This site is the best source of facts that I have found.

To all the loyal Bush administration followers, we have lost the war on terror, as Americans loss their jobs, homes, life long savings. We have more fear in our hearts now than prior to 9/11. That is a direct result of bad decisions based on lies.

I said in 2003 Iraq was a mistake for various reasons and I continue with that thought today. I feel sorry for people who are born into a free thinking society and have no power over their on thoughts. The media is not the GOD of information; rather form a way of thinking if you allow it to happen. They certainly let the USA and the world down before and after 9/11 they are suppose to be the defenders of truth, not form believe systems and sway public thought.

Shame on you who watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news and believe they have clear understanding of the world.

Excuse my confusing “thermite” with “thermate” in suggesting you said the latter was used in controlled demolitions. “Thermate”, according to Jones, is the military patended formula. Yes, one of the two additives is Barium. I also forget the other.

When you find the video or other evidence to support your claim that thermite is used or has been used for known demolitions, please let me know. I don’t recall seeing Jones prove this in any of the videos I’ve seen him in.

I agree with you that the speed of the collapse is compelling. If there’s a “smoking gun” that the buildings were purposely brought down, I’d say that is it.

Take the recent NIST report on WTC 7. It explains how it might have been possible for a progressive collapse to occur, but does NOT explain how, if that was indeed the case, it occurred so rapidly in WTC 7.

Go to their website and check out the videos they have showing their computer models of the collapse. There’s an itty-bitty problem. The models look quite like they should for a fire-induced progressive collapse; they look NOTHING like the actual collapse of the building you can see on a number of videos.

On the “squibs”, I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with you; there’s just too much speculation involved either way, so I don’t really have anything to add. I prefer to stay in the realm of things where so much speculation isn’t involved.

You said: “What I mean is that you can see the structure collapsing ahead of the demolition “wave””

I presume you mean you can see the “demolition ‘wave’” ahead of the collapsing structure?

Yes, the importance of WTC 7 is great indeed. I agree. I just meant that 1 and 2 collapsed from the top down, while 7 went from the bottom.

On the buckling columns you can see, you say “that ilustrates a consequence, not a cause.” Perhaps. But to say that, you’ve got to prove explosives took out the core.

“Yirmeyahu” is the Hebrew origin of my name. Yirmeyahu, Jeremiah, Jeremy. See my about page.

You say,

“On Jones’ argument that thermate was used, I have little to add to what I said previously.

I noted that Jones’ argument is that thermate was used, but that controlled demolitions don’t use thermate. You said they do. I don’t believe you are correct, and if you want to convince me otherwise, you’ll have to source your claim. A single documented example would be sufficient.”

No, I said thermite is used for demolition. Jones talks about this at length. One of the many 911 documentaries, which you’ve probably seen, even has a scene where a demolition expert using thermite to make the 45 degree cuts explains how they make the building “walk” in the direction they want by using this technique. If I find it again I’ll send you the link. But the Jones videos provide examples of thermite use. He suggests that thermate (thermite plus sulfur, potassium permanganate, and other goodies including barium, I think) may have been used for the same purpose. But the thermite use is common and well documented. As you point out though, finding particular element combinations is not necessarily significant. But I’d point out that if you find flakes which are iron oxide on one side and aluminum on the other and which ignite violently (as has Jones, might want to check on the elements/compounds), there’s reason for suspicion.

Although the engineering calculations for whatever happened inside the building are undoubtedly mind-boggling, the calculations for free fall alone are not difficult. Go to your favorite college physics book and enter the values in the formula for free fall. Then look up “terminal velocity” to take into account air friction. The difference in time must be accounted for by all other resistance. That reduces the question to whether this difference in time is large enough to be believable. I think this is what makes this such salient evidence.

The part of this theory which I find far-fetched is that the implementation of such a plan would be difficult, not so its connection to the ultimate result if it had indeed been implemented. Jones calculates that it would have taken a small group of men about 10 trips each with 40 pounds of material each to carry enough explosives to do the job. Admittedly, that is only the beginning.

