Tuesday, 11 March 2008

THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT ENDS THE 911 TRUTH DEBATE.

There exists some extremely disturbing scientific evidence which totally undermines the official 911 story. It does not matter what theories you believe in, the material here speaks for itself:
The picture above shows MOLTEN STEEL being removed from the World Trade Centre rubble pile. However, from all accounts (even the official NISTs report concedes this point) the fires in the WTC buildings were too weak to cause such melting. Conventional building fires, including ones initiated with aviation kerosene, cannot raise the temperature of structural steel to its melting point of around 1300 degrees celsius. According to all the available data, the fires in the Towers could only have reached a maximum temperature of around 650 degrees celsius- yet here we can see steel so hot that it has taken on a yellow look (an observation that indicates a temperature of between 850-1000 degrees celsius !!).

There are only two ways which would enable this steel to reach such a high temperature.
1. In a blast furnace.
2. From Explosives.
The rubble pile was not a blast furnace.
Therefore one must assume that explosives were the most likely agent.

Furthermore, we have supporting eyewitness testimony from firefighters and civilians which reveals that many of them felt, and were knocked over by, huge explosions occurring in the lower floors of the WTC buildings -far away from the fire zones.

Recent analysis conducted by physics Professor Steven Jones has now uncovered the chemical signature for the explosive THERMATE in multiple samples taken from the WTC steel and dust- proving, without doubt, that explosives were used. The newly formed, Architects for 911 Truth organisation, with over 200 building professionals onboard, concurs with these findings.

The science here is clear cut. Whatever one thinks about the various theories floating around out there, one thing is certain: The Twin Towers (and Building 7) at the World Trade Centre site were rigged with explosives. Most importantly, such an operation would take many weeks to plan and carry out. Therefore, part of the 911 attacks against the World Trade Centre complex MUST have been an "Inside Job" as Bin Laden's men would not have had the necessary time or access to wire these buildings.

The charade must end. If we are honest with ourselves we must now seriously consider ALL the evidence-- including material which indicates the complicity of certain elements within the US government in the attacks of September 11.[1] A new independent criminal investigation must be launched and the "war on terror" must end.

(For a more detailed analysis on the physics of the WTC collapses see Steven Jones' paper: Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? PDF.)


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 11th, 2008.]

2 comments:

Arthur Scheuerman said...

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, Electromagnetic Rays, etc.

Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these ‘explosive’ sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. The exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane’s impact. That’s 38 minutes before the global collapse began. The inward bow was increasing gradually. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2’s collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition.

When the south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. In the North Tower “thunder” sounds were heard interpreted as floors collapsing on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these ‘explosive’ sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe all the supposed ‘explosive’ sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and sagging floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive ‘explosive’ sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

Initial Collapse Cause

It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls.

Differential thermal expansion of the concrete and steel has also been shown to disconnect the knuckles from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors. All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (400 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of the trusses after the fire burns out can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns. Once the exterior column buckling spread,- possibly assisted by the spandrels,- along an entire wall on one face, the towers began to tilt and the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and with all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. There are videos of all these cercumstances.

Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have fallen straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered south side of the building pulled the core and the entire building top over to the south.

The South Tower’s top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. With the tower top tilting all the columns were out of alignment. Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at their weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. This coupled with the fact that the falling top sections momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section’s acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts would have been increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

In order for a column to support the loads they have to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors first buckled from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists affecting floor truss stability. The sagging floor trusses pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall and they eventually buckled. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building’s tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and in plumb and this was impossible with the top leaning causing eccentric angles of impact.

The fact is that columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the east wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST.

With all the columns across the building buckled the top section began descending at an angle to the building section below. None of the columns would have been axially lined up. As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars.

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than ‘free fall’ times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Since the Tower’s outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana, they may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns; these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than ‘free fall’ times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.

The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (500 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesn’t break up as it falls it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls however did break at the splices as they fell.

Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration.

The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of the air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC exhaust and intake openings in the side of the building.

The lightweight aluminum cladding’s breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive ‘squibs’. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.

After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings.

These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer.

These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen.

Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. There were also quantities of lead, tin, and silver used in the computer circuit boards. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn’t last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed.

About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says “the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range.”
http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.

Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 5 of their buildings collapsed from fire? (Building 5 had a serious interior multiple floor collapse from fire.) Do you know that they didn't have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on the exterior column bolted splices. The long span truss floors were never tested at their design length. I would think the builders would be looking for any excuse to divert attention from themselves even the wild idea that explosives were involved. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings while the building engineers had them all along?

