Building burns for days...remains standing.

Why didn't this building fall down go boom?
Anyone answer that?



http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

 

I thought not.

 

The heads are still deep in the sand I see...

 

I'll try to tackle a bit of this. First, a question though: the thread title says that this Beijing building burned for days, yet I see no mention of this in the article. It lists a time that the fire started, but I saw no mention of when it was put out. Did I miss this information, or is there a discrepancy here?

In the mean time, let's treat this as though it were an experiment. The article lists a number of buildings that have sustained fire damage and remained standing, and then contrasts this with the WTC towers, but I believe that this comparison is ill conceived. Conditions between buildings differ in one important way: the WTC had planes crash into them; the Beijing and Windsor buildings did not (if you believe the mainstream version of the story, granted). Do we know the effect that a plane sized hole in a building has on the structural integrity of a skyscraper? Second, I have not seen any information which would allow us to compare the temperatures of the fires in their respective structures. A hotter flame would be able to cause more damage than a cooler one, after all. It seems to me that there is information that is missing that could potentially be quite helpful in explaining the discrepancies between these structures.

As it stands, the only conclusion I can rightly come to is that fire alone is not a sufficient condition to cause a skyscraper to collapse on itself; whatever other conditions would be necessary, I believe, cannot be drawn from what this article tells us.

 

Hope this link gives you information you are looking for. Glad to see somebody new and one that intends to use their brain some
Welcome!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded.html

 

I'll say it.

It didnt fall because it was'nt charged.

How I missed this thread so long I don't know.

 

The intellectually dishonest again don't respond to truth Jack.


The lot of you ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

Interesting to say the least.

I believe as time goes on more and more people will wonder what really did happen on 9/11. I haven't done a ton of research so I pretty much stay out of it. This does not mean I discount the possiblility there was more at work than a few jets.

My head spun around so fast at work today I looked like Linda Blair. It was a comment my boss made to a customer.
He was talking about how the rubble from the towers, as in steel, was shipped to China so quickly after the disaster.
I have no idea where he got this "information" or how true it may be. What made my head spin around so fast was the fact that my staunch Republican, "I believe ANYTHING Rush says" boss would even entertain such a thought. For the record he did use the word conspiracy!

 

As sad as that day was, I think it's even sadder that a large percentage of the American people refuse to acknowledge it for what it was, or demand no accounting of it at all. The corporations own the news media, and I guess the sheople as well. Embarrassing.

 

