Scientists find Active thermite residue in WTC dust

I tried to answer your question before, but the mods deleted my post. But your seriously asking me how the presence of a thermite like substance proves the buildings were demolished? I don't know. Maybe because I don't think the odds that someone secretly rigged the building for demolition, then the hijackers coincidently decided to ram the planes into the buildings before they could set off the charges is very likely.

In fact, it's simply impossible for the buildings to have collapsed in that manner without demolitions. There's just no way. The cores of the buildings were massive, and there was no weight bearing down on them that could have possible crushed them. But as you can see by videos of the collapse, and as NIST observed, there was core failure preceded the collapse.

 

Just look at photos of ground zero and listen to the accounts of those who were at the scene, the wreckage was basically mangled steel and dust. Again, there were large quantities of concrete dust that got scattered all over the area.

Just look at the massive, thick clouds of dust from the concrete and other debris. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html You can see that most of it was pulverized before it hit the ground.

As it progressed, there was less and less material over the "collapse zone". Just watch videos of the collapses over and over, and you'll see what I mean. If it was a gravity based collapse, what was pushing down on it? It exploded from the top down.

To believe the official story is to believe that an airborne cloud of dust can push down straight through 80 stories of undamaged skyscraper, perfectly symmetrical and at near free fall speed.

Also, watch building 7 collapse and tell me that could have happened because of a fire.

 

More photos of the towers pulverization:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcdust3.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1dust2.html


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by proposing that the concrete broke up in mid air, then fell through the rest of the building, destroying it along the way, then turned to dust only after landing on the ground.....but that's really a silly suggestion.

Here's a video showing why the pancake theory was impossible
[video=youtube;bdQh18kvpRU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU[/video]

 

I want everyone to take a moment and watch this video as it is the most compelling evidence yet that our security was unbreakable. Indeed we had the terrorists beaten and within our grip and we simply fell out the window. With Frank Drebin as part of our security forces I won't accept that we could have been defeated so easily.

[video=youtube;1LOTovO7oqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LOTovO7oqM[/video]


P.S. Joking aside I don't know what happened but I think it bears serious investigation with officials under oath. Perhaps there was a rush to judgment that was realized after event spiraled out of control (post Iraq invasion) and it would have been politically inconvenient to admit such a massive error. That is but one of many reasons that bush and cheney might have wanted to not be under oath. I certainly don't understand why they wouldn't have agreed to be under oath if they didn't have something to hide. That something might not have been collusion but rather that they realized they hadn't investigated thoroughly before deciding it was Bin Laden. Just out of curiosity why do the Debunker group think that Cheney was so adamant no cameras, no recording devices, not under oath and he and Bush must be interviewed at the same time? I'm curious to hear! I don't know what happened but it bears investigation.

 

Go to your back yard, build a 15 foot tall rectangular cage, with 1 inch steel bars placed ever 4 inches. Then build an interconnected steel core with 15 thick 3 inch bars steel bars like the one in the picture. Connected your two steel structures with more lightweight steel, and pour concrete floors on to each. Then damage the floors and set a fire, and see if the whole damn thing crashes down on itself at free fall speed, shredding your steel core.

I know you won't actually do this, but just imagine what the official story is saying. That fires took down 3 skyscrapers for the first time in history.

Here's Jesse Ventura, tellingit like it is!

[video=youtube;-AxYO21wE38]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxYO21wE38&feature=related[/video]

 

...are there any mechanical engineers on this board?!?!?! I am certain that the WTC buildings were constructed to withstand much more than a couple of measily little airplanes crashing into them and catching a few of their floors on fire

 

A plane actually did strike the Empire state building before...look it up. But do whatever you want to the structure. My point is, even if you started a massive fire, cut the entire top part COMPLETLY off, then dropped it from free fall 50 feet into the air, it STILL would not have crashed through the entire building as we saw on 9-11.

According to the "official reports" the primary cause of the collapse was actually the fires. As you can see, after the planes hit, the buildings the impact damage had already been done and the buildings were still standing. It was the ensuing FIRES that they say caused these massive columns to fail? Excuse me? There wasn't even any fuel in the cores to begin with, and the fire spread around the rooms, burning all of it's fuel rapidly, so by the time the buildings collapsed, the fires appeared to actually be less intense. The NIST's story, in a nutshell, is that a combination of the jet crash and the fires caused a floor to collapse,which then went on to cause the entire BUILDING to explode. But the never explain the 2nd part, and they present poor evidence for the 1st.

 

Exactly what am I making up? So hundreds of tons of concrete being pulverized as it hits the ground isn't going to scatter as airborne dust? Seriously, are you pulling my leg?

 

So you're saying that about an acre of 4-inch thick concrete pulverizes on impact after falling from 12 feet? Are you Allen Funt?

 

No, actually I don't believe that is very likely at all. That is actually one of the arguments in favor of the notion that there were explosives in the building. But as I said, there was pulverized concrete dust all over Manhattan.
An enourmous quantity of dust was in the air before the towers hit the ground.

Do you think that if you dropped a 100 pound chunk of concrete from the top of the tower, that it would have pulverized into dust? I'm sure that some dust would have been created, but I'd expect to see it in many pieces..perhaps measured in inches.

 

There was one hell of a lot more dust in the air once the towers hit the ground.

We're talking hundreds and thousands of tons of concrete collapsing in on itself, I don't see the relevance of how I think a 100 pound chunk would react to free falling from that height. But to answer your question, I'd be surprised if even a fourth of that 100 pounds was left in measurable chunks after dropping from that height.

 

This comment actually adresses a sad fact. When the WTC was constructed, they were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The reason it's sad, is that those calculations didn't include the impact of a fully fueled plane and the damage from fire. It was only the damage from the impact of the plane.

 

That plane was a prop plane that weighed a few thousand pounds. The planes that struck the WTC were approximately 250,000 lbs and 450,000 lbs. Furthermore, the buildings were constructed differently. The Empire State building was built without the use of computer modeling or decades of skyscraper design. In other words, it was massively overengineered as in an incredibly stiff building. It has a steel superstructure covered in concrete with a curtainwall of concrete and stone. The WTC was a much lighter structure, more able to flex. It was built primarily of steel with a curtainwall primarily of glass.

That being said, fly a Boeing 757 or 767 into the Empire State building and it comes down too, although not as elegantly as the WTC, which means a much greater loss of life..

 

...how hot of a fire do you think that the steel construction was engineered for???