About the eye witnesses; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. There can be smoke explosions particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. There were fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. Most of the people in tower 1 did not know that tower 2 had collapsed but they all heard the noises and even felt the rush of air up the stairs. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Most of the people in tower 2 did not know tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and felt the impact. Explosives produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf of blow out eardrums. This kind of sound was not heard.

The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The reports of “explosions” in the cellars were also probably from such column displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you stick a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit. The one elevator shaft that extended into the cellars had a fuel explosion from the jet fuel spilling down the shaft.

In conclusion I think the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse, - remember most of the people in Tower 1 did not know Tower 2 had collapsed and attributed the sounds of that collapse to be happening in the building they were in. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced explosive sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.

Arthur Scheuerman, author of the book “Fire in the Skyscraper”

SpookyPunkos said...

Sir, your reply to my post was intriguing. However, the argument you provided was totally inadequate (failed) with regard to debunking the evidence of molten steel and thermate/thermite products found in the rubble of all three World Trade Centre buildings.

Your lengthy reply consisted of two parts. The first part (that avoided the molten steel and thermate issues) was a highly involved explanation that appeared to account for reports of explosions and the observed exterior warping and subsequent collapse of the Towers. The warping hypothesis you provide actually appears reasonably sound.
On the other hand your explanation for the heavy duty explosions reported from within the towers does not gel with the testimony or later observations. Furthermore, your overall theory in relation to the "global collapse" does not account for the rapid collapse rates- rates of collapse that defied the laws of physics in terms of non-explosive hypotheses (see below for more details).

The second part of your reply, which does directly address the evidence in question, is simply wrong and contains a number of highly suspicious "errors" and distortions that I find incredulous coming from such a highly educated and experienced person such as yourself. I find it hard to believe that these are simply mistakes on your part.

The most important thing to note is that your alternative (non-demolition) "take" on the evidence- indicating that the fires caused the collapse of the towers- rests on the localised "bowing" observed on single facings of the structure. That is the sum of your evidence in support of a fire induced collapse (other than the the presence of a weak fire, which is, in itself, problematic). The other "arguments" you put forward in your rebuttal are not based on any specific evidence but are simply failed refutations of the available science that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. In otherwords you disprove nothing presented in the blog post.

I will now deconstruct your argument showing that it is made almost entirely of dubious, misleading or outright false claims.

PART 1. The significance of the "bowing" and the validity of your "global collapse" hypothesis.

Although significant, the bowing witnessed in the towers does not necessarily indicate the fires were the cause of this feature despite the computer "modeling" undertaken by NIST- modeling that has since been disputed.
NIST never fully disclosed the workings of its computer models and there are reports that they manipulated their simulations to ENSURE a failure when the data did not support it: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-10-reasons-why-nist-report-is.html#_ftn8 (You stated that "It is clear from the computer studies." It is not clear at all). The bowing could just as easily be attributed to a controlled demolition process (for which we have hard evidence).

Comparing the two possibilities with regard to the warping high in the towers we have:

A. The position that the relatively weak fires caused the steel in the floor trusses to expand unevenly and dislodge themselves thereby moving the perimeter columns out of alignment and leading to the collapse. [Evidence to support this comes from the NIST Investigation- an investigation that has been thoroughly debunked]; and

B. The building's structure was weakened through the use of thermate/thermite-type incendiaries for which we have two sources of hard evidence:

b1. The first, and most damning, is from scientific analysis on WTC steel and dust samples indicating a match for thermate-incendiary products (addressed in the blog post).

b2. The second is the observation of molten iron or steel in the rubble and, specifically in relation to the bowing you cite, a hot bright yellow orange liquid flaming from the side of the towers near the collapse points. Skeptics and 911 Truth academics generally accept that this flowing liquid is a metal. The 911 truth academics contend that it resembles the product of a thermate/thermite reaction and is causing damage to the structure. The skeptics claim that it is molten aircraft aluminium. However, it is unlikely to be fire melted aluminium since the colour indicates it is at an impossibly hot temperature- in excess of 1000 degrees celsius. The fires were not this hot, and in any event we would expect to see molten aluminium as silver in colour.

So far we can see the second hypothesis is the one best supported by the established evidence.

Furthermore, even if we believe the towers did end up bowing from the fires this does not necessarily mean this section should fail, or that a localised collapse would TOTALLY DEMOLISH the more robust lower portion of the towers- and in a manner and speed comparable to an explosive demolition (with a collapse front moving downwards encountering resistance from the lower levels comparable to air, rather than fixed steel).

On this point (the rapid collapse rates) you have provided a detailed explanation describing how the towers fell down so fast because:

"Once the columns got out of plumb [alignment], there would have been little resistance to their buckling at their weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the building gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns."