Sorry for the much delayed response, but I was rereading posts and felt compelled to add this. Fire IS what was claimed to have brought down the buildings. Not the planes themselves. That's number one. Numer two...if fires of a higher temperature cause more damage than a cooler one, as you suggest, then I ask you, could the building in China that literally was fully engulfed in flames from top to bottom have been any hotter?? Why didn't it fall? We hear how jet fuel made the buildings so hot (in less than an hour mind you), did so much damage structurally, that they just fell. IN AN HOUR. Then a building burns for days, with temperatures off the scale, yet it remained standing. I've heard some suggest that WTC's were not constructed the same. With that I could find agreement, but not that they were weaker for sure, because they were much stronger. Picture this. Construct floors and floors of steel squares, and connect them all together in the normal construction fashion, that is, connecting all the floors with vertical support beams and you have a building's core essentially. In WTC's cases, then add 47 VERTICAL columns inside the structure, joined together WITH the floors. So you've got 47 VERTICAL steel columns piled together sticking up in the center of the building, VERTICALLY (that's north and south for the geometrically challanged). 47 columns!! Sticking up like a jar of toothpicks!! Where did they go? They all broke apart, disintegrated, evaporated? (or whatever NIST explanation you care to incorporate).
If the buildings fell (in an hour because it was so hot),where did these 47 VERTICAL columns go? Shouldn't they have been sticking up? Well...they weren't sticking up because they were obliterated via explosive, steel eating THERMITE. They were MELTED and blown apart. THAT's why they weren't sticking straight up out of the ground like trees.
The Windsor building burned @ over 800 degrees CELSIUS. (That's around 1500 degrees fahrenheit...or more simply, your home oven broiling at 500 degrees TIMES 3. This building burned under these conditions for OVER 18 HOURS.
Guess what?? IT DIDN'T FALL!! But two of our oxygen starved fires in our WTC's (remember the black smoke??) on a couple of floors, destroyed them both in under an hour! The Windsor building was a similarly constructed building to WTC's. What magic caused this building to remain standing? Oh....that's right. That one DIDN'T have explosive thermate to assist in it's demise.
You remember the nose of one of the planes "popping out" of the other side of the building it hit? How did an aluminum nose of a plane punch through these 47 vertical steel columns, remain intact and pop out the other side of the building? Stong aluminum there huh? NOT. Steel versus aluminum and aluminum wins? Why use steel then? Why not use this super strong aluminum?? Again...assisted with timed explosives clearing the path is of course the answer.
Thermite melted sections of the core columns to assist it's accelerated collapse. Remember the "pancake theory"?
Guess what? NIST "officially" abandoned that tale. I wonder why? Maybe because those pesky core columns interfered with their "analysis". It couldn't "stand up" under scrutiny. Remember the lava like streams of molten metal pouring out of the sides of the buildings just prior to their collapse? What do think that was? Burning fuel? Aluminum from the plane? NOT. It was molten IRON. Thermite produces molten IRON as a result of it's ignition. That IRON that was pouring out of the sides of the buildings was coming from the 81st floor in one instance. The 81st floor was a secure IT room. Imagine that? This was yellow molten iron. YELLOW. Molten aluminum is silvery gray in color. Google it. Takes two seconds.
Remember the "white" smoke? That was the "Thermate" burning. (Thermate is basically an "enhanced" version of Thermite). Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82. The entire 81st floor was filled with server sized "UPS" batteries.
Fuji had reinforced the 81st floor to support the weight of the "batteries". They were brought in and bolted to a raised floor 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor, during the summer prior to 9/11..and oh...at night. They were bolted in place. NEVER USED. Gee...that sounds normal. Could those "batteries" not have been "batteries"? Instead maybe Thermate? It goes on and on and on folks. So many red flags that only a blind person couldn't walk without tripping over them.

Anyone....who has legitimate, honest, information seeking questions about anything I've posted here, please ask. I'll provide you with any additional information, sources, proof, or references.

This is only a very SMALL part of what happened that day. One small aspect of a much broader picture with many,many twists and turns. Get past your "gee...I can't believe anybody would do that" mentality and LOOK. ask.
I'm pretty well versed in most everything I post, so ask away. Please...just be legitimate. I won't respond to
the nonsense, the ridicule from the brainless. But if you have a brain....USE IT...and if you have a backbone...you need to use that as well. Expose it. Talk about it. Help to PREVENT it from happening again. You can watch "American Idol" later.

 

Have you actually ever seen molten aluminum?

If that is not a legitimate question, please let me know!

 

Why yes I have, and I've also seen molten iron. Have you?

BOTH can be seen in the video link below.

 

Perhaps you have forgotten. I have a BS in Metallurgy from Lehigh University. From 1998 to 2000 I worked in an aluminum master alloys plant called Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corportation as a plant shift manager. The main building was responsible for the production of many different aluminum alloys. The furnaces used in that building were induction furnaces with a capacity of around 5000lbs. In some of the other buildings of the plant which did not operate daily, the plant produced chromium steel and vanadium steel using arc furnaces. So yes, I have seen both molten steel and molten aluminum.

Molten aluminum has a low emissivity which is why it does not change color like steel. However, do you know what color aluminum oxide on molten aluminum appears? You do know that aluminum is highly reactive and that reactivity increases with temperature.

 

Glad you have a great understanding of Metallurgy. Maybe you could explain the information below, from folks who also have very credible backgrounds as well.

To me, as I understand the info presented, aluminum oxide with white smoke (which was plainly present in many videos taken that day) is also a by product of thermite (a SIGNATURE characteristic of the presences of thermite as Steven Jones puts it).

Looks like molten iron to me..not some mysterious aluminum reactivity, but you're supposed to be an expert so maybe you could tell me. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...might be a duck.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm


Now that you've gone through that info, I will share some more of my beliefs and opinions.

