NIST Responds to 9/11 Truthers

NIST has been forced to respond, in a set of questions and answers, to points raised by 9/11 truth advocates. Here is the webpage. I eagerly await a rebuttal from people who know more about this issue than I do.

The questions which NIST purports to address are:

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?"

The fact that NIST has been forced to address these questions shows that we are making headway.

i just scanned it, and Jones

i just scanned it, and Jones and others are gonna have a fairly simple time debunking this garbage.

my favourite

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.


"the air for combustion was

"the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires."

 Ha.  The air for an inferno that was supposedly that size would be like a freight train through those openings, those people wouldn't be able to stand, never mind lean out the openings.

Nothing there

Let's not get silly there. We all know verything in the impact area was taken out by the crash - there was nothing there to burn.

How else would a person be able to stand there?

Yes, but

the huge fires were suppose to be raging directly behind where the people were standing. the WTC core isn't that far away from the edge. And if there was a raging inferno lol the people wouldn't be able to be that close to it. Not to mention, be that close to it, but have none of that raging inferno visible in photos or videos of the people [man and woman] standing at the edge.

Hence, no raging inferno in the core columns at the impact levels = no collapse because of raging jet fuel fed fires.


You saw the people, you saw the fires. You know the damage inflicted. Now, just how much explosives was needed?

14 tons

by XXXX • Sunday April 17, 2005 at 01:01 AM

Estimates of the WTC dust cloud expansion are used to provide a lower bound for the quantity of explosives used to bring down the towers. - Articles

The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the
Dust Cloud following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman, October 16th, 2003
[Version 3.0]
This paper uses photographic evidence -- primarily a reference photograph taken from FEMA's report -- to estimate the volume of the dust cloud that grew from the collapse of the North Tower at about 30 seconds after the commencement of the collapse. The paper then estimates the thermal energy required to produce the observed expansion in the volume of the dust cloud, based on the assumption that most of the gasses and suspended solids in the cloud originated from within the building.

The most recent version of the paper identifies two major mechanisms for the expansion -- thermodynamic expansion of gasses due to increases in temperature, and expansion due to the vaporization of water. Both represent vast energy sinks. Whatever the relative contributions of these mechanisms to the expansion, the required energy inputs far exceeds the energy available in the form of the gravitational potential energy due to the tower's elevated mass.

Previous versions of the paper did not consider expansion due to water vaporization, and considered only thermodynamic expansion of gasses present in the building at the time of collapse. That required average dust cloud temperatures of around 1000 K, a feature several people found implausible. The addition of the heat of water vaporization to the analysis changes the picture dramatically. The heat energy requirements are similar, but the temperatures need not have been anywhere near 1000 K, since the phase change of water to steam occurs at 100 C.

The paper shows a large disparity between the energy required to produce the observed expansion of the dust cloud and that available from the conversion of all the tower's gravitational potential energy to heat. It does not consider the possible energy source of the unlikely rapid combustion of the tower's contents during its collapse, but even the energy available from consuming all of the oxygen in the tower to burn hydrocarbons is far short of the estimated size of the energy sink of dust cloud expansion.

On September 11th, both of the Twin Towers disintegrated into vast clouds of concrete and other materials, which blanketed Lower Manhattan. This paper shows that the energy required to produce the expansion of the dust cloud observed immediately following the collapse of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) was much greater than the gravitational energy available from its elevated mass. It uses only basic physics.

Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate [Ref. (1)]: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. "That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. [Ref. (2)]. That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al [Ref. (3)], characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

A second energy sink, that has apparently been overlooked, was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses. Note that the contents of the dust clouds had to come from building constituents -- gases and materials inside of or intrinsic to the building -- modulo any mixing with outside air. Given that the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, with distinct boundaries and rapidly expanding frontiers (averaging perhaps 35 feet/second on the ground for the first 30 seconds), it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their volume. Therefore the dust clouds' expansion must have been primarily due to an expansion of building constituents. Possible sources of expansion include:

thermodynamic expansion of gases
vaporization of liquids and solids
chemical reactions resulting in a net increase in gaseous phase molecules That is explosives.
The evidence does not support the idea that chemical reactions in the dust cloud liberated vast quantities of gases.
Actually, the evidence does support the use of explosives to collapse the towers [Ref. (4)].

That leaves increases in gas temperatures and vaporization of solids and liquids, primarily water, to drive the expansion.

How much heat energy was involved in expanding the dust clouds? To calculate the energy we need to answer three questions:

What was the volume of the dust clouds from a collapse at some time soon after it started (before the clouds began to diffuse)?
How did the mixing of the dust cloud with ambient air contribute to its size, and how can this be factored out to obtain the volume occupied by gases and suspended materials originally inside the building?
What is the ratio of that volume to the volume of the intact building?
How much heat energy was required to produce that ratio of expansion?
Since I have better photographs for North Tower dust, I did the calculation for it.

1. Quantifying Dust Cloud Volume
To answer question 1, I made estimates based on photographs taken at approximately 30 seconds after the onset of the collapse. The photo in Figure 1 appears to have been taken around 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse of the North Tower. The fact that the spire is visible directly behind Building 7 indicates the photo was not taken later than the 30 seconds, since video records show that the spire started to collapse at the around 29 seconds. In this photograph, as in other ones taken around that time, the dust clouds still have distinct boundaries.

Figure 1. Photograph from Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report

I used landmarks in this photo to make several approximate measurements of the frontier of the dust cloud. The following table lists some of them. Measurements are in feet. The first column lists heights above the street, and the second lists distances from the vertical axis of the North Tower.

Label Height Distance Description
3 230 1011 West corner of 45 Park Place
5 228 729 Top of south corner of building with stepped roof
6 204 658 East corner of Building 7, 30 stories below top
7 600 776 Upwell towering over southeast end of Post Office
8 700 ? Upwell slightly higher than the top of Building 7
11 190 870 Top of west corner of 22 Cortland St tower
12 508 588 8 stories below top of face of WFC 3
13 498 517 3 stories below top of upper face of WFC 2

To approximate the volume I used a cylinder, coaxial with the vertical axis of the North Tower, with a radius of 800 feet, and a height of 200 feet. All the above reference points lie outside of this volume. Although the cylinder does not lie entirely within the dust cloud, there are large parts of the cloud outside of it, such as the 700 foot high upwelling column south of Building 7. The cylinder has a volume of:

pi x (800 feet)2 x 200 feet = 402,000,000 feet3.

I subtract about a quarter for volume occupied by other buildings, giving 300,000,000 feet3.

2. Factoring out Mixing and Diffusion
To accurately answer question 2 would require detailed knowledge of the fluid dynamics involved. However it does appear that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary. There are several pieces of evidence that support this:

The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.
As the dust clouds advanced outward, features on their frontiers evolved relatively slowly compared to the clouds' rates of advance. This indicates that that clouds were expanding from within and that if surface turbulence was incorporating ambient air, it's contribution to expansion was minor.
The top surface of the clouds looked like the surface of a boiling viscous liquid - churning but not mixing with the air above. Sinking portions of the clouds were replaced by clear air, not a mixture of the cloud and air.
The dust clouds maintained distinct interfaces for well over a minute. Mixing and diffusion would have produced diffuse interfaces.
There are reports of people being picked up and carried distances by the South Tower dust cloud, which felt solid. New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh recalled:

Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave -- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.
Initially the dust clouds must have been much heavier than air, given the mass of the concrete they carried and the distances they transported it. As time went on the cloud became more diffuse, but all of the photographs that can be verified as being within the first minute show opaque clouds with distinct boundaries, indicating the dominant mode of growth was expansion, not mixing or diffusion. It seems reasonable to assume that mixing with ambient air did not account for a significant fraction of the expansion in the volume of the dust cloud by 30 seconds of the start of the North Tower collapse. Nevertheless, I reduce the estimate of the dust cloud volume of building origin to 200,000,000 feet3, imagining that a third of the growth may have been due to assimilation of ambient air.
3. Computing the Expansion Ratio
The answer to question 3 is easy. The volume of a tower, with it's 207 foot width and 1368 foot height, is:

1368 feet x 207 feet x 207 feet = 58,617,432 feet3.