However, when compared to computer models using extremely conservative variables, ones that do not account for ANY resistance of the bolts- having the floors suspended in mid air, we find your explanation is still impossible.

It has been shown that the collapse times for WTC 1, 2 & 7 were too fast for any non-explosive hypothesis. This scientific paper shows that even if the floors were SUSPENDED in air, with NO COLUMN SUPPORT- of any kind- the rate of collapse would be equal to or slower than the official 11 second collapse time cited by NIST.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:FJ0o0sI9IdoJ:www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf+wtc+collapse+floors+suspended+in+air&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au

Taking into consideration the energy required to pulverise the concrete, or overcome, even weak joins, and push through the stationary lower structure, we would see results in collapse times considerably longer than what was observed.

You did try to cover yourself against this observed lack of resistance seen during collapse by stating that perhaps the outer walls of the towers "peeled out like a banana ... that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times...and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of the impacted floors above." If this is so, then what process caused the massive pulverisation of the concrete in the towers from very early in the collapse ? It was not simply residual dust, or damage caused by flying aluminium paneling (that you mention later), but destruction on a massive scale.
If the floors all took off and started their falls before being impacted from above, there would not have been such phenomena (even for poor quality concrete). You can't have it both ways. This position on the collapses does not marry with the observed data.

You also act as an apologist for NIST's complete lack of computer modeling on the collapses (as opposed to the fire damage "modeling") by stating that they did not run these simulations because "after collapse began the chaotic impact of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analysed accurately with even the strongest computers." Nevertheless some simple computer modeling is very useful in setting up theoretical boundaries- and has been done by independent researchers to prove certain points. For example in an extreme case computer model, where there is no column resistance at all (a scenario already mentioned in this reply), the rate of collapse is still equal to what was observed !! No wonder NIST avoided running such simulations.

You also believe the "lightweight aluminium cladding's breaking free from the buckling columns would account for the huge dust clouds" and other flash phenomena associated with the explosive demolition hypothesis. The source of the flashes I will leave open to interpretation but the aluminium cladding would not account for the massive pulverisation of the concrete that WAS the dust clouds. You imply that the dust clouds are easily explained but you can only do so by pushing an oversimplified and grossly misleading version of events.

Another claim you make is the fact that no "characteristic tears and fractures" were found on the steel in the debris that would have indicated explosives were used. There are two problems with this declaration. Firstly, some of the steel beams photographed in the rubble had unusual features that could be interpreted as damage due to explosives and/or incendiaries http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm. Secondly the clean up site was a restricted area (even to FEMA investigators) and the few hundred pieces of steel made available during the initial investigation (out of hundreds of thousands) were vetted by the same company that cleaned up the Oklahoma City Bombing - an incident in which there is abundant evidence of a cover up involving more than one explosive device. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

Nevertheless, despite the inadequacies of your arguments thus far, my post was centred on the key smoking guns of Molten Steel and the thermate traces- topics which we shall now consider along with the remainder of your case.

PART 2. The latter part of your essay's "rebuttal" makes an attempt to dismiss clear evidence in support of the explosive demolition hypothesis by resorting to bogus claims or heinous distortions of the data. In this part of your reply we can easily see that you are grasping at straws. I will cover 9 points of "gross error" therein:

A. Your suggestion that hot forge-like temperatures (as per a blacksmith's forge) were achieved in the rubble pile, causing steel beams to heat and become red is both preposterous and deceptive. You attempt to downplay the facts by suggesting the steel was only red whereas it was orange yellow - indicating an extreme furnace-like temperature and not at all the "mundane" occurrence you attempt to portray. Furthermore, this unique phenomena occurred independently in three (!) separate locations (WTC 1, 2 & 7) as evidenced by photographs, eyewitness reports and NASA thermal imaging.

B. You then imply that those iron rich microspheres, found in abundance in the WTC dust, are due to rescue/clean-up-crew oxyacetylene torches. This account of events is simply not true. Some of these metal samples were collected on the day of the attacks away from the WTC site and BEFORE these operations were underway. You should already know this. I find it interesting that you avoid directly naming the microspheres as if doing so would point to their origins (within dust samples that largely consisted of pulverised concrete) and that the nature of these samples was of microscopic sized particles (sizes we associate with explosive forces rather than with a low velocity crushing force).

C. Your worst suggestion is that the molten metal in the rubble pile may be battery lead. However, hot lead at a yellow orange colour is a liquid and would not be be in this plastic state. Lead melts while it is still silvery in colour. This basic error casts doubt on your whole agenda. Surely you know that it is not lead. Your other suggestions that the molten metal may be due to aircraft aluminium or computer circuit boards is similarly ridiculous- especially the latter proposition.