Remember the "pools" of molten metal that existed under the WTC's for WEEKS afterwards? Both WTC1 and WTC2 had them for weeks afterwards. Guess what? WTC7 had them as well! Why would WTC7 have these pools under it? It just "fell down". Remember? No plane ever came close to hitting it. Well, thats because it was molten IRON under all of them. ALL a byproduct of thermite reaction. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered...even with water. That's why it lasted for weeks and no amount of water poured onto it made any difference. Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. I believe you initially told me that Lehigh, didn't you? The molten pools were of IRON...again...the byproduct of the thermite's reaction. That's why it was under ALL3 BUILDINGS. WTC7's pool couldn't have been aluminum from the plane...ummm..because no plane hit it. The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.. EXCEPT falling liquid aluminum, which due to LOW EMISSIVITY (see..I can agree with you Lehigh) and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does produce an incandescent glow like other metals, but faintly, so that with the conditions described in the previous sentence (which prevailed at the WTC on 9/11), falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray.
IRON being present (as opposed to aluminum) is indicated by reddish rust (google to easily find lotsa reddish rust pictures of that day). Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? Not even you Lehigh.The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen IS in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures.

Aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory), because they do NOT mix in. Also,the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite).

Falling molten steel would not produce white ash, whereas thermite produces a white aluminum-oxide ash which trails away from the falling molten metal generated in it's reaction.

Steven Jones (whom you've admitted has strong credentials) deserves the credit for exposing much of this information (along with David Griffin...and others). I've seen his lectures on the subject repeatedly and own a great deal of video material that verifies what he and others try painstakingly to explain to the brain dead public. THAT is how I arrive at my conclusions...by RESEARCHING the hell out of it. See what compares...what makes sense. Compare differing opinions..find out the common points.

Take 5 minutes and educate yourself people. Pretend it's American Idol or some other Fox production.



You like to make a big deal out of the idea that you are so much more educated than myself, and have often ridiculed what I believe to be fact. If you are as smart and as educated as you claim to be, then it SHOULDN'T be any great effort on your part to do the limited research to verify that the whole official story, from front to back, is complete nonsense. The brain dead public is too consumed with the trials and tribulations of trying to make a living and watching American Idol to look at what they don't want to see anyway, so I can somewhat understand their ignorance. But you have no excuse, because you're so well educated, so smart, so enlightened. Yet you persist in willful ignorance on anything to do with this subject that can only be supported by total and complete blind ignorance of the facts. You spin. You "corral". You steer the points elsewhere if it starts making too much sense. It is obvious to me that you aren't stupid. It is equally obvious though that you do NOT want truth exposed, perhaps out of some warped sense of what you believe is patriotism...not "making waves", because you believe that the consequences of exposing the lies would somehow be more damaging than the actual crimes committed that day. I believe it's exactly the opposite of the stance that should be taken. A thief usually continues stealing unless he has a good reason not to continue stealing. Some deterrent. Far as I can tell with 911, thieves, or other criminals don't have much of a deterrent, at least up till now. Hopefully that's changing. By ignoring what happened only invites and not bringing it out in the open only invites a bigger loss the next time around. Maybe that's what is going on today already with the financial status of everything and everybody that isn't "in the club" of the elite. That pool grows bigger and bigger every day...due to IGNORANCE more than anything else. Opening your eyes occasionally can help change that. NOT ignoring questionable events, obvious lies, and different official versions of the same story can help too. Take the time for future generations if you're too wrapped up in yourself to do it for yourself if nothing else. Lastly...be honest..if not to everyone else...at least to yourself, or at the very least...discuss the possibilities out in the open. Talk is cheap. Ignorance will cost us all.
Those that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. What an accurate and relevant thought. I wish I'd said it.

 

Tom,

I never said that the molten metal coming out of the building was molten aluminum. I simply wanted you to answer a few questions regarding molten metals. I am not an expert in Metallurgy by any means, but I do have a formal education on the subject and practical work experience with molten metals. You have seen photos, videos, and know what you have read from your corrupt media sources.