So the ratio of the expanded gasses and suspended materials from the tower to the original volume of the tower is:

200,000,000 feet3 / 58,617,432 feet3 = 3.41.

4. Computing the Required Heat Input
Above I identified two energy sinks that could have driven expansion of the dust cloud: thermodynamic expansion of gases, and vaporization of liquids and solids. Since most constituents and contents of the building other than water would require very high temperatures to vaporize, I consider only the vaporization of water in evaluating the second sink.

It is clearly not possible to determine with any precision the relative contributions of these two sinks to the expansion of the dust cloud. If the cloud remained uniform in temperature and density for the first 30 seconds, then the expansion would consist of three distinct phases:

The temperature would increase to 100 C, accompanied by thermodynamic expansion.
The temperature would remain at 100 C until all of the water was vaporized.
The temperature would increase above 100 C, again accompanied by thermodynamic expansion.
Since such uniform conditions were not present, I will first treat the two energy sinks separately, and will compute the energy requirements for each if it alone were responsible for the expansion.
4.1. The Thermodynamic Expansion Sink
The ideal gas law can be used to compute a lower bound for the amount of heat energy required to induce the observed expansion of the dust cloud, assuming that the expansion was entirely due to thermodynamic expansion. That law states that the product of the volume and pressure of a parcel of a gas is proportional to absolute temperature. It is written PV = nRT, where:

P = pressure
V = volume
T = absolute temperature
n = molar quantity
R = constant

Absolute temperature is expressed in Kelvin (K), which is Celsius + 273. Applied to the tower collapse, the equation holds that the ratio of volumes of gasses from the building before and after expansion is roughly equal to the ratio of temperatures of the gasses before and after heating. That allows us to compute the minimum energy needed to achieve a given expansion ratio knowing only the thermal mass of the gasses and their average temperature before the collapse.

I say that the ideal gas law allows the computation of only the lower bound of the required energy input due to the following four factors.

The finite size of molecules leads to a slight departure from the ideal gas law wherein the expansion of a parcel of gas leads to a decrease in its temperature. This means that slightly more heat energy is needed to achieve a given expansion ratio than is predicted by the ideal gas law.
The dust cloud at the time of the photograph used to estimate its volume had not finished expanding. Videos show that it continued to expand well after the 1 minute mark.
The suspended dust in the cloud had many times the mass of the gasses. This increased the energy needed to expand the dust cloud since it takes energy to lift and accelerate mass.
The suspended dust in the cloud had many times the thermal mass of the gasses. Increasing in temperature of the dust cloud to a level needed to induce the observed expansion entailed raising the temperature of the gasses and suspended solids by similar amounts. Since the solids had many times the thermal capacity of the gasses, this multiplied the energy requirements.
In this paper I examine only the fourth factor. Before considering its effect on energy requirements, I first consider the energy requirements of heating only the gasses in the clouds to the level needed to achieve the observed expansion.

According to the ideal gas law, expanding the gasses 3.4-fold requires raising their absolute temperature by the same ratio. If we assume the tower was at 300 degrees K before the collapse, then the target temperature would be 1020 degrees K, an increase of 720 degrees.

Of course, this begs the question: What was the source of energy that heated the debris cloud from 298 K (25 C) to 1020 degrees K?

Given a density of 36 g/foot3 for air, the tower held about 2,000,000,000 g of air. Air has a specific heat of 0.24 (relative to 1 for water), so one calorie will raise one g of air 1 / 0.24 = 4.16 degrees. To raise 2,000,000,000 g by 720 degrees requires:

2,000,000,000 g x 720 degrees x 0.24 = 345,600,000,000 calories = 399,500 KWH

To evaluate the energy requirements of the fourth factor, it is necessary to consider the composition of the dust cloud. The cloud was a suspension of fine particles of concrete and other solids in gasses consisting mostly of air. Since concrete was the dominant solid, I will ignore the others, which included glass, gypsum, asbestos, and various hydrocarbons. The small size of the particles, being in the 10-60 micron range, would assure rapid equalization between their temperature and that of the embedding air. Therefore any heat source acting to raise the temperature of the air would have to raise the temperature of the suspended concrete by the same amount. Assuming all 90,000,000,000 g of concrete was raised 720 degrees (300 K to 1020 K), the necessary heat, given a specific heat of concrete of 0.15 is:

90,000,000,000 g x 720 degrees x 0.15 = 9,720,000,000,000 calories = 11,300,000 KWH.

If we assume that the water vaporization sink absorbed all available energy once temperatures reached water's boiling point, we can compute the size of the heat sink of thermodynamic expansion that was in play up to 100 C, or 373 K:

2,000,000,000 g x 73 degrees x 0.24 = 35,040,000,000 calories = 40,744 KWH

The associated sink of heating the suspended solids to this temperature would be:

90,000,000,000 g x 73 degrees x 0.15 = 985,500,000,000 calories = 1,145,000 KWH.

4.2. The Water Vaporization Sink
At 100 C at sea-level, water expands by a factor of 1680 when converted to steam.

Of course, this begs many questions, prominent being:

What was the source of energy that heated the building to 100 degrees C?
Was there enough time for the building to reach 100 degrees C before the collapses?
How much of the water in the concrete slab is able to escape as the slab is heated to 100 degrees C?
Hence it is reasonable to expect that water in the building accounted for a significant part of the expansion.
This is only reasonable if the concrete has already been pulverized, and if this is so, begs the question: What pulverized it?

How much energy would be required to expand the volume of the cloud by the 3.41 ratio if water vaporization were entirely responsible for the expansion? Since water vaporization involves the introduction of volumes of steam from comparatively negligible volumes of water, I assume that all the incremental volume was occupied by steam. The estimated 3.41 expansion ratio means that the incremental volume was:

200,000,000 feet3 - 58,617,000 feet3 = 141,383,000 feet3 = 4,003,542,000 liters

Given the 1680 to 1 ratio between the volume steam and water, 2,383,000 liters of water would have been required. The heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gram at 100 C. Therefore the heat energy required to produce the expansion is:

2,383,000,000 g x 540 = 1,286,820,000,000 calories = 1,496,000 KWH

Was there enough water in the building for this sink to be anywhere near this large? That is a matter of great uncertainty. Even well-cured concrete has a significant moisture content. Assuming that the estimated 90,000 tons of concrete in the tower was 1 percent water by weight, that would have provided 900 tons of water or about 900,000 liters -- well short of the 2,383,000 liter estimate above.

This is somewhat misleading. Well-cured concrete is indeed about 1 percent FREE water, but concrete is also about 7-20 percent chemically bound water. The free water evaporates from concrete at 100 - 150 C, whilst chemically bound water remains until temperatures of 450 C [Ref. (5)].

So it turns out that there is more than enough water to account for the expansion (as long as the concrete reaches temperatures of about 450 C).

However, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the water content of the concrete, which, like the rest of the remains of the disaster was apparently disposed of with little or no examination. Moreover there were other sources of water in the building, such as the plumbing system, which could have accounted for tens of thousands of liters, and, gruesomely, people. The thousand victims never identified could have accounted for about 30,000 liters of water.

4.3. Which Energy Sink Was Dominant?
Both thermodynamic expansion and water vaporization have the capacity to produce vast expansion in gas volume given sufficient heat.

Explosives would produce vast expansions of gas on detonation.
Explosives would produce vast quantities of concrete particles.
Explosives would also produce vast quantities of heat.
Vast quantities of heat applied to the concrete particles might cause the release of some of the chemically bound water, which would contribute to a breakup the particles, reducing them to a fine dust.

