Are you stupid? You can have explosions without explosives. If you don't believe me, put a can of Coke in the microwave and turn it on.

No fireman saw explosives; just explosions which are almost expected in multi-alarm fires.

Now that you're red herrings have been done away with; please explain the following:

1. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the North Tower
2. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the South Tower
3. How none of the explosives were thrown clear of the impact of Flights 11 and 175
4. How none of the seemingly impossible-not-to-disloge explosives (and thusly didn't explode) were not found in the wreckage.
5. How none of the tons from Ground Zero that was taken to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island revealed any sort of explosive residue
6. How explosives could have been planted in the buildings with nobody noticing
7. How none of the extensive work to be done to plant explosives interrupted any of the daily activities of the employees in a manner that would be conistent with such a massive wiring job.
8. To do a controlled demolition, one would have to get to the structural steel of the building. This would mean sawing through floors, conduit, etc... Moving (at the very minimum) filing cabinets, desks, workstations, etc... Rerouting telecommunication, plumbing, utility, electircal... Can you explain why none of the thousands upon thousands of workers reported any such unexplained movements, interruptions in services?
9. Can you explain why, in the light of the War Powers Act being at the President's disposal, the "government" would add such an impossible task to their inbox of things to do? The tallest controlled demolition in history was a building of about 400 feet in height. Your contention is that "the government" decided they wanted to wire not one, but two buildings (possibly three if your pronounced insanity is also for building 7) for controlled demolition. Can you explain why they would add this needless planting of explosives to their to-do list when planes hitting them would have been cause enough?
10. Can you explain why the explosives did not get set off by the fires that burned for upwards of 90 minutes?

I'm sure you'll run from these questions too. Afterall, you did the same thing when I nailed your ass about the Pentagon.

Have fun.

 

[eots]

If there were no explosives, how do you explain the eyewitness testimony of dozens of firemen who saw, heard and felt the explosions?

Are you stupid? You can have explosions without explosives. If you don't believe me, put a can of Coke in the microwave and turn it on.

No fireman saw explosives; just explosions which are almost expected in multi-alarm fires.

Now that you're red herrings have been done away with; please explain the following:

[

1. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the North Tower
2. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the South Tower
3. How none of the explosives were thrown clear of the impact of Flights 11 and 175
4. How none of the seemingly impossible-not-to-disloge explosives (and thusly didn't explode) were not found in the wreckage.
5. How none of the tons from Ground Zero that was taken to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island revealed any sort of explosive residue
6. How explosives could have been planted in the buildings with nobody noticing
7. How none of the extensive work to be done to plant explosives interrupted any of the daily activities of the employees in a manner that would be conistent with such a massive wiring job.
8. To do a controlled demolition, one would have to get to the structural steel of the building. This would mean sawing through floors, conduit, etc... Moving (at the very minimum) filing cabinets, desks, workstations, etc... Rerouting telecommunication, plumbing, utility, electircal... Can you explain why none of the thousands upon thousands of workers reported any such unexplained movements, interruptions in services?
9. Can you explain why, in the light of the War Powers Act being at the President's disposal, the "government" would add such an impossible task to their inbox of things to do? The tallest controlled demolition in history was a building of about 400 feet in height. Your contention is that "the government" decided they wanted to wire not one, but two buildings (possibly three if your pronounced insanity is also for building 7) for controlled demolition. Can you explain why they would add this needless planting of explosives to their to-do list when planes hitting them would have been cause enough?
10. Can you explain why the explosives did not get set off by the fires that burned for upwards of 90 minutes?

I'm sure you'll run from these questions too. Afterall, you did the same thing when I nailed your ass about the Pentagon.

Have fun.

there was never any testing for explosive residue

 

[eots]

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I don't believe much of the official explanation of 9/11 but I also do not believe that there were explosives in the towers. I believe that a combination of impacts and fire brought down the twin towers and that bldg 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage inflicted by the twin towers. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to make me believe that there was a controlled demolition. I understand why certain pieces of circumstantial evidence would lead people to believe that there was controlled demolition however, I have not seen any direct evidence of a controlled demolition nor have I seen any analysis which concludes their was a controlled demolition in what I consider a scientific or academic publication.

