Reply to Vicious_Bomber
This exceeded the character limit for comments, so I'm posting it as an entry:
With all due respect, I can't even have a debate with you because your facts are incorrect. Look at how hard you are reaching to find ways to justify this bad science. The subway systems under the ground? Seriously, dude.
Where do I even begin? First of all, when people say "how hot jet fuel burns," they mean how hot a fire could burn if jet fuel was one of the materials on fire. Basically, these are people who are humoring the science deniers who say that jet fuel would have made the fire hotter. The reality is, the jet fuel would have all burned up within a matter of seconds, so those temperatures you hear involving jet fuel, which are nowhere near the melting point of structural steel, are exaggerated in favor of your position.
Secondly, the argument about other materials in the buildings is silly. This is not the first time skyscrapers have been on fire, and in no other case has any one of them collapsed. Look at this image of the Hotel Mandarin after it was set ablaze during a firework accident. You'll notice that the entire building is engulfed in flames from top to bottom. This building burned longer and hotter than any building on 9/11, and it did not collapse. (the bend in the building is part of its design, not damage from the fire... you can see this if you google a picture of it not on fire) Why? Because that's not how it works. Things don't get hot and then turn from metal into fine white powder. http://liamscheff.com/daily/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mandarin-oriental-hotel-f-001.jpg
Regarding nano-thermite, here is the scientific article the man in the video you obviously didn't watch was talking about. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM If you have an open mind and are interested in knowing the facts before you make a judgment, sit down on a rainy day and give this a read. I get the impression you don't want any new information, and that's a shame. Why is it so important to you to protect your opinion? If you were to offer me any hard facts, I would gladly look at them. Do you think I WANT this to be true? That's insane. When I first figured it out in 2005, I was horrified and refused to believe it for a long time, using a lot of the same excuses as you.
And no, microscopic amounts of nano-thermite were not found. Large amounts were found. The ratio of the amount of this material to the amount of dust in which it was found suggests tons of it was used. The fact that George Bush's brother's elevator company was doing a 9 month renovation on the elevators in the buildings prior to the attacks might explain that, but I really don't like to deviate from the science side of things so I won't go any further there. The fact is, what was found was unignited nano-thermite. Bits that did not ignite for some reason, and residue from the nano-thermite which did ignite. If this were a court of law, the presence of an explosive material which could account for temperatures which were clearly present, but were previously unexplained, would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And depending on how this material is mixed, it can be used to melt things OR as an explosive.
And the pancake theory. Ah, the pancake theory. The silly theory that the weight of the building crushed floor after floor, causing the whole building to somehow become dust. The theory is so flawed I could spend days on it, but I'll just go with the basics. For one, if the floors collapsed, the core columns in the middle should have still been standing. Secondly, as you pile more weight on top of more weight it creates resistance. The buildings came down in a matter of seconds. Also, the amount of rubble left was largely disproportionate to what should have been there. It was POWDER. In 2006, tiny bone fragments were found on top of a nearby building which were matched by their DNA to people who had been in the buildings. Over 100 were matched to the same person. You're telling me a person's remains were broken up into millimeter long bone fragments and shot across a couple of city blocks without explosive force?
The dust cloud itself is evidence of demolition. The cloud is identical to the cloud produced by a controlled demolition. There are reactions created by fire, and reactions created by explosives. This was the latter.
Oh, and one more thing about the pancake theory. If you watch the south tower collapse, you'll notice the top chunk of 15 floors or so starts to tilt top-heavily. Before it disappears completely into the smoke, it has tilted to a 22 degree angle. If the laws of gravity and momentum are still intact, what we should have seen was that top chunk hurling toward the ground and landing with a huge crash. Instead, it appears to disapper into the smoke, and then the building starts collapsing with no weight pushing it. This whole pile-driver theory that the top floors pushed the others down is invalidated because those floors VISIBLY did not fall onto the floors below.
Lastly (for this post), Larry Silverstein, leaseholder to the buildings, admitted on TV that building 7 was a controlled demolition. He later withdrew his statement. In a documentary on 9/11 which aired on CNN, firefighters are even shown talking next to the building saying "keep an eye on that building. it's gonna be coming down soon."
You are more than welcome to comment on my journal, and I enjoy a good debate, but please kindly refrain from making anymore comments unless you are willing to a.) at least glance at some of the links I've posted b.) present information backed up by references or science c.) do not blatently insult me. I did not say anything about JFK, the moon landing, the Masons (I don't even really know what the Masons are... I thought just a fraternity for adults?), or any of that other crap. You can no more tie solid science relating to a single event to these other things than I can say that if you are fiscally conservative, you must think gay people, women, and abortion doctors deserve to be stoned to death.
Not that you give a shit, but if I have posted anything here that you are interested in looking into further and are not able to find with a google search, I will gladly provide you with sources.