Two major difference in the features of these sinks may help in understanding the relative contributions of each. First, thermodynamic expansion to the observed ratio requires very high temperatures, whereas vaporization-driven expansion occurs at a constant temperature of 100 C. Second, vaporization-driven expansion would be limited by the available supply of water.

If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at least the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.

If enough water was present for vaporization to drive most of the expansion, temperatures in much of the cloud would have remained around 100 C until most of the water had vaporized. Thermodynamic expansion would occur in regions with liquid phase water until 100 C was reached, and again after the water was vaporized.

To the extent that thermodynamic expansion was the dominant factor driving the expansion, the distribution of concrete dust in the cloud, and its relationship to the temperature distribution in the cloud, would greatly affect the total energy requirements. Less energy would be required if the hotter portions of the cloud had a lower density of dust. The density was probably greater toward the central portions of the cloud, which also seem to have experienced the most heating. On the other hand, much of the dust may have settled out by the 30 second mark. The violent churning of the cloud, and the opaque appearance of its frontier, suggest that most of the dust had not settled that early.

The Unexplored Option -- Explosives.
We will consider the explosive amatol which is a mixture of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and ammonium nitrate (AN).

Trinitrotoluene (left) has the chemical composition C7H5(NO2)3 and ammonium nitrate (right) has the chemical composition NH4NO3.

We choose the TNT to AN molar ratio in the amatol mixture to be 4 : 42.
This translates to a 4 x 227 : 42 x 80 = 908 : 3360 = 21 : 79 ratio by weight.

In this case the explosion proceeds according to the equation:

4 C7H5(NO2)3 + 42 NH4NO3 => 28 CO2 + 94 H2O + 48 N2

From the equation we see that 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN produces 28 + 94 + 48 = 170 moles of gaseous product.

At standard temperature and pressure, 170 moles of gas occupies 170 x 22.4 = 3,808 liters. This is the volume that the explosion products would occupy if, after the explosion, they were cooled to 25 C (with the assumption that the water remains a vapor). In order to calculate the volume of the hot gaseous products generated by the explosion, we initially need to know the amount of heat released by the explosion of 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN. We also need to know the amount of heat required to raise each of the gases, by one degree K. That is, we need to know the enthalpy of explosion ΔexplosionH and the heat capacities Cp (also known as specific heats) of each of the gases.

ΔexplosionH = - [4 Δf H°solid(TNT) + 21 Δf H°solid(AN)] + [28 Δf H°gas(CO2) + 94 Δf H°gas(H2O) + 48 Δf H°gas(N2)]
= - [4(-60) + 21(-365.5)] + [28(-393.5) + 94(-242) + 48(0.00)]
= 240 + 7,675.5 - 11,018 - 22,748
= - 25,850 kJ per 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN.

Here we have used the following facts:

Δf H°gas(H2O) = -242 kJ/mol
Δf H°gas(CO) = -110.5 kJ/mol
Δf H°gas(CO2) = -393.5 kJ/mol
Δf H°solid(TNT) = -60 kJ/mol
Δf H°solid(AN) = -365.5 kJ/mol

The heat capacities Cp for the gases involved are:

Cpgas (N2) = 28.87 J/mol*K
Cpgas (O2) = 28.91 J/mol*K
Cpgas (H2O) = 30.43 J/mol*K
Cpgas (CO2) = 37.12 J/mol*K

Since the heat capacities are all approximately 30 J/mol*K, we will assume this value for all the gases, i.e., we assume:

Cpgas (all relevant gases) = 30 J/mol*K

So, by assumption, 30 joules of energy will raise the temperature of one mole of the gaseous product (of the explosion) by 1 degree K.

Summarizing from earlier, we have that 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN,
produces 170 moles of gaseous product and
liberates 25,850 kJ of energy.

We will assume that the original 170 moles of explosion products mix with N moles of air.

This 170 + N mole mixture of gases is initially assumed to be at the temperature T0 = 298 degrees K (25 C).
This 170 + N mole mixture of gases has an initial volume of V0 = 22.4 (170 + N) liters.

We calculate the increase in temperature ΔT of this 170 + N moles of gases after being heated by the 25,850 kJ of energy released by the explosion of the 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN.

Now 30 joules raises the temperature of one mole of the gases by 1 degree K.
Hence, 25,850,000 joules raises the temperature of the 170 + N moles by

ΔT = 25,850,000/(30 x (170 + N)).

We now calculate the volume V1 of this 170 + N moles of gas after being heated by the explosion to the temperature

T1 = T0 + ΔT

From the ideal gas law we have that V1 / V0 = T1 / T0. Rearranging we obtain

V1 = V0 (T1 / T0) = V0 (T0 + ΔT) / T0 = V0 + V0 ΔT / T0. On substituting we obtain

V1 = V0 + 22.4 x (170 + N) x 25,850,000 / (30 x (170 + N) x 298) = V0 + 22.4 x 25,850,000 / (30 x 298) = V0 + 64,770 liters.

Hence, the increase in volume of the mixture of gases ΔV = V1 - V0 = 64,770 liters.

So, summing up, the explosion of 4 moles of TNT and 42 moles of AN produce 64,770 + 22.4 x 170 = 64,770 + 3,808 = 68,578 liters of hot gases.
That is, the explosion of 4,268 grams of amatol produces 68,578 liters of hot gases.
That is, the explosion of one kilogram of amatol produces 68,578 x 1,000 / 4,268 = 16,068 liters of hot gaseous product.

Hence the 200,000,000 liter expansion calculated by Hoffman can be explained by the detonation of

200,000,000/16,068 = 12,447 kg = 12.5 tonnes (14 tons) of the high explosive amatol.

The 200,000,000 liter expansion calculated by Hoffman can be explained by the detonation of 12.5 tonnes (14 tons) of the high explosive amatol.

The dominant energy source assumed to be in play during the leveling of each of the Twin Towers was the gravitational energy due to its elevated mass, whereas the energy sinks included the pulverization of it's concrete, the vaporization of water, and the heating of the concrete and air in the ensuing dust cloud. Estimates for these energies are:

Energy, KWH Source or Sink
+ 111,000 falling of mass (1.97 x 1011 g falling average of 207 m)
- 135,000 crushing of concrete (9 x 1010 g to 60 micron powder)
Ignoring Water Vaporization
- 400,000 heating of gasses (2 x 109 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
- 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9 x 1010 g from 300 to 1020 K)
Assuming Water Vaporization Sink was not Supply-Limited
- 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.389 g water)
- 41,000 heating of gasses (2 x 109 g air from 300 to 373 K)
- 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9 x 1010 g from 300 to 373 K)

The imbalance between sources and sinks is striking, no matter the relative shares of the thermodynamic and water vaporization sinks in accounting for the expansion. Moreover, it is very difficult to imagine how the gravitational energy released by falling mass could have contributed much to any of the sinks, since the vast majority of the tower's mass landed outside its footprint. The quantity for the crushing of concrete appears to be conservative since some reports indicate the average particle size was closer to 10 microns. The quantity for the heating of suspended concrete has a large amount of uncertainty, but the energy imbalances remain huge even when it is ignored entirely. All of these energy sink estimates are conservative in several respects.

It is based on an estimate of dust cloud volume at a time long before the cloud stopped growing.
It uses a liberal estimate of the contribution of mixing to the volume.
It ignores thermal losses due to radiation.
The calculation also ignores the role the mass of the suspended materials in impeding the expansion of cloud and thereby increasing the required energy.
The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

However, the use of explosives explains all the observed facts, and is thus probably the correct explanation.

Revision History
The paper is now in its third version. A complete version history is archived here.

