Whats your take on this?

[Torpex752]

I think thats possible. If you view this video, and disregard the name of the video, it sheds some real thought along the lines of what you suggest.




Hope that link works.

Frank

[AVGWarhawk]

Also another thought. What if the planners had placed these explosive devices prior to the actual aircraft attack? In other words, finish the job if the aircraft did not take the towers down. I really do not think there is any conspiracy theory on this attack.

[CaptainHaplo]

Torpex - good points as well. I agree on the passport point, though stranger things have happened. Still - its a valid point and the odds are quite slim.

With that said, I have to correct something. You wrote that the premise of this investigation is:

1-The towers were designed and built to withstand exactly what happened, yet the fell.

That can't be right. These towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes that were larger than any around at the time the towers were built? No way. They might have been designed to withstand a normal fire on a floor, or even multiple floors, but there is no way that they were designed to withstand impacts from such heavy, high speed objects.

The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings. Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat. The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit.

This alone would account for the extreme temperatures needed to cause the initial collapse, as well as the manner in which the towers themselves fell.

As for the residue - notice its primarily the standard building materials. Iron, Iron Oxide and Aluminum. But what gets me the most is this:

The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Thermitic material? Cmon - all this science and you can't identify it any further than that? Heck - the filament of the light bulb can be considered "thermetic material" and "highly energetic" as it produces significant light and heat under certain conditions. Then again - so does C4 under different conditions. Either they don't know what it is, which given the claimed tests they used I find rather doubtful, or they intentionally being vague for some unknown reason, which I personally would suspect is because specificity would go against their intent or theory.

On the issue of the molten steel. Realize that they didn't KNOW what all could be in that mess. Not to mention you realize that a heat source, feeding on itself, and insulated by thousands of pounds of debris, would simply continue to heat until it hit the maximum tempature allowed by its fuel source. With all the various elements involved in that kind of heat and pressure, I would not be suprised that the temperature of some debris to be WELL above the nominal range of steel to liquify. Also remember that if there had been any oxidation in the support structure, that would contribute to a higher temperature.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Also another thought. What if the planners had placed these explosive devices prior to the actual aircraft attack? In other words, finish the job if the aircraft did not take the towers down. I really do not think there is any conspiracy theory on this attack.

Werent the Al-Qaida dudes also surprised that the towers went down in the end? I remember bin Laden saying something like that.

[sharkbit]

One sample was collected ten minutes after the North Tower exploded, so it could not have been contaminated with particles from the cleanup efforts.

This statement seems odd to me.

10 minutes after the collapse and someone has the mind to be there taking samples? Was there any chain of control on this sample or was it some guy scooping up dust?

Just seems to be an odd statement without any further details.

[Spike88]

Evidence of Explosives Found in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises

I thought there were only two towers.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Spike88

I thought there were only two towers.

WTC 7.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Werent the Al-Qaida dudes also surprised that the towers went down in the end? I remember bin Laden saying something like that.

To be honest Dowly, I do not remember but my pea brain suspects you are correct.

[SteamWake]

Okay heres a conspiricy for you.

The towers when constructed were fitted secretly with explosives so that in the case of an emergency they could be brought down.

Kind of like Germany did with her bridges in WW2.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Torpex752

Unfortunately no, its man made.

"Abstract We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Frank

Hey, that's what I do at work!

[Torpex752]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

With that said, I have to correct something. You wrote that the premise of this investigation is:



That can't be right. These towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes that were larger than any around at the time the towers were built? No way. They might have been designed to withstand a normal fire on a floor, or even multiple floors, but there is no way that they were designed to withstand impacts from such heavy, high speed objects.

The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings. Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat. The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit.

This alone would account for the extreme temperatures needed to cause the initial collapse, as well as the manner in which the towers themselves fell.

As for the residue - notice its primarily the standard building materials. Iron, Iron Oxide and Aluminum. But what gets me the most is this:



Thermitic material? Cmon - all this science and you can't identify it any further than that? Heck - the filament of the light bulb can be considered "thermetic material" and "highly energetic" as it produces significant light and heat under certain conditions. Then again - so does C4 under different conditions. Either they don't know what it is, which given the claimed tests they used I find rather doubtful, or they intentionally being vague for some unknown reason, which I personally would suspect is because specificity would go against their intent or theory.

On the issue of the molten steel. Realize that they didn't KNOW what all could be in that mess. Not to mention you realize that a heat source, feeding on itself, and insulated by thousands of pounds of debris, would simply continue to heat until it hit the maximum tempature allowed by its fuel source. With all the various elements involved in that kind of heat and pressure, I would not be suprised that the temperature of some debris to be WELL above the nominal range of steel to liquify. Also remember that if there had been any oxidation in the support structure, that would contribute to a higher temperature.