Regarding the “top experts”, when I said that it isn’t necessarily so that only top experts in controlled demolition could carry this out what I meant was that whoever did this was trained in the destructive part, but probably wasn’t as well-trained in all the safety preparations, which would include all kinds of logistics for say, evacuations. Safety procedures would also include accounting for the ballistics of the flying debris. It would even include climatic variables (such demolitions should not be carried out on overcast days with a low cloud ceiling due to the propagation of the shock wave, for example, and I don’t think 911 would have been called off for bad weather). What I’m getting at is that whoever would have done this could do without half the training an expert in that profession would need for matters beyond destruction. But I’ve no doubt they would be top experts in their profession, which probably had nothing to do with safety.

“But you’ve got to take into account the compression of air resulting from the total collapse occuring above the floors where these “squibs” appear. All that compressed air had to go somewhere. I think if these were “squibs”, we’d see a lot more of them.”
The same applies to the compressed air theory, we’d see many more blown out windows. It also doesn’t explain why the compressed air would blow out windows far below the collapse before shattering those closer to it. The “explosives” theory would, because the whole idea is to do away with resistance far in advance.

“I can only presume you are referring to the 3 or 4 “squibs” that can be seen in several videos. First of all, let me make the point by saying that if you don’t believe that the planes destroying a great number of the outer columns could result in their failure, then how do you explain that these limited “explosions”, assuming that’s what they were, resulted in their collapse? The damage from the planes was incomparably more significant than the presumed damage from these limited “squibs”.”

That last sentence signifies an assumption that the squibs seen would represent the totality of the explosives used. We don’t know that, and if explosives were indeed used inside the assumption is more tenuous even. Furthermore, even if that is true, a lot of destruction in one place at random is not necessarily more devastating that a little destruction in precisely the right place. Think karate.

“You say load-bearing columns failed far below the point of impact. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. You can watch the progressive collapse of the towers initiated from the point of impact in pretty much every single video of the event. (This is quite different from the collapse of WTC 7).”
What I mean is that you can see the structure collapsing ahead of the demolition “wave”; let’s not take WTC7 out of the hypothesis. And yes, WTC7’s absence of a plane altogether is a big thing. If there was foul play there (there’s a cheesy turn of phrase for ya) it is more likely that the same was the case for the towers.

“Moreover, the video shows conclusively that the outer columns, rather than being cut with explosives, buckled and failed under the load. That’s irrefutable, and a point worth reiterating.”
Yes. And I reiterate that that illustrates a consequence, not a cause. Those columns where not what was counteracting the downward force of the building, for the most part. The inner core did that.

“Also, the prevailing theory is that it was thermate, not RDX type explosives, so this is also a contradiction in the demolitions theory that needs to be reconciled by its proponents.”
Concentrating on the evidence for the use of one does not exclude the possibility for the other having been used (or similar materials). No one has excluded other explosives, as far as I know. A contradiction would come into being only if the proponents where arguing for the exclusion of such explosives from the equation.

I went to your website. What is “Yirmeyahu”?

All best.

First, let me say that I appreciate being able to discuss such a controversial topic in a reasonable and constructive manner with someone.

You say load-bearing columns failed far below the point of impact. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. You can watch the progressive collapse of the towers initiated from the point of impact in pretty much every single video of the event. (This is quite different from the collapse of WTC 7).

You agree with me that there is no evidence of explosives in the video I linked to showing the buckling of the outer columns at the initiation of the global collapse, but say “there are plenty of examples to be found of videos comparing the ’squib’ patterns in controlled demolition with (very) similar patterns in the WTC.”

In a controlled demolition, there are a great many explosive “squibs” that can be seen. Every video I’ve seen of controlled demolitions to compare has shown this. The videos you speak of point to a small handful of puffs of air and debris blowing out of the side of the building very rapidly. But you’ve got to take into account the compression of air resulting from the total collapse occuring above the floors where these “squibs” appear. All that compressed air had to go somewhere. I think if these were “squibs”, we’d see a lot more of them. Also, the prevailing theory is that it was thermate, not RDX type explosives, so this is also a contradiction in the demolitions theory that needs to be reconciled by its proponents.