Version 1 - released June 13, 2003
Version 2 - released July 23, 2003
Version 3 - released October 16, 2003
Version 2 adopts much smaller estimates of concrete and total building mass, and refines the argument that mixing could not have accounted for much of the expansion. Version 3 considers a source of expansion ignored in the earlier versions -- the vaporization of water.
I wish to thank Jerry Russell, proprietor of, for his work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses, work which was invaluable in the development of my thermodynamics analysis.

This article by J. Hoffman is a deliberate attempt to divert your attention from the fact that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. By presenting a possible explanation for the debris cloud without considering explosives, he is implicitly stating that he, as an expert in the field, does not consider explosives an option, so why should you? He is deliberately pointing you in the wrong direction.

As for the web-site It is generally of poor quality, is full of misinformation, and has very few contributors. It is clearly a site designed to miss-direct and cover-up for the official media/government conspiracy theory.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." V. I. Lenin.

The comment in red has been added to the original article.

Survey question

Does anyone here believe that 14 tons of explosives were used?

If your answer is "No", how much explosive was needed to bring down the towers?

just as I thought..there is

just as I thought..there is no acceptable answer to you...move along dweeb

How is....

How is a question an answer? Why not actually answer the question?


14 tons eh? LOL

Yet according the OCT basically just a single match could have caused the WTC to collapse at freefall speed within an hour of being lit....ROTFL

my favourite ..#9

my favourite ..#9

perfectly legit 911 truth Question

If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

perfectly insulting NIST apparent explanation of frikkin' smoke..

So what did we learn today boys and girls?

soot is formed in an oxygen depleted fire

soot moves away from flame...and out of windows.

smoke is soot from fire...its what you see because its "optically thick" and dark.

It.. "smoke" occurs in nearly all large indoor fires

combustibles dont completely oxidize without oxygen and therefore have not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water...and...that's what you saw....smoke...

It may be a fluff piece, but

It may be a fluff piece, but like GW says, the fact that they feel they must respond to these questions means they are feeling the pressure.


Keep at it folks.Laughing

wow they even address thermate

steven jones in full effect yall!

I Need Help With Something...

Someone just stated that Nicholas DeMasi, one of the two firefighters who said they found black boxes at the WTC is, "meanwhile under investigation on fraud by the FDNY."

Can ANYBODY verify that statement? I have been unsuccessful in trying.

You New Yorkers out there. Can you help me to verify or not verify this statement? Thank You.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

C'mon Guys...

Luke, John Albanese, Nick Levis... any of you folks who live in New York. Can you please verify or discount that statement? Thanks.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

NIST doesn't like molten steel

My favorite part was the section where they side-stepped the issue of molten or glowing-hot steel in the rubble pile. There is a hint of a petulant tone in the response here: [whine]we only explained the collapse, not what happened to the steel afterwards. [/whine] Never mind that they did NOT in fact explain the collapse anyway, as they themselves admit, and offered only an explanation for events up to "collapse initiation." Following that, the floors below just didn't provide any resistance to the floors above. (I like to call this the "column fairy" theory.)

Sorry rumors

There is only rumors of molten steel and even Steven Jones uses a picture of concrete and sya it is "solidified molten metal."

So, where is the truth? With a con artist?


When did you get interested in that? An hour ago?
You call this rumours?:

Many testimonies, videos, satelite pictures showing temperatures on the site.?

I thought there were rumours that 19 arabs were sent by Al-Quaida...

You're not listening

We are talking about "molten metal" not heat signatures. There was plenty of heat but no concrete evidence of molten metal.

Do you understand the difference?

And cigarette smoking does

And cigarette smoking does NOT cause lung cancer either right? THe video of molten metal dripping from thje building PRIOR to its collapse, coupled with the recnt issue as to why there were people able to stand at the outer rim of the building, and that the NIST says it is because the fire is inside and the air is being drawn into the hole, so people could stand there because that is where the cooler air is supposedly entering the building. So, Then how can molten steel be dripping from the exterior of the building if the fires are inside, and the outer rim is cool???

What evidence?

Could you provide proff that the material seen dripping from the tower was "molten metal"?

Wrong building

People standing at the outer rim of the building were in Tower 1. Dripping of some material - as yet unknown material - was in tower 2.

Interesting quote: "These

Interesting quote:

"These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."

yes, and the explosions

yes, and the explosions heard by hundreds of witnesses were just the crackle of firecrackers stored in the building.
- it can all be explained away


What were the nature of these "explosions"? Do you know? Do you know that sounds of explosions can be from any number of sources? Do you think they must have been from explosives?

If so, would you kindly provide evidenve of explosives? Please?


how about the hundreds of reports of explosives by both the fire dept and the tv newscrews...all you have to do is watch a few google really should educate yourself on the matter before spewing off at the makes you look like an idiot to those that have taken the time to research the matter. Like this fireman that says "theres a bomb in the building, start clearing out"

You haven't answered the question

Please address the question.

Must have been

Must have been thunder...

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Your evidence is......?

I'm still waiting for your evidence that sounds of explosions means explosives.

Unless you don't think you have to provide evidence of explosives.

If you notice here, everyone is actually avoiding what 9/11 Truthers have always avoided: showing the world concrete evidence of explosives and how much was needed.

Can you tell us why?

Multiple witness and video testimony testimony....

Multiple witness and video testimonies show concrete evidence of explosives. The Dubay brothers documentary clearly shows that a large explosion caused very heavy damage to the lobby of WTC2 shortly before it collapsed. Many people were severely injured in the explosion that occured in the basement--this is a demonstrable fact. So, how do you explain explosions in the lobby and basement areas without recourse to explosives? I'd love to hear your answer. Also, the fact that the buildings fell at around the speed of gravity (concrete evidence if you consider facts of physics to be concrete evidence) is a clear indication that explosives were used as is the fact that the buildings were pulverized into fine particles of dust.


The buildings did not fall at freefall sppeds as indicated in the videos. "Explosions" does not imply explosives - fuel exploded in the elevator shafts all the way down to the basement. And claims that the concrete was pulverized in dust is false as indicated by the mass of large concrete blocks and chuncks throughout the debris.

So you have to do two things: expplain where you got your erroneous information or provide SOLID evidence of explosives. So far, despite my questions, no one has been able to do so.

this guys just an idiot.

Tell you what bud, you obviously already have all the answers so why dont you do us a favor and show us ANY evidence you have to support your "19 hijackers theory"
Maybe a manifest with names of hijackers, or an autopsy report of just 1 of the 19, or how about an FAA tape of the days events, or something to explain the huge coincidence that the 4 airliners flew around the US with absolutely no interception because that was the ONE day in US history that we had no fighters to cover NEADS...very fortunate for the hijackers and purely luck Im sure, or how about some Under Oath, on the record, testimony from your president or vice president...
Im sure you can find all this evidence and more right on top of the WMDs in
So please sir...enlighten us...what and where is your evidence to prove your 19 hijackers theory...
Oh wait, Im sorry, Im sure you heard it on Fox or from the administration so it MUST be true...cuz after all, your govt would never lie to you right...
this guys an idiot or cointelpro.
Im gonna go with idiot for now..

are we still wasting time with this clown?

Ummm the buildings DID fall at freefall speed. What is your evidence that they didnt?
And i would LOVE to see any pictures of 110 storys worth of concrete rubble that you may have.
So it seems to me, you have two things to do, prove both of these claims you just made. Pretty easy stuff Im sure.
Put up or shut up n get out.
And I agree with the comment above only my guess is Co-Intel. Nobody can be this ignorant on purpose.
Just a thought

You're not serious.

Do you know what the freefall times are?

Do you think 13 seconds is freefall for WTC 2. Please explain.