With all due respect, I can't even have a debate with you because your facts are incorrect. Look at how hard you are reaching to find ways to justify this bad science. The subway systems under the ground? Seriously, dude.
Where do I even begin? First of all, when people say "how hot jet fuel burns," they mean how hot a fire could burn if jet fuel was one of the materials on fire. Basically, these are people who are humoring the science deniers who say that jet fuel would have made the fire hotter. The reality is, the jet fuel would have all burned up within a matter of seconds, so those temperatures you hear involving jet fuel, which are nowhere near the melting point of structural steel, are exaggerated in favor of your position.
Secondly, the argument about other materials in the buildings is silly. This is not the first time skyscrapers have been on fire, and in no other case has any one of them collapsed. Look at this image of the Hotel Mandarin after it was set ablaze during a firework accident. You'll notice that the entire building is engulfed in flames from top to bottom. This building burned longer and hotter than any building on 9/11, and it did not collapse. (the bend in the building is part of its design, not damage from the fire... you can see this if you google a picture of it not on fire) Why? Because that's not how it works. Things don't get hot and then turn from metal into fine white powder. http://liamscheff.com/daily/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mandarin-oriental-hotel-f-001.jpg
Regarding nano-thermite, here is the scientific article the man in the video you obviously didn't watch was talking about. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM If you have an open mind and are interested in knowing the facts before you make a judgment, sit down on a rainy day and give this a read. I get the impression you don't want any new information, and that's a shame. Why is it so important to you to protect your opinion? If you were to offer me any hard facts, I would gladly look at them. Do you think I WANT this to be true? That's insane. When I first figured it out in 2005, I was horrified and refused to believe it for a long time, using a lot of the same excuses as you.
And no, microscopic amounts of nano-thermite were not found. Large amounts were found. The ratio of the amount of this material to the amount of dust in which it was found suggests tons of it was used. The fact that George Bush's brother's elevator company was doing a 9 month renovation on the elevators in the buildings prior to the attacks might explain that, but I really don't like to deviate from the science side of things so I won't go any further there. The fact is, what was found was unignited nano-thermite. Bits that did not ignite for some reason, and residue from the nano-thermite which did ignite. If this were a court of law, the presence of an explosive material which could account for temperatures which were clearly present, but were previously unexplained, would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And depending on how this material is mixed, it can be used to melt things OR as an explosive.
And the pancake theory. Ah, the pancake theory. The silly theory that the weight of the building crushed floor after floor, causing the whole building to somehow become dust. The theory is so flawed I could spend days on it, but I'll just go with the basics. For one, if the floors collapsed, the core columns in the middle should have still been standing. Secondly, as you pile more weight on top of more weight it creates resistance. The buildings came down in a matter of seconds. Also, the amount of rubble left was largely disproportionate to what should have been there. It was POWDER. In 2006, tiny bone fragments were found on top of a nearby building which were matched by their DNA to people who had been in the buildings. Over 100 were matched to the same person. You're telling me a person's remains were broken up into millimeter long bone fragments and shot across a couple of city blocks without explosive force?
The dust cloud itself is evidence of demolition. The cloud is identical to the cloud produced by a controlled demolition. There are reactions created by fire, and reactions created by explosives. This was the latter.
Oh, and one more thing about the pancake theory. If you watch the south tower collapse, you'll notice the top chunk of 15 floors or so starts to tilt top-heavily. Before it disappears completely into the smoke, it has tilted to a 22 degree angle. If the laws of gravity and momentum are still intact, what we should have seen was that top chunk hurling toward the ground and landing with a huge crash. Instead, it appears to disapper into the smoke, and then the building starts collapsing with no weight pushing it. This whole pile-driver theory that the top floors pushed the others down is invalidated because those floors VISIBLY did not fall onto the floors below.
Lastly (for this post), Larry Silverstein, leaseholder to the buildings, admitted on TV that building 7 was a controlled demolition. He later withdrew his statement. In a documentary on 9/11 which aired on CNN, firefighters are even shown talking next to the building saying "keep an eye on that building. it's gonna be coming down soon."
You are more than welcome to comment on my journal, and I enjoy a good debate, but please kindly refrain from making anymore comments unless you are willing to a.) at least glance at some of the links I've posted b.) present information backed up by references or science c.) do not blatently insult me. I did not say anything about JFK, the moon landing, the Masons (I don't even really know what the Masons are... I thought just a fraternity for adults?), or any of that other crap. You can no more tie solid science relating to a single event to these other things than I can say that if you are fiscally conservative, you must think gay people, women, and abortion doctors deserve to be stoned to death.
Not that you give a shit, but if I have posted anything here that you are interested in looking into further and are not able to find with a google search, I will gladly provide you with sources.