You make the point that the collapse must have involved near instantaneous failure in the core columns and not only the outer ones. I’ve noted irrefutable video proof that the outer columns initially failed not from explosives, but from the load. You rightly noted that this might have theoretically been from the failure of the core due to explosives. But the models from NIST’s investigations of WTC 7 show that a progressive collapse initiated by the failure of a single column could result in a very rapid global failure of the core, followed by a virtually simultaneous failure of the perimeter columns.

I’m with you on being skeptical of the speed of the collapse, but I’m not capable of doing the calculations necessary to dispute the physics based models used. If anyone with the knowledge and skill to do so can do so, believe me, I’m all ears.

You repeat my statement with different emphasis: “What you don’t see in THIS video is explosives destroying the outer columns.” The implication is that there are other videos showing the destruction of outer columns by explosives.

I can only presume you are referring to the 3 or 4 “squibs” that can be seen in several videos. First of all, let me make the point by saying that if you don’t believe that the planes destroying a great number of the outer columns could result in their failure, then how do you explain that these limited “explosions”, assuming that’s what they were, resulted in their collapse? The damage from the planes was incomparably more significant than the presumed damage from these limited “squibs”.

Moreover, the video shows conclusively that the outer columns, rather than being cut with explosives, buckled and failed under the load. That’s irrefutable, and a point worth reiterating.

On Jones’ argument that thermate was used, I have little to add to what I said previously.

I noted that Jones’ argument is that thermate was used, but that controlled demolitions don’t use thermate. You said they do. I don’t believe you are correct, and if you want to convince me otherwise, you’ll have to source your claim. A single documented example would be sufficient.

The link you provides shows Jones saying Iron, Oxygen, Potassium, Aluminum, and Silicon was found in samples of debris. Okay. What does this prove? These are common naturally occuring elements that could easily be explained without having to conclude that thermite (or thermate, he’s not consistent in that) was used.

On the feasability of planting explosives, I’ll concede that it’s an open question, just as you concede the question of its plausibility is “a really tough one”.

The destruction of the evidence — I’m sure you’ll agree — was a crime in and of itself, and highly suspicious.

Yes, when I said you would need top experts, I meant to execute the controlled demolition of one of the tallest skyscrapers in the world. I don’t know why you say this is “not really” so. Controlled demolitions is a highly specialized trade performed by a very limited number of companies with the technical and scientific expertise to be able to safely pull them off.

You agree with me that “it becomes far-fetched” when one follows through the logic if we assume explosives were used. I similarly agree with you that “the official theory is also far-fetched.” Neither explanation makes full sense to me, which is why I said I’ve been kind of playing devil’s advocate and that I haven’t been convinced one way or the other.

You said, “In addition to all this, your article shows eloquently that there are huge conspiracies (in the true sense, without the ‘wacko’ nuance) happening all the time, with many important people involved. Truth can be stranger than fiction.”

I take that as a huge compliment, since demonstrating just that was my intention, so thank you. And point well taken. I of course agree with you.

Thanks for giving me the time cues for what you want me to see in the second video. I’m quite familiar with this and other such shots of the collapses, and the argument that these are “squibs”, as I addressed above.

The video also shows the well-known photo of the column that appears to have been cut at an angle. I see this photo all the time, but it could simply be that workers went in and cut this, along with any number of other columns that remained standing after the collapse. You question why they would cut it at an angle, but the answer is the same as the reason they do it that in controlled demolitions — to control the direction of the column as it comes down.

Yes, I’m familiar with Jim Hoffman’s website, 911research.wtc7.net. He actually links to my website here: http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/foreknowlege.html (though that link is outdated and broken and though I emailed him to update it that hasn’t occurred.)

I appreciate your final paragraph immensely. I think you’ve understood me very well, and I’m happy that you don’t seem to have mistaken any of my points or arguments. I want to reiterate that I don’t think it’s a waste of time — it’s certainly an important topic to investigate — but you are correct that I just think focusing too much on this one issue detracts from other areas, and not isn’t effective at getting through to people who regard the very question as ridiculous conspiracy theorizing.