And why haven't you bothered to look at all the photos of the rubble? What do you see?

are you kidding me

one building fell in 9 seconds and the other in 10 seconds, what do you mean 13 seconds you troll

From counting

I got my figure from counting how long it took for WTC 2 to fall: 13 seconds:

Tell us where you came up with your figures.

P.S. The moderator has requested that you not be antagonistic.

I see massive amounts of

I see massive amounts of steel debris, what I DONT see is 110 pancacked floors....hmmmm a picture...just 1......just 1 picture of a sizeable amount of concrete debris...plz point me to where i can see this picture of 110 pancacked floors that you refer to. bet this question gets avoided by yet another question from this idiot

No pancaking

You should the NIST report carefully for an accurate account. They dismissed pancaking.

still no referance to a pic

still no referance to a pic of tons of concrete rubble?

Here's a big chunk

Here's a big piece that Prof. Steven Jones used in his paper:

Note that Jones is confused and thinks a chunk of concrete is solidified molten metal which is another reason why he's not taken seriously.

Of course if you believe it's metal and not concrete, please explain.

thanks for the referance to

thanks for the referance to the any of some concrete?

hmmm I notice he decided not

hmmm I notice he decided not to offer any of his evidence..wonder why?

"Puffs from WTC 1 were even

"Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."
What the hell.....???

how does NIST explain the "puffs" in that video? The lower puff appears first...and the upper puff appears a few seconds later.

Wow! Never seen that one. Wow!

Did you happen to catch the street-level smoke cloud at around the 2 second mark?

Was any debris smoking in the streets after the planes hit?

Interesting that the

Interesting that the overpressure managed to find its way down the elevator shafts and/or stairwells for a few floors, then made a 90° turn on a lower floor and remained concentrated in a jet-like burst so that it broke out only a window or two in the middle of the floor instead of blowing out all the windows on a lower floor.

The squibs-as-overpressure argument is ridiculous.

hey don't be so hard on

hey don't be so hard on them, you try to cover up a crime of this magnitude!

Not so.

Obviously, overpressure will blow out the weakest point or where the pressure is highest. This is just basic high school physics. All it takes is one window to fail.


High school physics would tell you that the compressed air would follow the path of least resistance. First, it is preposterous to assume that each floor, or even the entire building was air tight in its undamaged state. There had to be vents and passages that circulated fresh air throughout the building. Therefore, any compressed air would have a less resistant path to travel than blowing a window out of the side of the building.

In the actual case of the twin towers, each with a huge hole blown into the side by an airplane, the air had a quite large hole through which it could escape. The air would not compress, but would simply be blown out through the path of least resistance, which were the large damaged sections of the tower. Furthermore (taking the progressive collapse theory at face value) as the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors, there would be additional damage done to the building which would allow the air to escape, rather than compressing the air.

This is a troll, I know, but some of this troll's comments have a grain of plausability, so some need to be answered.

You said what I said.

"High school physics would tell you that the compressed air would follow the path of least resistance."

What do you think I wrote?

Of course you then screwed up by saying the air would be compressed UPWARDS towards the no-longer existing crash hole. Brush up on your high school physics, friend.


Welcome back GW.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Good quote - thanks.

I'm happy to see someone here understands that 9/11 conspiracy theorists can't make truth out of falsehoods constantly repeated.

Hopefully all of you here will learn that propagating falsehoods about 9/11.

See for the errors in your thinking.

First Question gives BS Answer

I am not even ereading the rest...

"A 767(which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707)..."

A 707 is HEAVIER than a 767... Force = Mass (NOT SIZE) x Acceleration

I thought the NIST at least took HS Physics...

Not the only physics mistake

In response to Question 6, NIST first explains that "The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation." Then they go on to state that the MOMENTUM of the floors falling was too much for the lower structure to take. Surely the genius NIST scientists would know that the POTENTIAL energy of the upper floors (if you take their collapse model at face value) would be turned into KINETIC energy when they begin to fall. It is the kinetic energy that would be disapated as the upper floors impacted the lower floors and turned all of the concrete into dust. The force exherted on the lower floors is the change in momentum with respect to time (the derivative of momentum).

The entire analysis is too long for this forum (plus I wish I didn't have a job and I could just write about these scientific 9/11 issues for a living), but the overriding point to consider is that NIST did not provide ANY calculations or data whatsoever to support its claims that the upper floors falling "so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass." I need to see the equations and data they used to come to this conclusion before I believe it, especially if they think momentum is the most important quantity to look at.

Bazant & Zhou - yet it is flawed

I think they reffer to Bazant & Zhou study which was beatifuly "colored" by Hoffman:

Hoffman goofed big time

Hoffman failed to tell you how much explosives would be needed to bring down the twin towers. Do you know how much equivalent of TNT would be needed? If not, don't you think you should?


I thank Hoffman for showing this on the net but I can read myself and see that this analysis is inaccurate for several reasons. tnt... go dig your sandbox.

So you agree

So you agree that the amount of explosives needed is absurdly high and couldn't possibly be planted unnoticed by anyone.

Not absurdly high

It would be a considerable amount of explosives but nothing a team of men disguised as maintenance workers couldn't pull off, especially if the buildings' owner was complicit, means, motive, opportunity. Don't play dumb--this isn't the DailyKos forum.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

How much?

"It would be a considerable amount of explosives but nothing a team of men disguised as maintenance workers couldn't pull off,..."

So......HOW much? Let's have a figure not just an unsupported guess.

An Absurdity Of Chance.

Sure, I admit the explosives needed were absurdly high and precision exact (with clever forethought to plant undetected).... because potential and kinetic energy in buildings damaged by planes and raging fire will NEVER create such symmetry of collapse otherwise.

An absurdity of chance you're defending with self induced ignorance, or something at stake. If the later, would you please tell us all what that stake is? Maybe it will save your neck.

Support your claim

"because potential and kinetic energy in buildings damaged by planes and raging fire will NEVER create such symmetry of collapse otherwise."

Sorry, I don't take your unsupported claims seriuosly without evidence to back it up. Given the history of those claiming explosives were used, I am not surprised that you have no data to back your claim up.

But I'll keep asking questions as the truth requires us to do.

please drop the antagonizing

please drop the antagonizing tone.

Please ask the others

Please ask the others to stop as well, like calling me a troll.

You missed the obvious

This is not rocket science. Simple caculations demonstrate easily that the kinetic energy of the mass of the blocks of upper stories of WTC 1 and 2 falling on the structure below is far too much for the structure to absorb.

If you don't believe me then you need to tell us how much explosive would be needed to do the equivalent. When you do that calculation you'll see that the idea that explosives were used and planted unnoticed is ridiculous and absurd.

no, You missed the obvious

Why don't you
A) present the "simple" caculations (sic) to which you refer?
B) tell us how much explosive would be needed, since you must have already done so to back up your claim that the idea that explosives were used and planted unnoticed is ridiculous and absurd.

see, these simple calculations demonstrate easily that you are a troll with nothing to add to the debate.

Can't answer the question again?

Try the 40,000 tons of the top block falling one meter. What do you get in terms of kinetic energy? How can a WTC 1 & 2 floor meant to hold a static weight of 1,400 tons support a falling mass of 40,000 tons?

It is apparent you have just listened to trolls like Steven Jones who is good at knowing no one would question him.

Except those of us who do.

Now, how much explosives does the 9/11 Truth Movemnent claim was needed to blow up the towers? You CAN answer that question, I assume?

Kinetic energy

Have you calculated the kinetic energy difference between a 707 on approach to JFK for a landing, say at around 200 mph, which was the assumption, and that of 767 travelling at 400+ mph with the intention of hitting and destroying a building?


It's just basic high school physics. Please get back to us with the answer. Thanks.

Keep dodging the vice about to pinch your sack.

Slam TEN jets filled with super-duper burning juice.... and get those two buildings to crumble straight down, in identical fashion. Oh ya, and WTC7 too.