I agree, the point that your questions, and statements makes a few things thing very clear;

1- A thorough investigation wouldnt have so many unanswered questions. It would have a few arguable points, debates on somethings, but not like this. The disparity between the official report and these engineers is too far apart.

From what I have gathered, here is my response to the points you raise (good ones at that!)

I will qualify my responses-I am repeating what I heard, I did not actually physically investigate these facts, I am communicating what I heard;

1-From the architech- The planes that the towers were designed to withstand were 50 tons heavier and capable of flying 40mph faster then the ones that hit them. Yes the towere were designed to withstand Modern jet Liner Hits

2-Based on the black smoke (Black smoke indicates poor combustion of materials not burning at their peak temp) the temps in the towers didnt exceed 1200dF. The Fires in the South Tower were reported by the fire chief as under control, he needed one more hose...

Dont take my word..listen to some other more qualified people.





http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]

The actual paper says;

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Its pretty clear that funding is needed to do more thorough sampling..this type of stuff does not appear by accident and nano technology is not building materials as far as I can find. Its not in steel, cieling tiles, carpet, computers, seats, particians, asbestos insulation, paint, concrete, wiring, glass, or anything I have ever worked with in construction. Now if these were NASA buildings I might find it easier to believe.

"Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with
lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity. Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the
huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards. (source_OSHA.gov)"

"The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings."

(not nitpicking, just answering) Actually combustables on a plane are mostly fireproofed, as far as the metals go, steel, stainless steel, and aluminum are the main metals used. The fires burning in the crash points were low enough in tempature that employees were seen within 25ft of the fires. Plus the black smoke is indicitative or a low temp fire, not one at its max. The Jet fuel ignited the office stuff, beyond that there was nothing else outrageous in those office spaces.

"Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat."

The only titanium on a jet that I know of is in the engines, and I dont believe they turned into powder. Smashed, I think they landed in the street?

"The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit."

I can only suggest looking at the actual blue prints from the WTC. The 9/11 Comission report stated that the center of the towers were a hollow shaft. If you look, the center core was built better then the Empire state building. The center core box beams;
1- at the base were 5" thick 54" x 36" + 3" thick center web
2- mid way 3" thick 42" x 17" + 3" thick center web
3- rest up were 2" thick 36" x 16" no center web.

Thats some substantial steel, not to mention all the interlocking steel between these 47 colums! I think it was within a day, same day maybe that they spoke to the architech on the phone and he said, they never should have fallen from what those 2 planes did. Personally I believe him. I dont believe that the center core gave out, or that an aluminum plane could damage those center colums enough, plus fire to cause it fall the way the whole building did. Steel is alot tougher then that.


These are the guys who put the paper together I presume...

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

Now some might say that they have political angle...its possible I'd never rule that out. But some of these are regular family people who have alot to lose, and personally minimal to gain if they are right. They arent rambling buffons, so I am inclined to find what they say at least worth considering.

Did I answer everything? LOL

Frank

[Monica Lewinsky]

Originally Posted by Torpex752

The ingredients are all found in an ultra-fine-grained form that speeds the chemical reaction when the mixture is ignited. While conventional thermite is considered an incendiary, burning hot and fast at steel-melting 4500-degree temperatures, so-called "nano-thermite" or "super-thermite" mixtures can be explosive —
read more...

Picture of lead investigator found here:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/tinfoil-hat.jpg

He's safe after the collapse. Plenty of aluminum wrapped around his head. He's A-o.k, don't worry. He survived - - - no one was hurt while he investigated this informative story. Should be in the National Enquirer next week as the main cover page story.

[Aramike]

I personally think these conspiracy theorists are nuts. Isn't part of any investigation "motive"?

If someone wanted to blow up the WTC, and was able to strategically place explosives in areas that would achieve this effect, why the hell bother to fly planes into the buildings?

In any case, here's a great site that goes in depth at the flaws in the "science" of these wackos: http://www.debunking911.com/

Here's my favorite part, lifted from this page: http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history...

[Aramike]

Here's another good piece: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

[RickC Sniper]

You have done alot of research Frank, and sure there are a lot of experts who disagree with each other.

The most troubling thing to me is how both of the Twin towers collapsed in the same way, just a short time apart. One plane, hitting a tower, everything happening just perfectly so it brings the tower down. Ok, I see how that might happen....once.
But both towers got hit by planes and both collapsed in the same timely manner. Very lucky for the terrorists? Possible, and my conscience accepts this because the alternative is too unsettling.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories but the sad fact is we will never know more than we know now......so we must all believe what\who we choose to.

Aramike you make a great point.