Fire resistance issues in the collapse of the WTC towers*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Role of fire resistance issues in the first ever collapse of a steel framed building - WTC7*-*NRC Publications - Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions | Browse - Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1 - Irfanoglu - 2010 - Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering - Wiley Online Library

I would really encourage all those interested in the topic to do a google scholar search on the mechanism of collapse for the buildings effected on 9/11. I'm interested in other peoples opinions and am most certainly not one to think our gov't is without sin. That being said, I just don't think there were explosives in any of the buildings

If there were no explosives, how do you explain the eyewitness testimony of dozens of firemen who saw, heard and felt the explosions?

Its called living in denial. You dont even have to be an architect or engineer "whom over a thousand of these credible experts dont accept the collapse of, or the testimony of firefighters experienced in the sound of explosives, neither." you dont have to be one of those to know explosives brought the towers down.thats the first thing you learn about in junior high school science classe is about the laws of physics which were violated that day.

jet fuel fires oxygen starved like these were as proven by the pics showing black smoke emitting, indicating the fires were not serious at all,they dont cause a towers beams to weaken and collapse like that at free fall speed no less.thats something every kid learns in junior high at that age. and jet fuel fires dont melt steel either,they dont get hot enough to do so.So there is no explanation for the molten pools of metal and all the steel completely gone unless high grade explosives were used.

No high grade military thermite was used either and all those witnsses were just lying making up tales about being thrown upwards from blasts in the basement as well and they just faked all those burns and made up all those stories about explosives coming from the basement as well even though the films show them merging out of the ground floor minutes after the plane struck getting ready to go to the hospital.They faked their scarred burns amazingly somehow,made up stories about explosives in the basement,and just went to the hospital all for attention.okay,gotcha..great logic there.yep no explosives.

Sorry I know enough of the true facts to know all that crap posted is propaganda.Also none of those ramblings counters any of the facts about bld 7 or Barry Jennings testimony.the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission Bush dupes cant get around.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

open and shut case that explosives brought the towers down.Not to mention Nist was caught lying saying they found no evidence of molten steel. oh really?





yep,NIST and the government did an honest investigation into this and had our best interests at heart here,yep,NIST was right,no molten steel found at the site.

 

[daws101]

It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.

that is a much more interesting topic than arguing about where wtc7 is located in conjunction with expressions of "blocks away".

These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.

there are no physics related anomalies just wrong and bias interpretations of it!......like these:Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
9/11 Anomalies
A Priory of Science
etc...
all wrong all specious, inconclusive make believe!

This doesn't explain my initial post at all. Care to address the cars and testimony from the park across west st. from the verizon building? Or are you building yourself a strawman to hide your incompetence?

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics

the only incompetence I see is yours, what evidence do you have for any other explanation....none

 

[daws101]

9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.

Anyone that would make such statements is clearly the person that has lost touch with reality and is suffering mentally

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

describes the guy in your clip perfectly

 

[daws101]

someone farted in here.

handjob bellowed to no one..

 

[daws101]

Are you stupid? You can have explosions without explosives. If you don't believe me, put a can of Coke in the microwave and turn it on.

No fireman saw explosives; just explosions which are almost expected in multi-alarm fires.

Now that you're red herrings have been done away with; please explain the following:

[

1. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the North Tower
2. How no explosives were disloged by the impact of the plane on the South Tower
3. How none of the explosives were thrown clear of the impact of Flights 11 and 175
4. How none of the seemingly impossible-not-to-disloge explosives (and thusly didn't explode) were not found in the wreckage.
5. How none of the tons from Ground Zero that was taken to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island revealed any sort of explosive residue
6. How explosives could have been planted in the buildings with nobody noticing
7. How none of the extensive work to be done to plant explosives interrupted any of the daily activities of the employees in a manner that would be conistent with such a massive wiring job.
8. To do a controlled demolition, one would have to get to the structural steel of the building. This would mean sawing through floors, conduit, etc... Moving (at the very minimum) filing cabinets, desks, workstations, etc... Rerouting telecommunication, plumbing, utility, electircal... Can you explain why none of the thousands upon thousands of workers reported any such unexplained movements, interruptions in services?
9. Can you explain why, in the light of the War Powers Act being at the President's disposal, the "government" would add such an impossible task to their inbox of things to do? The tallest controlled demolition in history was a building of about 400 feet in height. Your contention is that "the government" decided they wanted to wire not one, but two buildings (possibly three if your pronounced insanity is also for building 7) for controlled demolition. Can you explain why they would add this needless planting of explosives to their to-do list when planes hitting them would have been cause enough?
10. Can you explain why the explosives did not get set off by the fires that burned for upwards of 90 minutes?

I'm sure you'll run from these questions too. Afterall, you did the same thing when I nailed your ass about the Pentagon.

Have fun.

there was never any testing for explosive residue

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvbyE8PVRA]9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth - YouTube[/ame]

NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[75] The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse.[48]

NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[75]

[edit] ReactionsThe structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][79][page needed]

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[80] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[81]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Det cord has a detonation velocity higher than that of TNT (about 1.6 times the power of TNT by mass). The detonation velocity of det cord (PETN) is 8,400 meters per second which makes it a rather powerful high-explosive. One of the most powerful. It is also very stable with medium range friction sensitivity and traits make it useful in the demolitions industry. With a relative effectiveness factor of 1.66, it is very useful to the industry, in fact.

You will notice in Steven Jones’ new paper, that he isn’t capable of producing an estimate for the detonation velocity of the “thermitic material” he is studying. That’s odd isn’t it? Because detonation velocity is very important in this application; demolition.

Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research « American Everyman

 

[LA RAM FAN]

four farts in a row from the angry troll.

congrats dawgshit.

 

[daws101]

four farts in a row from the angry troll.

congrats dawgshit.

handjob's 40th birthday party

 

[candycorn]

four farts in a row from the angry troll.

congrats dawgshit.

handjob's 40th birthday party

Actually from the picture he posted of himself you're not that far off. Scary. Good thing he doesn't vote or breed.

 

[daws101]

four farts in a row from the angry troll.

congrats dawgshit.

handjob's 40th birthday party

Actually from the picture he posted of himself you're not that far off. Scary. Good thing he doesn't vote or breed.

that's not what his sister say's

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.

that is a much more interesting topic than arguing about where wtc7 is located in conjunction with expressions of "blocks away".

there are no physics related anomalies just wrong and bias interpretations of it!......like these:Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
9/11 Anomalies
A Priory of Science
etc...
all wrong all specious, inconclusive make believe!

This doesn't explain my initial post at all. Care to address the cars and testimony from the park across west st. from the verizon building? Or are you building yourself a strawman to hide your incompetence?

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics

the only incompetence I see is yours, what evidence do you have for any other explanation....none

Your links, yet again, do not address this. they try desperately to marginalize, but don't explain with coherence.

At any rate, you're a fucking tool shed...minus any tools. Good luck with that,

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And this is why it is pointless. you have a bunch of these:

Trying to explain things that are way over their head. It's futile. Especially on the intertron.

 

[eots]

there was never any testing for explosive residue

9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth - YouTube[/QUOTE


]NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[75] The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse.[48]

NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[75]

[edit] ReactionsThe structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][79][page needed]

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[80] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[81]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Det cord has a detonation velocity higher than that of TNT (about 1.6 times the power of TNT by mass). The detonation velocity of det cord (PETN) is 8,400 meters per second which makes it a rather powerful high-explosive. One of the most powerful. It is also very stable with medium range friction sensitivity and traits make it useful in the demolitions industry. With a relative effectiveness factor of 1.66, it is very useful to the industry, in fact.

You will notice in Steven Jones’ new paper, that he isn’t capable of producing an estimate for the detonation velocity of the “thermitic material” he is studying. That’s odd isn’t it? Because detonation velocity is very important in this application; demolition.

Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research « American Everyman

so where is cuntycorns claimed testing for explosive residue ???????