To illustrate, you can’t point to mainstream media sources saying explosives brought the buildings down. But there are a hundred other ways to approach the many facets of the crime of 9/11 documented in sources people are willing to lend credence to. For instance, you can point to Dawn, The Times of India, Agence-France Presse, the Guardian, and the Times of London to show people that the allegation that Mahmud Ahmed financed the attacks isn’t a “conspiracy theory”. Etc…

to get a better understanding, but don’t EVER EVER EVER minimize this event. It’s implications are huge and the legacy of 911 is more war, less freedom, and tyranny.

Thanks for your response. I address some of your observations:

“…the loss of load-bearing columns from the plane impact, along with the weaking of structural elements from the fire could also result in the collapse we see.”

The impact didn’t lead to the loss of the core load-bearing columns far below the point of impact, and yet, this would have had to be the case in order for the the collapse to happen at the speed and with the homogeneity it did.

“There is no evidence of explosives in the video.”
There is no evidence of explosives in THIS video. But there are plenty of examples to be found of videos comparing the “squib” patterns in controlled demolition with (very) similar patterns in the WTC. And this is just one characteristic. I believe Jones shows some of these, actually.

“We know the floors in the building were failing, because people trapped inside calling loved ones reported the groaning and collapse sounds.”
Others reported explosion sounds. The firemen reported explosion sounds in a pattern consistent with controlled demolition.

“The columns bear the load, but without the floors, columns have no lateral support, and failure occurs. A single initial failure could result in a rapid progressive collapse of the core, in turn leading to what we see in the video, the total simultaneous failure of all the outer columns.”
I see what you’re saying, but the speed and homogeneity of this collapse could not have involved a “rapid progressive collapse” of the core, it would have had to be almost instantaneous at all failure points in the core columns, not only the outer ones, so as to offer practically no resistance. Or so goes the counterargument. Apparently, the energy does not add up when you don’t consider an external source.

“What you DON’T see in the video is explosives destroying the outer columns.”
What you don’t see in THIS video is explosives destroying the outer columns.

“… some of the elements [Steven Jones] says show that thermate was used could be otherwise explained, such as the presence of sulfer, which would have been found in the sheetrock that made up the interior office walls, etc.”
It’s not only the presence of sulfur, it’s the combination of sulfur and other elements that lead him to deduce thermate may have been used.

“Also, thermate is not used for controlled demolitions. One might argue that it COULD be, but how are you even going to attach it to the columns? Whatever you use to hold it there is going to get melted through before the column ever does and there goes your plan. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Thermite is used for this purpose. Technicians use a device to allow cutting columns at a 45 degree angle at two points. This way they can control lateral motion in the ensuing fall. There are materials which can withstand such temperatures, probably ceramics do. Jones has found what is apparently unspent thermite in his samples, which appears to be corroborated by others. It behaves (ignites) as such:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en

“Moreover, assuming bombs or thermate devices were in the building, how did they get there? Setting up a building like WTC for controlled demolition would be an absolutely enormous undertaking. One could argue that it could be done, but without anyone noticing?”
That’s a really tough one. One thing to keep in mind is that a large portion of the time used in preparation for controlled demolition is spent salvaging material to be used/recycled, and on safety. This wouldn’t have been the case here. Admittedly, this still leaves a huge operation, but it doesn’t need to be done all at once. In addition, there are reports of entire floors being closed to the public for months, and of work being done in the elevators months before the date. Controlled demolition in-one-go is not used in buildings this big. One of the videos on this (in 9-11 Research, I believe) suggests that in order to bring down the whole building, it was “cut” into sections by preparing it more thoroughly at the floors closed and elsewhere. I think theories on both sides of the argument are implausible (see below).