Also, I don't appreciate you telling everyone lies about what I said. If you have enough time to post all of this stuff, then you have enough time to research my statements in the original 9/11 thread. I never said the beams melted. I tried valiantly on many occasions to explain to you that steel will undergo an annealing process between 650-750 degrees Celsius for most steel alloys. Annealing dramatically affects the mechanical properties of the metal, including the strength which it depends upon to carry a load. Annealing by itself may not cause a building to collapse because buildings are engineered to withstand much more than their actual weight. However, when a plane crashes into the building an damages the steel beams, that in conjunction with annealing would be enough to cause the structure to fail, and fall to the ground. That explains how your Beijing fire building did not collapse btw.

Let me list some of the things that we agree upon. The fire was nowhere near hot enough to melt steel. Most likely, the metal seen pouring out of the building was molten steel. The fire was hot enough to melt aluminum and anneal steel. The towers sustained massive structural damage from the impact of the planes. The buildings fell down.

What we don't agree about is what caused the buildings to come down. You have it in your mind that some clandestine group spent some incredible amount of time planting thermate (used to be nano-thermite) on the steel beams of the building. At one time you even claimed that the WTC maintenance crews unknowingly painted the thermite onto the beams. Until you can show one shred of proof that somebody actually planted incredible amounts of thermite in the twin towers, I will treat it as the ridiculous conspiracy theory that it is.

Now back to the science. There was a really hot fire, I believe you admitted to 800 degrees celsius. A plane crashed into each tower causing structural damage and a fire hot enough to both anneal the structural steel beams of the building and melt the aluminum fuselage of the plane. You are correct about the molten aluminum flowing away from the heat source. Molten aluminum has a viscosity comparable to that of water. It will get everywhere, quickly! It will travel through cracks in concrete and come in contact with structural steel beams for instance. Now Tom, do you know what will happen when molten aluminum comes in contact with steel? I don't want you to think I am making this up so I will quote a text from my job at the plant after giving you the lay persons explanation. Molten aluminum is hot enough to ignite most things it touches. When it touches iron oxide however, something very special happens. You guessed it, a thermite reaction takes place. Thermite reactions are extremely exothermic and the heat produced is easily capable of melting steel. The following is a section of the GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING MOLTEN ALUMINUM (second edition 1990) written by the Aluminum Association (page 84, section 30).

Section 30
Thermite Reactions

Molten aluminum reacts with oxides of heavy metals such as iron, copper, and nickel to form the heavy metal and aluminum oxide. These reactions, called thermite reactions, have been and continue to be used in the industry. Thermite reactions generate large amounts of heat, but not gases; hence, these reactions per se do not produce explosions. However, in melting and casting aluminum, care must be taken to guard against contact of the molten aluminum with rusty iron and steel, heavily oxidized copper, and other oxidized materials.

I know that nothing will change your mind. I know that your next response will be to say that a plane did not crash into WTC7 so where is the molten aluminum coming from. I know that it is more plausible for you to believe that people planted thermite in WTC7 than to imagine that there were sources of aluminum inside the building that could in combination with the intense fires caused the building to collapse in much the same manner that the towers did.

In the end, your completely irrational fear and distrust of corporate America and the Republican party allows you to believe the massive ludicrous conspiracy theory involving remote controlled 767's. You never stop to realize how crazy your theory is. You love to poke holes in the official story which most people readily admit is filled with lies but never answer the huge gaping holes on your own story. Furthermore, if you remember the days after 9/11, you will remember that the majority of the country wanted to know one thing. How could this happen. The people responsible did not want to be held responsible so they did the logical thing, they lied. Everyone in the government was trying to find someone else to blame so they could keep their cushy government jobs. Once you start lying, you can't stop.

Did they lie to the 9/11 commission? Of course they did. Were they involved in the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world? No, they were simply trying to cover their own asses. You can waste the rest of your life trying to get people to believe your ridiculous conspiracy theory or you can go out an do something productive with your life. The choice is yours.

 

Wow...with all due (or undue) respect, you sure know how to twist words to have them fit your objective very well.

