Now what can we conclude from this?
Was there some other source of heat that fueled the collapse of the towers? If so what was it?
Secondary charges? Who put them there?
This only results in more questions that need answered, but at least the questions are starting and hopefully the push for answers will follow.

I've seen the video of the second tower falling several times. For one thing, I saw WTC7 collapsing *before* falling rubble from the south tower could even *fall down that far* to make contact. For another thing, I was expecting to see the towers collapse by leaning over to on side or another; But *both* towers came down nearly perfect; Just as if I were watching a professional demolition job.

Another thing that drew my attention later on was some reports that FEMA agents were *IN* those buildings before the attacks...And they were called away (by their cell phones) less than a half-hour before the attacks. It's been established that it takes FEMA agents nearly an hour to be properly suited up to respond to such an "accident", yet those very *same agents* were suited & back at the WTC less than 10 minutes after the first attack! This seems to point to the implication that they *knew* what was going to happen & were already starting to suit up *before* the attack actually hit!

And all of this was *before* I read anything at the link you listed!

And they expect me to fall for the "party-line explanation" that defies known laws of physics? Well, at least that story worked for *millions* of average people, but there *are* experts willing to speak out, thank God.

MidnightDStroyer, are you saying the US Gov was looking for a " new Pearl Harbor " or a " new USS Maddox " incident ?

that doesnt make sense to me. he says that the steel platforms could hold 5 times what they were required to hold. and that it was heated and the strength of the platform waso nly 60% therefore it could only hold 3 times what it was required to. also there were 20 floors above it. if 20 floors fell on one floor wouldnt that cause it to collapse? its only required to hold one floor therefore it is capable of holding 5 at full strength. but if 20 floors fell on it of course it would collapse.

hmmm...Even if what you say is true, how would that account for how *straight* the towers fell? The only way to acheive *that* kind of precision is through *pre-planned planting by demolitions experts*.

Very interesting..had to print it to reread later though.
There is a fair amount of fair conjecture in the article and good points are made also.

The "melting" need not have been needed to simply "weaken" the structure. Anyone who is familiar with construction would tell you (firemen) that there are so many fuel sources with in a high rise to be exploited by a oxygen hungry fire.

Flash points raise and lower, build and then explode. Different PVC and piping/insulation, light metals, styrofoam, plexi-glass, HVAC gasses (non-inert)...the list is almost endless of fuel for a fire of that heat needed.
As easy as this may be to contemplate, I just think too much is unknown about the contents of the plane (were explosives on board also?) and the buildings when hit.

Couldn't finish reading that article. The steel gets it's strength from the shape and truss design. If you heat the steel it warps and bends thereby destroying the structural integrity.

Wood trusses, which rely upon the steel plates to hold the components together, collaps before the wood burns. It's all in the connection points.

As a fireman for over 20 years I have seen in a house fire, steal beams used as headers which have deformed from the heat and there was no jet fuel used. Just the contents of the house. I have also seen copper pipes which were below the fire melt.

About 10 years ago there was a huge 20-30 story building being revovated in, I think France. They were jacking it up from the ground floor, I think to put in a better parking garage. One of the jacks slipped off it's jack point and dropped slightly. The result was similar to the WTC. The weight from above coupled with the slight movement downward caused the entire building to collaps and kill over 30 seasoned construction workers.

If you drop 30 floors of building an inch all at the same time, what would the force be when it impacts the structure below. It's not just the weight of the structure above. I don't know how to calculate it, but it should be many times greater.

the jet fuel was mostly spent on the initial impact. The fires were just smouldering away, no where near the 1500 deg C needed to melt the steel. The fact that the central pillars (40 or so?) filled with concrete and re-inforced steel that went from the top of the building to the bedrock disintegrated, really makes you look harder at the whole thing. Sure if the floors pancaked the central pillars would still be there....

and lmao... don't compare french construction to U.S. construction, they are poles apart...

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I've seen the video of the second tower falling several times. For one thing, I saw WTC7 collapsing *before* falling rubble from the south tower could even *fall down that far* to make contact. For another thing, I was expecting to see the towers collapse by leaning over to on side or another; But *both* towers came down nearly perfect; Just as if I were watching a professional demolition job.

Another thing that drew my attention later on was some reports that FEMA agents were *IN* those buildings before the attacks...And they were called away (by their cell phones) less than a half-hour before the attacks. It's been established that it takes FEMA agents nearly an hour to be properly suited up to respond to such an "accident", yet those very *same agents* were suited & back at the WTC less than 10 minutes after the first attack! This seems to point to the implication that they *knew* what was going to happen & were already starting to suit up *before* the attack actually hit!

And all of this was *before* I read anything at the link you listed!

And they expect me to fall for the "party-line explanation" that defies known laws of physics? Well, at least that story worked for *millions* of average people, but there *are* experts willing to speak out, thank God.

they were designed to collapse inward/implode. thats how very tall buildings are designed, in case of structure failure for ANY reason the building will collapse inward for safety reasons. how do i know??? drafting class years ago....

they collpased because of excessive heat. the steel used in contrsuction was coated to withstand very hot temps but that coating pretty much blew away like dust upon impact.

Question: were those TWIN TOWERS the only ones ??

U mean there's no other existing buildings,( no doubt shorter than 110+ stories at the WTC location) that have nowhere at notime, ever been built- using the same modern engineering design??

{? first Q, why not?>a revolutionary design & a new benchmark for skyscraper engineering=floor spaceX$$ }
**the absence of WTC type buildings, popping up globally could mean: ?the design could not be underwritten??...the WTC would be the first, last, only buildings of that structural design....because the engineers & insurance investigations found out....way too late ...that a 9-11 result would happen if a large plane ever made a deliberate crash into the tower...

guess that leaves out everything but computer simulations...
and who do you trust to do the research...

is this one of those paradox loops ??

"and lmao... don't compare french construction to U.S. construction, they are poles apart... "

I did not compair construction technics, I was just explaining a real example.

The core of the WTC wouldn't stand up on it's own. The resulting collaps must have destablized the core as it went down.