“And you would need a top expert .” [in controlled demolition, presumably]

Actually, not really. Top experts would probably be people who could ensure the safety of the surroundings and inhabitants. These were probably top experts in destruction (and undercover operations if the hypothesis is correct) who used demolition techniques this time around. But I doubt they could go, say, into business in demolitions successfully. Too messy.

“If you follow through with the argument that explosives were used, it just begins to get to the point where the plausibility of the thing becomes quite doubtful.”
I agree that it becomes far-fetched. But the offcial theory is also far-fetched. I looked at a video in the NIST site you mention. One of the experts says that the conditions for such a structural failure and collapse to happen due to fire are extremely rare. And yet, we are to believe that these conditions were met three times in the same day?

In addition to all this, your article shows eloquently that there are huge conspiracies (in the true sense, without the “wacko” nuance) happening all the time, with many important people involved. Truth can be stranger than fiction.

While writing this I googled for pictures of the squibs, cut columns etc. Here’s an example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3873474711036143711&hl=en

Here’s a few cues to save you the horror of listening to all that cheesy music:
[cut column: 8:05; squibs: 7:02, 7:17; thermite residue: 7:46; 45-degree cut: 8:30]

Surely there is no doubt that those columns with the 45-angle top have been cut. I’ve heard arguments that those had been cut after the event, to transport the pieces away. But cutting at a 45-degree angle takes more time/ material, why would they do that if they have cranes and bulldozers all over the place to help?

There are engineers on both sides of the argument, see (I’m sure you have, but here for your readers in case they haven’t)

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

I believe that you’re absolutely right in pointing out that excessive attention to this topic might detract energy from other areas which also need to be addressed, though. And I think you’re right in saying that concentrating on this idea may be counterproductive because those with opposing views can too easily dismiss its advocates as weirdos. There’s probably a “critical mass” past which that will cease to be the case. Maybe. Perhaps alternative topics of importance re: 9/11 should indeed occupy their appropriate place in these discussions. I’m sure they will if people become more familiar with them. So keep writing!

When it became clear Iraq was their next target, how many who opposed it did so by talking about the towers? Was not a better approach to simply demonstrate how they were lying about every single aspect of their case for war?

Iran has been in their sights, and the war drums continue to beat ever louder. Some argue that this is just psyops intended to intimidate Iran into submission, but should we dismiss the threat? And how shall we approach the matter of the U.S. government or its policeman on the block Israel threatening to bomb Iran? Shall we sit here and debate how the towers came down? Should I try to prevent this from happening by approaching my neighbors and trying to convince them that explosives were used to bring the buildings down? Because most people — no matter how much evidence you have to prove that — are just not going to hear it. What they will hear though, is what the media isn’t telling them, that the IAEA, for instance, has repeatedly stated that there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Let’s go back to Afghanistan. How many people opposed to that war tried to convince their friends or family that we shouldn’t go there by arguing about how the towers collapsed?

How about what’s happening now in Pakistan, and the U.S. destabilization of that country? Should we fight this by going on about the towers? Or should we explain to people how U.S. policies are threatening the stability of a nuclear armed country and how they are contrary to principles of freedom and democracy and recognition of national sovereignty?

To get back to my original point, even if I was 100% convinced as some of you seem to be that explosives brought down the towers, I would STILL think focusing on the collapses is the absolute worst approach one could take when there are so many other ways to approach the issue of the criminality of our government in ways that will actually get through to people.

In most cases, pressing the issue of the towers or focusing predominantly on that one issue just does more harm than good. There are other fish to fry and more effective means of getting through to people. I’m not saying it isn’t important and people shouldn’t talk about it, but people also need to recognize when to set it aside.

If more people had focused on demonstrating to the American people how the government was lying about Iraq, for instance, rather than still going on about the towers, we would have had a much better chance of preventing the invasion.

It would have been nice to see more “Truth and Lies of 9/11″ and less “Loose Change”. We might have done a lot more good.

Joseph,

Thanks for the compliment. The article had two purposes: one, to demonstrate that there is no “war on terrorism” and two, to demonstrate that there is some truth behind what the media simply dismisses as “rumor” or myth about 9/11. I only just barely touched just a very few points, but I hope it was sufficient to demonstrate the error implicit in the Times’ framework.