I am tired at the moment, and not mentally up to responding in detail, at the moment to your version of the facts. Briefly however...
TherMATE is more specific to what we're talking about here. TherMATE is created by actively mixing sulfur in with TherMITE. The iron is a by product of that reaction.

http://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/sne-12207-911.ihtml


Mr Jones explains it here.

http://www.videobomb.com/posts/show/3229


Did they lie? Of course they lied, but you dismiss it...because "everybody" naturally does it?

I love to poke holes??? The holes are gaping my friend and I assure you...I didn't place them there. The criminals did.

Iron oxide and aluminum DIDN'T mix together as a result of the plane evaporating/melting...whatever, and then forming with the steel beams and everything just goes bye bye. The process had a WHOLE LOT OF HELP. The process you are trying to oversimplify/steer/corral. Unexploded "red chips" of Thermate were found all over the place. Mr Jones has possession of samples. TherMATE is a very specific mix of aluminum power, iron oxide, sulfur, manganese, and other crap that I do not recall at the moment. The point is....that specific mixture that were found as red chips COULDN'T have possibly occurred as some accidental reaction.

TherMATE.

I do realize your attempt at blurring the scenario. You do that very well...I'll admit. Right now I'm too tired to respond coherently, but rest assured...I will, and you'll spin it again, but hey....it's all only entertainment anyway, right?

Lastly for now, I don't think I'm exactly "wasting my life" as you put it. The time I spend is well worth the possible outcome of people awakening IMO.

PS

That whole annealing thing is really hilarious. You can't have it both ways Bud. But I digress...........good day.

 

If you are so confident that you are right, put it to a vote! I have been asking you to do this for months now. I provide you with completely realistic alternative to your drone plane (now with missles), entire floor of explosives, government controlled conspiracy theory, yet you still see what you desperately want to see.

Annealing is done intentionally during manufacturing processes and the production of steel alloys would be impossible without it. If you don't believe that annealing steel will change the microstructure and mechanical properties of steel, then you are a bigger clown than I thought.

 

I'm speaking of annealing during the time of the incident, which is what you implied, I thought. Mix it up bud...mix it up. You're doin' great. Keep up the good work. Vote??? For what? Your amusement? Obviously folks that are afraid to even offer an opinion on the matter aren't going to side with my opinions. You want it so bad...I guess post it Bud. Knock yourself out.

As to my response to your most recent blend of fantasy, fact and fiction, as I promised. By the way....I AM glad to see you seem to now be on board with the Thermite/Thermate being present. Thanks for that...and congratulations. Too bad you're now trying to spin it as some natural, innocent occurrence of planes infecting the whole steel structure in 45 minutes, but I suppose it's better than your original completely ignoring and ridiculing the idea when it was initially introduced (as far as its introduction into this particular thread is concerned) I had to clarify that before you did a piece meal number on that too. Done.

First things first, since you've probably successfully muddied the water again to the ostrich public...
direct quote from Professor Steven E. Jones suggesting Thermite initially, somewhat early on.
(as quoted live on the Alex Jones show).

AJ: All right folks, we're back live and we're talking right now to a physicist from Brigham Young University. Headline: Professor thinks bombs not planes toppled WTC. That's the Desert Morning News headline, and he's of course Dr. Steven E. Jones.
Now we were talking about thermite and of course thermite is used in these white phosphorous bombs in warfare. Thermite will burn right through anything and you're talking about this molten metal down in the basement which NASA did photograph with it's sensors. This is admitted. What would cause this but thermite? You're a physicist, please continue.

SJ: So the reaction in thermite, the chemical reaction, involves iron oxide, basically rust, with which we're mostly all of us familiar, and aluminum powder, and when these are caused to ignite - which requires a fairly high temperature to touch it off, like burning magnesium - but once it ignites it burns extremely hot, as you say. Hot enough to melt steel, yes, cut right through steel, and it can even evaporate steel. It's that hot. But the end products of thermites; you have iron oxide plus aluminum. It produces aluminum oxide, that's where the great heat release comes. There. Plus molten iron. Essentially pure iron then with this aluminum oxide as a residue would be found with the thermite reaction. So these large pools of molten iron under both towers and building seven is a smoking gun - for something, some very high temperature reaction, and it indicates thermite. Now until we do the actual analysis we can't say that for sure, but I certainly hope that scientists somewhere saved a small sample (laughs.)