You're upset. Why?

Certainly you can provide the answer to the questions I pose. Just HOW MUCH explosives were needed, how and when were they rigged, and how did they make the building collapse symetrically top down counter to all demolitions of buildings done to date.

The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to address these questions but you all just get upset. Why is it that NO ONE has theses answers?

Frankly , who the hell cares

Frankly , who the hell cares how much was needed? All you need to prove is that there was explosives there to completely debunk the entire "official story"
Doesnt matter if its a thousand pounds or a million pounds just the use of one pound proves to me that airliners didnt bring the buildings down. All this "how much" crap is totaly irrelevant. Any explosives at all prove inside job.

So one pound of explosives could do it?

All you need to do is prove that there were explosives, how much was needed, and how it was place, among other obvious questions.

You do not get to say it doesn't matter. You have that absolute, unquestionable responsibility.

National Press Club

Does anyone know if anyone is planning any organized protests against The National Press Club representing Morgan Reynolds as the 9/11 Truth movement?

If we allow them to do this, we will be set back years in our efforts.


Please look up a few comments...

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Steven Jones already

Steven Jones already debunked the claim the dripping molten metal was aluminum. There excuse for not explaining why WTC 7 collapsed is just that, an excuse. If there was nothing wrong with WTC 7 they would have been able to explain it by now. Simple as that.

Sq. ft. alone, tells nothing about "span".

Failure of this span (the papers give a square ft number but never calls out the span length itself. 45ft? 60ft? 9200 ft?) allowed a vertical decent of everything above, as this Black Hole of gravity caused every other floor's entire span, to descend in a vertically aligned manner.

The tortured logic of trying to write what I did, from the last Q.A. and imagery of WTC7..... this begs for scrutiny.

I need to log-off, and go puke for awhile.

You could do something else... answer my important questions instead of ranting.


If no planes hit the towers, where di the aluminum come from?

The glow in the window could be any metal.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

I can accept that, even

I can accept that, even though I've stated my own opinion about the unlikely-hood of aluminum fluorescing so strongly in daylight. Whatever the material is, I can not accept jet-full and office equipment generating the concentration of heat needed to crucible material into this cascade of incandescence.

There is no need to theorize WHAT, before demanding a retraction of the popular narrative.

Let's not retract facts...

...but ypu could provide evidence for your claims.

As could you. Why be the

As could you. Why be the antagonist instead of the educator...please show us some of your evidence that there were no explosives used. Any evidence at all...I have a feeling ill be waiting a while for an answer.

Science does not work that way

There is no such thing as trying to prove a negative.

Your claim is that explosives were used, therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of explosives.

Since no evidence of explosives was ever found and the collapses were explained on the basis of the evidence that does exist, there is no reason to consider explosives as a hypothesis.

If you have evidence bring it forth.

One person has posted a calculation by an amateur investigator named Hoffman that 14 tons of explosives were needed to cause the towers to fall. So far, there is no evidence that any expert has provided support for this theory, nor has any theory been proposed on how it could be accomplished.

For arguments sake, let's say 14 tons of explosives were used. Please provide the calculations of how many standard size dump trucks would be needed to deliver these 14 tons of explosives, how many people were needed, how much time was needed to rig the explosives, how it was done unseen, and exactly how and where these 14 tons of explosives were placed.

Somehow, we need to get to the bottom of this. We need answers.

Lets see, 6 days prior to

Lets see, 6 days prior to 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs are removed so we will assume that is the day the first truck of 2+ tons of explosives is driven to the underground parking lot.
Ten men split 4000+ lbs evenly only equals 400+ lbs of explosive to set each. Divide that by say an 8 hour overnight operation and each man only has to set 50 lbs of explosives per hour to make this pheasable.
Multiply this event by 6 days and you get pretty close to 14000 lbs.
As far as the charges being hidden, not many people use the service areas unless they are in maintainace so hiding it from the vast majority of people would not have been so hard. Very few people look at the connections holding a building together, especially when those connections are hidden behind the walls of each office space.
Though I think 14000 lbs of explosive is rather high, this assumes only traditional eplosives were used, I dont think someone being able to set 50 lbs of explosives per hour is beyond the realm of possilities.
Now, lets say Thermate is used at the connections between the floors and the core structure instead of explosives per say. Theoretically those cutting charges would seperate the floors from the core and traditional explosives could blow the "skin" off the building causing the floors to collapse.
Since, if we assume there were explosives used that lends itself to a phsyc-op, you would assume the "from the top down" demolition sequence was done entirely for show to lend itself to the storyline. Just because traditional demolitions are from the bottom up does not mean you cannot blow a building from the top down.

re: Nicholas DeMasi

Nicholas Levis were at an event Sunday night where we were interviewed for Korean and German TV. The event was well attended by the NY Truth movement - but I heard nothing about Nicholas DeMasi at this event.

Further, I have been unable to find anything about this anywhere else.

So - no - I cannot confirm this story.

Thanks John.

If that statement is not true, then this is huge.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

John Albanese...

Take a look...

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi


Are your efforts to arrive at the scientific truth or to promote your political beliefs.

Be careful how you answer.

"NIST’s findings do not

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"

Is this new? I always thought (based on Steven Jones lectures) this this was their main theory after they backtracked from the fire damage theories.

Is it possible for someone

Is it possible for someone to e-mail Jim Hoffman or Steven Jones and find out whether or not he's working on a response to this?


Yesss...please bombard HOFFMAN to REBUT This nonsense...i really wish I had money to go see him speak :(

But I will email him myself and please ask him to rebut this

I read the piece - very

I read the piece - very well- written overall - and immediately thought that Hoffman and Jones are the only two people who can authoritatively debunk it. Maybe they should work together on it? THAT would be a kick- ass piece...

Isn't it all the same?

They support the fact that the collapses started from the upper floors falling on the floors below them. Is this not the same as pancaking? I don't get it.


They shift the ground so subtile that most people never notice it.

First the fires were so incredible hot and the steel melted. No no, that was all wrong, no steel melted. Your memories must be false.

Then you have the pancake theory, promoted on a massive scale. No, no the NIST never support the pancake theory, it's ridicolous.

Then the steel weakened to fail the trusses- but there was fire proof on it. No no, that's flat wrong, all the fire proof was blown away with the impact...

I could go on and on and on with these examples.

Sounds just like

Winston talking about the Ministry of truth doesn't it?


Do you actually beleive Steven Jones, the biggest con artists since Jim Fetzer?


Because unlike you...

I believe he can spell.


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

response to point #2

"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards."

To which I would respond:
A) why can't any evidence of this inwards pulling be seen in the videos or photos of the collapse initiation?
B) if the columns were pulled inwards, as you claim to have shown conclusively, why were (relatively) short segments of structural steel thrown outwards hundreds of feet from the towers?
C) If the floors remained connected to the columns, why and at what point did the steel frame disintegrate?
D) this in no way begins to explain the symmetrical collapse initiation, and in fact appears to contradict it.

"there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

MANY eyewitnesses (including FDNY) reported the explosions - that is evidence. On the live video I recall watching, a lower level explosion can be seen immediately prior to the collapse initiation. A casual review of the evidence shows this statement by NIST to be an out and out lie. A real objective investigation might begin with "By what means was NIST coerced into stating this lie?"

Welcome Licensed Structural Engineer

Thanks for the great points.

Have you contacted the 9/11 truth scientists publicly looking at NIST report? Even if you are not able to go public, they could use your input.

Send me an email if you want me to put you in touch with some of the folks.


"It is impossible to wake a man who is feigning sleep" -- not me

911 Scholars

I worked in structural steel quality assurance for years. As the primary goal of steel QA is making sure that steel structures don't fall down, some of my time was spent studying past structural failures and collapse modes. I thought I understood steel collapse modes pretty well but when I saw the towers explode, it didn't make any sense at all, until an "expert" commented on live TV that there must have been tons of explosives on site to cause such a "collapse". I agreed with him then and despite looking, haven't yet seen anything to convince me otherwise.