The politics of 911 is complex, indeed. If one follows the web, there are interconecting points all over the place. Take the case of Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who has been gagged under the “states secrets privelege”. She said that the administration saying they had no warning was an outrageous lie, but that others in the FBI and some high level administration officials were involved through the cover of a Turkish lobby in the nuclear black market. You can follow that trail, and it weaves into AQ Khan and Pakistan, back to the ISI, then back into the past and the BCCI bank used as a front by the CIA. Then it goes into the drugs trade, in Afghanistan, in the Americas, opiates, cocaine, etc. It’s a tangled and frightening web that is most certainly very complex.

I know people look for simple explanations. To make a confession, I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here on the towers. I’m not absolutely convinced one way or the other.

But that’s just the point. I’ve seen the arguments and whey you get down to it, I just don’t have the knowledge in the relevant areas of science to be able to make an informed judgment. To me it LOOKS like controlled demolition brought down WTC 7, but I have to remain open to the possibility that there is another scientific explanation. And one has now been given. Whatever one thinks about NIST as an institute (and I’d point out that they subcontract out a lot of their work), the fact is they’ve presented a scientific argument that presents a detailed explanation of how fire could have brought the building down in a rapid progressive collapse.

At this point, it’s over my head. I can’t do the calculations necessary to argue with that. I can’t even begin to. Maybe Steven Jones can, but I haven’t seen him do so. I haven’t seen anyone do so. The issue of the towers isn’t a simple one, either. It’s also a very complex matter, one necessarily involving questions of scientific principles of which I just have no real grasp, beyond an educated layman’s perspective.

One needn’t have a masters in engineering or a PhD in physics, however, to recognize that when the 9/11 Commission says the question of who financed the attacks is “of little practical significance” is a scandal.

The fact is that most of the people who argue that the towers were brought down with explosives have absolutely no education or training whatsoever in any of the relevant fields that would grant them a measure of credibility in their educated opinions.

You have people like Steven Jones and Richard Gage out there, but Jones hasn’t convinced me with his thermate theory. Gage is an architect, not an engineer or physicist. So he has some training in a relevant field to have an informed opinion, but he delves into areas in his talks that are just not his area of expertise. He gives a compelling talk, but for most of the points he makes there are other explanations for events. And when you get down to the stuff that to me remains compelling and raises some tough questions, I’m just not knowledgable enough to be able to answer them. And I’m not sure Gage is, either.

And most others I see expressing their opinions on the matter aren’t, either.

We have to listen to the scientists and experts. They’re the ones who are capable of having an educated opinion about it. Most of us can only speculate based on a very limited understanding of the principles and issues involved.

As I said, I spoke with Danny Jowenko to see if he would be willing to comment and shed some light on it, but he made it pretty clear that he didn’t want to discuss it. Fair enough.

I’m still seeking answers, but I want real answers from people competent and capable enough of providing them. NIST has provided a compelling exlanation — for the first time — of how fire could cause such a progressive collapse.

We shouldn’t just dismiss that offhand. If anyone disagrees with their conclusions, by all means, please demonstrate to me the error in their facts or the fallacy in their logic.

Because at this point in the debate, if the explosives theory is going to continue with any credibility, that’s what will be necessary.

If trained scientists want to take up that call, great. They can do their thing.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to do mine, which is to leave the issue of the WTC collapses to others and focus on areas where I can contribute more effectively to the 9/11 truth movement.

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I’m familiar with the design and construction of the WTC. You are right, the core bore the principle load. If the core columns were cut with explosives, that might explain the outer columns failing, as we see in the video.

But with the loss of load-bearing columns from the plane impact, along with the weaking of structural elements from the fire could also result in the collapse we see. There is no evidence of explosives in the video.

We know the floors in the building were failing, because people trapped inside calling loved ones reported the groaning and collapse sounds. The columns bear the load, but without the floors, columns have no lateral support, and failure occurs. A single initial failure could result in a rapid progressive collapse of the core, in turn leading to what we see in the video, the total simultaneous failure of all the outer columns.