That interview was BEFORE actual samples of TherMATE were found and independently tested with identical results. Here is a later quote from Mr. Jones. (Steven...not Alex)

"There's a lot we can learn from the hard physical evidence," Jones said, citing the existence of steel beams in the wreckage of the buildings, portions of which are known to have vaporized, as well as the existence of intact chips of unexploded thermate, a compound of iron oxide, aluminum and other accelerants that can melt steel beams when ignited. The vaporized steel demonstrates that temperatures higher than can be achieved by office fires or jet fuel combustion were present when the buildings fell, according to Jones.

Continuing.....Mr. Jones is quoted once again.


In an interview, Jones said microanalysis of the four samples of dust collected from various sites in Lower Manhattan revealed not only extensive presence of red-gray chips of unignited nano-thermite, but it also found significant traces of microspheres of previously molten iron that normally are the product of incendiary explosions far hotter than jet-fuel fires.

“These red chips are very unusual and very prevalent, and they test out as being consistent with a form of thermite,” Jones said. “We can ignite them and they react very violently when touched off. So how do you explain their presence in the towers’ dust?”

Jones noted that the U.S. Geological Survey, which did some testing on WTC dust for NIST and found the microspheres, never tested for explosives or incendiaries because NIST never ordered them. “I have been encouraging them to test early dust samples, but they haven’t responded,” Jones said.

Jones said he sent a letter in April 2008 to NIST about his original findings, inviting NIST to test its own dust for such chips. In public comments since, NIST has said that Jones’s research is not “scientifically valid” because Jones can’t prove the “chain of custody” of the dust he tested.

So....maybe we're onto something. NIST questions the "chain of custody". We're getting closer. Speaking of NIST, Their "official" position on what they advocate as the molten metal flowing out of the side of the building is.........(drumroll)

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel.

Oh yeah.....that "yellow orange" molten aluminum that streamed all the way down the side of the building and maintained that "yellow orange" color to the ground.. You know....the same aluminum that is silvery gray on every other day except 9/11. But NIST knows their stuff. Yeah right.

Finally..for now..another world scientist from some other country explains what the rest of the planet already knows.


http://www.esoterictube.com/danish-chemist-found-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust.html


You you may begin your tyrade of insults and ridicule Lehigh. Have at it.

 

You don't even realize how stupid you sound when you talk about these subjects. You refer to thermite as a material. Thermite is a type of reaction that is exothermic involving aluminum, iron oxide, and a very hot ignition source. You and Steven Jones want everyone to believe that somebody brought tons of aluminum powder and iron oxide into both WTC towers and used remote controlled drone 767 planes that fired missiles into the buildings at the exact moment prior to impact to ignite the thermite reaction and eventually bring the buildings down in the grandest conspiracy of all time.

The alternative is that terrorists high jacked planes, flew them into the WTC, and the resultant fires melted the aluminum from the plane. That molten aluminum then caused thermite reactions with the already annealed weakened structural steel. Eventually the damage from the plane impact, the weakening from the annealing, and the loss of structural steel from the thermite reactions caused the complete structural failure of the buildings.

Furthermore, Steven Jones is a physicist, not a metallurgical engineer. Now you may think that all science related disciplines are interchangeable, but I do not. The material in his quote is very basic information and no part of what he said excludes the possibility that the thermite reaction was the result of molten aluminum from the planes and rusted structural steel. Why don't you ask him? I am sure you two are on a first name basis by now.

I am not on board with there being thermite/thermate in the buildings. I do agree that a thermite reaction would be necessary for molten steel to form and have provided a very reasonable explanation for how that would happen. BTW, why do you now think that thermate was used instead of thermite. A thermite reaction can easily melt steel; there is no reason to use thermate which would reduce the melting point of the steel.

 

Speed? Guaranteed and complete destruction of evidence? I can speculate. You are the government defender...you tell me. The Danish scientist referenced above seems to think "tons" isn't that far off though. Me, Steven Jones and this Danish scientist. We're up to three. Doesn't that sound stupid?