I contacted the Scholars back around March because I believe scale models can prove the official version to be impossible. To be honest, I'm reluctant to have my name out there, especially after that grad student was murdered. But I would be glad to provide input & my opinions to them, if they're interested.


Thanks, sounds like you've already contacted the Scholars (I just wrote to Jim Fetzer and Steve Jones about this).

How much do you think it would cost to build scale models to run tests? I think I might be able to raise the money, and get your tests going...

Kindly email me at

you could always be the killtown of structural enginners

haha kidding, we don't need you talking about holographic planes, but you could use KT's anonymity.

I would just point out to you in the grad students case, it's a visibility issue. he was behind the scenes. If you went public, with your level of expertise, and I would postulate, going public at the same time as releasing evidence in a post expirement joint effort with the scholars to do a scale model. You would become anoter steven jones, offing you at that point only becomes a liability.

licensed structural engineer....

...great to see you here. Thank you for your offer to answer questions.

My questions are:

1. What percentage of the structural engineers that you are in contact agree with you regarding the building collapses?

2. What are your thoughts on the so called "squibs"? From what you know of the structure of the towers, could compressed air from the "collapse" account for the expulsion of dust or smoke from 20 stories or so below the point of collapse?

Thank you.


1. I would guess 15% have looked at it enough to be convinced to the point I'm at. I'm not in contact with anyone who participated in the NIST report but I imagine at least some of them are convinced, although they'd never admit it!
So a few agree the government is totally in on it, but don't see that any good can come out of talking about it. In some ways I find it hard to disagree with them. (honestly, what will we accomplish once this is "exposed" - will the criminals really be brought to justice, really? It's nice to hope. But IMO we'll need a lot more than convinced engineers to make that happen.)

2. Absent explosives, I find the squibs to be highly improbable. Why didn't they come out on every floor; what could be that channel that guided them to such precise exit points? Were there elevator shafts that ended on each of the floors where squibs were observed? I don't think so. And they shot out way too fast, with more energy than I'd expect even if a pressurized chamber burst at a weak point to produce each squib. Where did so much dust come from so far in advance of the collapse? Each squib appears to be much more than 35 years-worth of office dust, and there's no way the collapse material could have advanced ahead of the collapse so far and fast. Personally I believe the squibs resulted from explosions that cut the core columns, but I don't consider it to be proven. Again, we need to look at all the evidence, which was far too conveniently destroyed.

To me the biggest evidence is the lack of any observable buckling or deformation of the steel during the unnaturally symmetric collapse initiation on WTC1, and the disintegration of the rotating tower top during the collapse initiation of WTC2.

Exactly. Also look at WTC 7

Having a degree in structural engineering (not my main job anymore), I totally second your conclusions re. the failure mode of WTC 1/2. No buckling. New is dat NIST now says that there was no progressive floor collapse. Wha-a?
The squibs are also noteworthy.

Now, I eagerly expect NIST's report on WTC7 (if ever). In 2004(?) they published a guesstimate of how WTC7 failed, in the form of a set of slides. Basically that guesstimate concluded that failure started at around floors 5/7, starting from the east side, making it into a progressive collapse. Upto that, no dispute. The last slide has some 'suggestions' why the failure started there, and why is was progressive to the west side.

NIST/FEMA describe how WTC7 was built on top of the local ConEd power station. To do that, they built (huge i'd might expect) trusses (bridges) over that power station, exactly at floors 5-7. This is a relatively complex and essential part of the structure, so I'd expect that it was carefully 'overdesigned', ie. much heavier than needed. Maybe even so heavy, that the progressive collapse out of itself is not verly likely: one column fails, its load is redistributed to/by nearby columns/trusses.

With that, I will not dispute how WTC7 failed, but the 'why' is not there. So I still look forward to the final report. Discounting controlled demolition upfront would in the same league as NIST saying the sky is green. Next to that: publishing a report without construction details (dimensions) of the truss structure would be the minimum they should do. It appears to become a big hot potato for them.

WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

(Some self-promotion: my personal analysis in Dutch is linked here.)

Thank you, Licensed Structural Engineer....

... for your knowledegable answers. They are much appreciated. Than you, zutman, for your fine contribution as well.

NIST made models and they didn't collapse

Jones spoke about it several times - contact him (his daugther reads email:) and you
should get references.


Physical models or computer models? Did they record videos of trying to get them to fail? I'll Email and see what they can offer - thanks!

Must have been?

So almost five years after the fact, have you calculated how many tons of explosives were needed and how they were planted unnoticed by anyone? As a "strucutral engineer", those would be easy calculations for you so. So what are the results of your calculations?

BTW, where is your refutation of your fellow "structural engineers" of NIST? I haven't seen you post it.

Troll Food

Throughout all my engineering schooling and professional career, I was never once required to calculate the amount of explosives needed for anything. So you are incorrect in your statement "those would be easy calculations for you". I know about the structural properties of steel and concrete and was not taught about explosives.
For this question, you need a demolition expert. I'm just an expert in structural steel failure modes when explosives are not present. I know how and why steel connections fail, and the WTC tower collapses don't add up to gravity driven collapses.
I already posted my refutation above. They haven't explained the absence of visible buckling, nor the symmetric collapse initiation, therefore their theories are lacking.
Without explaining those remarkable characteristics, my opinion is they're pissing in the wind.


A) There is plenty of video and photo evidence of the bowing on WTC 2. Have you not seen it?

B) Don't you claim there was enough ebnergy to pulverize concrete? Where do you think the energy came form?

C) They remained connected until they were destroyed by the debris falling on top of them. The connections of the floor trusses to the outer walls and the core were THE weakest points, so naturally they would fail, and the floors would fall.

D) How so? Please explain?

"MANY eyewitnesses (including FDNY) reported the explosions - that is evidence."

Yes, they heard what sounded like explosions. None reported seeing explosives. In any case, why would you believe those firemen if you thought they saw explosives and NOT those who saw the structural damage and bowing of the walls of WTC 7, which led them to believe the building would collapse and the pulling of the firefighting effort, and that WTC 7 did in fact collapse? Were the firemen around WTC part of a conspiracy?

Please elaborate. Thanks in advance.

I'm no structural engineer, but

A) Perhaps you could provide a link to a photo or video that shows bowing on WTC2. Even if such evidence existed (which it clearly does not), why none for WTC1?

B) He didn't say anything about pulverized concrete. Indeed, the pulverized concrete is the smoking gun of WTC controlled demolition. Where do you think the energy required to pulverize all of the concrete came from?

C) If you are defending the NIST report, you are doing a very poor job. NIST said the floor trusses did NOT fail, expressly rejecting the floor truss failure theory.

D) The damage was asymetrical so the collapse should have been asymetrical.

So you will only accept tesimony of people seeing explosions? You are engaging in the exact same behavior you are accusing him of doing, namely accepting some evidence and rejecting other evidence.

I know, I know, don't feed the troll. This one actually put a little bit of effort (except for the "How so? Please explain?" typical troll questions), so I thought it was worth responding.

Troll food

A) I was referring to WTC1. WTC2 on the other hand, had a chunk start to rotate then inexplicably disintegrate. Did NIST explain that?

B) If the kinetic energy was expended pulverizing concrete, then where did the energy come from to buckle the columns? I think the energy came from explosives.

C) Even the top floors, that had no debris fall on top of them? "connections of the floor trusses to the outer walls and the core were THE weakest points" IF that's so, why does NIST say they held together? And why did the central columns buckle at lengths much less than their slenderness ratios dictate? I mean, if those connections were so weak, they couldn't possibly have caused the columns to buckle, right?