What you DON’T see in the video is explosives destroying the outer columns.

Also, I’m quite familiar with Steven Jones. His principle argument is that he’s found evidence of the use of thermate.

I’m not a chemist or physicist or otherwise am schooled in the subject enough to really provide a critique of his argument. But I do know that some of the elements he says show that thermate was used could be otherwise explained, such as the presence of sulfer, which would have been found in the sheetrock that made up the interior office walls, etc.

Also, thermate is not used for controlled demolitions. One might argue that it COULD be, but how are you even going to attach it to the columns? Whatever you use to hold it there is going to get melted through before the column ever does and there goes your plan. It just doesn’t make sense.

Moreover, assuming bombs or thermate devices were in the building, how did they get there? Setting up a building like WTC for controlled demolition would be an absolutely enormous undertaking. One could argue that it could be done, but without anyone noticing?

And you would need a top expert. Most of the world’s top experts on demolitions don’t come from the government, but from family owned operations. Did the government, or whatever element of the government responsible, contract the job out?

Is, say (to name the “culprit” most often named in arguments I’ve seen that actually follow the logic through this far), the Loizeaux family in on the conspiracy, too? And how many workers must have been involved. They’re all in on it, too? Now we’re impugning the character of a respected family of professionals and accusing them of horrible crimes and atrocities, including murder. And what evidence is there to smear an entire family’s name like that?

If you follow through with the argument that explosives were used, it just begins to get to the point where the plausibility of the thing becomes quite doubtful.

The politics of 911 is complex; whereas the destruction of the towers is simple by comparison and defined by the laws of physics. Demonstrate by good authority, which the NIST is not because it is handmaid to the Executive, that the towers were demolished and you have cut off the official lie at the knees.

This has been the most fruitful approach so far. But, please carry on. You’re a good polemicist.

If you’ll bear with me, let me point out a couple of things about the youtube video for which you’ve provided a link. Indeed, a column buckling doesn’t necessarily imply much, and therefore I think there might be an error of logic when you assert that the fact than one can see the columns buckling “means that the reason for the collapse was structural failure.”

You may not be aware of this, but the bulk of the mass of the building was carried by a group of columns at its core. You can see these clearly in old pictures of the construction. Unless I’ve misunderstood what it is you want us to see in the video, it shows the outside columns which form the “grid” pattern giving way to the mass of the building as it falls. But these columns were not carrying most of the weight of the building, and therefore, if you were to cut through those which were, the result would be what you see in the video. The error would be to assume that the building fell because those outside columns failed, when actually both their failure and the fall might well have been a consequence of the destruction of more important supporting structures.

My suggestion would be to watch the lectures on this topic by physics professor Steven Jones, who put his job on the line to go into this. Without hypothesizing on who did what, he concentrates on the plausibility of the official version of events against evidence which includes analysis of residual chemicals suggesting the use of products used to cut through steel. Just google Steven Jones WTC or something similar, it’s all over the place.

I look forward to reading more your pen.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA

Watch the columns buckle.

You’re saying bombs did that. But I can watch the video and see that it isn’t bombs causing the failure, but watch the columns buckle and fail entirely.

It’s instructive that instead of presenting facts, people resort to insults.

Like I said, I’d rather be discussing more pressing matters relating to 9/11 (foreknowledge, cover-up, ISI financing, no air cover, CIA FBI and Mossad monitoring of hijackers, insider trading, etc, etc, etc), but if people insist on sticking to the towers issue, hey, I’ll discuss it with you. If anyone wants to discuss the matter rationally, I’m more than happy to continue the discussion.

Outer columns buckling imply resistance to the downward momentum. There is almost no resistance because the critical stress points were cut.

Somehow physical laws were violated in your scenario.

You’re lying when you say you’ve analyzed the collapse. I wouldn’t hire your engineer brother if he offered his services gratis.

You, on the other hand, I’d hire if I were in need of a lobbyist to sell sand to Arabs.