D. Your contention that because the EPA reported 400 different types of chemicals in the pile we might expect to see some sort of thermate reaction in any event, and by implication, at three separate rubble sites (WTC 1, 2 & 7) strains credibility once more. Your whole argument here is nothing but desperate conjecture. And your claim that what we witnessed could not have been a thermate-type reaction because it "wouldn't last hours or days" does not negate the fact that molten metal was found at WTC ground zero in the hours and days following the attacks, and that evidence of a thermate reaction was nevertheless discovered on steel samples originating from the site.

E. You also try to imply that the data indicating thermate-type products is due to contamination with other building materials even though the standard being applied here is the same for similar forensic investigations dealing with arson that might be similarly contaminated. You do not address the fact that the thermate products were specifically evidenced from the iron rich microspheres- microspheres that must have experienced superhot temperatures exceeding 1300 degrees celsius (steel melting point) and being entirely consistent with a thermate reaction.

F. You cite Dr Frank Greening. His concrete pulverisation calculations have been proven wrong. http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/ Even for sub-par concrete (that you claim is susceptible to pulverisation) there would be inadequate energy in order to gain the required level of destruction we witnessed.

G. As for the WTC Architects hiding the building plans because of "deficiencies in design"- you will find that it was the N.Y. City Port Authority that held back these documents presumably to avoid POTENTIAL litigation whilst the official investigations were underway. These people might have reasonably been afraid of perceived deficiencies, not actual. This scenario is entirely understandable given that the managers of this entity would want to hinder any legal threat to themselves regardless of whether the designs were flawed or not. We cannot assume the design plans were flawed because they have been held back. The plans might have been held back because they showed the towers were stronger and more resistant to collapse than previously thought. Eventual analysis of the blueprints will reveal which is the more likely case.

And as for your claim that "5 of their buildings collapsed from fire" (in relation to those design "deficiencies") ... now you are really throwing words around !! Show me the five buildings that collapsed from fire and the evidence for it. So far you have struck out on the Twin Towers. The other three buildings in question (not mentioned thus far) are World Trade Centres 5, 6 and 7. I shall leave WTC 6 and 7, and focus on WTC 5. You mention that Building 5 suffered "a serious interior multiple floor collapse from fire." The reality is that despite the building being smashed by falling debris from WTC 1 and being COMPLETELY ALIGHT (unlike the towers), only a portion of its floors failed (4-9), and this collapse was quickly arrested (!) by the lower floors (1-3). A fairly strong design, wouldn't you say ?

H. You continue to white wash eyewitness testimony of multiple and massive explosions that occurred many floors below the fire zones by implying that the timing of these explosions occurred only with the aircraft impacts or were concurrent with the WTC collapses. This is blatantly not true. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

You also claim that aviation kerosene was probably responsible for reports of the lower floor elevator explosions and basement explosions. However this is highly unlikely in that most of the kerosene would have been consumed in the fireballs. According to your view tons of unignited jet fuel ran down 300+ meters of elevator shafts to then explode in the lower floors or basement levels. Over such a distance the surviving kerosene would have been thinly spread and unable to wreak such extensive damage.

Furthermore, you make a number of generalisations about the nature of the explosions that occurred in the buildings- with regard to pressure levels and burst ear drums stating that, "this kind of sound was not heard." I would not be so sure. The testimony is not detailed enough to completely determine the facts without further review or investigation.We do know that the explosions were massive, that they knocked people off their feet, knocked them senseless, that experienced firefighters reported bombs going off all over the place and that one explosion destroyed a 50 ton machine press in the basement levels. Most explosion survivors appear to have been protected from these events by walls. People in close proximity, whose eardrums would have burst, were most likely killed.

I have noted that throughout your attack on the eyewitness testimony you tended to portray significant evidence as "mundane." This is best summarised with your false claim that, "The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition." You imply that there were no explosions before the time of the collapse whereas, if you bothered to read the last link I provided, you will find there were many- exactly as you said "would have happened with controlled demolition."

I. Finally you mention the extensive to the damage lobby and cellar, attributing this to torque forces and jet fuel. I'm sure you would agree that torque forces and jet fuel would be unable to obliterate that 50 ton machine press. (and see this link http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm )

SUMMATION:
You seem to resort to ANY explanation, no matter how implausible, in order to avoid the specific evidence and phenomena indicating the controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

In conclusion I think the reports and evidence supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis CANNOT be explained away by any of the claims you made. Most notably some of the claims you make reveal you to be either grossly ignorant of certain scientific facts and observed phenomena (especially when it suits your debunking agenda) or that these blatant "errors" you commit are indicative of a deliberate attempt at deception on your part.
The evidence stands.