D) The damage by the plane was not symmetric. The damage by the fires was not symmetric. Under such conditions, a simultaneous collapse of multiple support columns is so incredibly unlikely that it should be considered impossible. Anything else should have resulted in visible buckling on one side or the other.

"None reported seeing explosives."
I've seen a video NYFD guys describing visible explosions going floor by floor, boom, boom, boom. No I don't think they were part of the conspiracy, other than that they were told to not talk about what they saw.

LOL @ Troll food

that's is all :-D

You're so easily taken in.

I took care of that troll you believed, the so-called structural engineer who just belly-flopped.

You're not doing too well with your troll food

We can see that you really are not a "licensed structural engineer" but no matter, there are lots of trolls here.

A) It is clear that WTC 2 start to rotate on a pivot point, the collapse started with the acceleration downwards quickly exceeding the horizontal motion of the block, and that quite obviously from all the relevant videos, the block did not disintegrate as you claim, but disappeared from the field of view behind previously created dust. This is obvious and not in contention by any strucutral engineer or forensic ascientist.

This, combined with your claim of no bowing DESPITE it's clear depiction by NIST and other videos, demonstrates that you are not really a structural enginneer of any sort.

To compound that problem, you finish off with claims of sounds "like" explosions when you know full well that NO one saw any explosives whatsoever.

So there is no point in trying to take advantage of those here. Go troll somewhere else.


And doesn't even mention how the central columns failed.

Which is why they desperately cling to the "collapse initiation" approach. By not having to explain the nature of the collapse, they avoid having to explain what happened to make the center columns completely shatter all around. This is just poor.


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Sup GW, good to see you back

Sup GW, good to see you back man!

This sh!t from NIST is weak!

This sh!t from NIST is weak!

How so?

Please elaborate. It appears NIST has repsonded to your request to "answer" your questions but now you wish they hadn't.

NIST's answers are lacking

and so are you, Anonymous troll

Where's the substance?

There's an abnormal number of people here that don't like being asked tough questions.

Can you explain why you are not interested in getting to the truth?

Can anyone verify this?

There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

If it can be proved they are lying in this statement, that'd be huge!

If NIST is correct, that means the Rick Seigel video is a hoax.

indeed we need the actualy sesmic data from buffalo

somone needs to contact them and attempt to obtain verifiable data from their sesmic machines as it was reported in loose change.

I think that is false

There was seismic data from the collisions of the planes with the towers, a huge amount of kinetic energy.

Hey Anonymous, How does it

Hey Anonymous,
How does it feel to be totally ingnored?

Hey chilidip, how does it feel.... be unable to answer questions like how much explosives were needed to bring down the WTC towers. Perhaps you're a little angry that 9/11 Truthers aren't able to answer the question?


neither are you

Anonymous ....

are you having a conversation with yourself??

I'm asking questions don't have answers to. Why?

David Ray Griffin on air

off topic--kinda, but I just wanted to remind you all to tune into Guns and Butter if you aren't already...i just remembered myself

You wanted your questions answered, no?

This sounds like BS too...

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

where is this "video

where is this "video evidence" please?

Do they mean this?

Do they mean this?

Seems some core columns were there standing together with the "spire".

This is true

I have seen photos of core sections standing which is unsurprising.


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

To me this doesnt seem like

To me this doesnt seem like anything new.

It appears that all NiST did was re-word their original statements. How many different ways can the same lies be told?

state department is debunking, too

There's also an official site of the state department that debunks 9/11 truth:

My favourite is the "confession" of Bin Laden: they actually use the famous "fake Osama confession tape" as their argument. So no further excuses! If this tape is fake (of course it is) they're lying. And if they're lying, then they're having something to hide.

What lies?

Please elaborate. NIST's evidence and findings are solid and unrefuted.

i hereby refute NIST's findings

there, now they're not unrefuted.

No more trolls

We don't need another troll afraid to answer questions. Run along now.

UL did not certify any steel

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

Another point to follow-up on.


Regardless of whether UL certified the steel or the structural assembly to ASTM E 119, UL certified a part of the building to ASTM E 119 and NIST did nothing to address the issue of why a steel structural assembly certified to ASTM E 119 did not perform as certified. It completely side-stepped the issue by answering the specific question asked and not addressing the larger issue presented.

yes, blatant spin playing on

yes, blatant spin playing on semantics rather than addressing the investigative point.

You got to be kidding me!

2.1 ,and 2.3 spikes from falling debris?????BS!
I think they should say the towers were built on top of volcanos.


......2.1,and 2.3 spikes from falling debris?...BS!

While I do find it hard to

While I do find it hard to believe "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia" would intentionally lie or coverup anything, I do notice in the report they say that question x doesnt count because z was deduced.

I always maintained it possible that there was explosives of some sort in the building, most likely van explosives, but that the progressive collapse is what ultimately brought it down. They seem to want to say that the lava doesnt matter.

They make some good points tho. Steel doesnt need to melt for the building to become unstable. Looking at the footage of the plane seering through the building, for me its not hard to imagine at least some sort of floors collapsing.

But heres the thing...they say it wasnt just floor impacts, but severing accounting for WTC1/2. Ok

BUT THEN, they say it was just fires that felled wtc7.
Now and pop mechanics contends it was hgaping massive holes and blown out sides...but NIST doesnt support that OR the "diesel fuel" storage hypothesis at all.

WTC 7 report not out.

The WTC 7 report is not yet so there's no point in speculating too much.

In order for there to be a valid hypothesis - explosive demolition - evidence must be found that gives validity to the hypothesis. If other evidence supports a different hypothesis, as it does in case of WTC 1 and 2, the plane crashes and the fires, and it explains the intitiation of the collapses, then there is no reason to consider any hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

It's like if someone came around and said the towers collpased because ZEUS struck them down with lighting and tornadoes, you wouldn't bother with that hypothesis if there were no storms in the area, or no one could come up with how lighting and/or tornadoes would have enough power to destroy the towers.

One thing that never comes up about the "explosive demolition" claims is the amount of explosives needed to actually bring the towers down and in the manner we saw - top downwards. If you can determine that amount - and one can given the knowledge of explosive yield of all explosives, the construction, mass, and strenth of WTC 1 and 2 - then we should have been told by those advocating explosive demolition how much was required and how it was placed.

But they never tell us.

What do you think?

other evidence supports a

other evidence supports a different hypothesis, as it does in case of WTC 1 and 2, the plane crashes and the fires



You're a shill, but, one worth paying for...

Steven Jones, in his BYU

Steven Jones, in his BYU lecture, talks about the amount of explosives necessary. I don't recall the exact amounts, but (if I recall correctly) he suggested a 10-man team could easily do it over a period of a few weeks.

lecture available here:

After 5 years?

No report after five years is evidence in itself. Who is actually gullible enough to believe that it could take anyone that long to figure out what happened? It only takes that long when you're trying to come up with some MONSTER BS, or need to buy time. We are NOT (all) as stupid as you all seem to think.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Is this good enough evidence?

There's more explosive evidence, than just this.

However, NIST declared they looked at no evidence after the moment of the initiation of collapse. So, if you segregate the incident arbitrarily by time - yes you miss a lot of evidence and can skew the outcome.

From what I remember of "NIST Logic" (an oxymoron in this case) their reasoning is backward. The collapse proved the initiating incidents were sufficient . i.e. "We all know the buildings fell," "Something must've caused them to fall," "Nothing else happened to them, but the weakening by fire and plane impact." ("BTW, we are not looking at anything that happened after the exact moment of the initiation of collapse"). "Therefore, it must be that the parameters of stress caused by the initiating incidents were sufficient for the result." (And we will tweak the data inputs, though we will not let you see to what degree we are tweaking them, to force the outcome we all know - the building DID fall.)

Anyway, Shyam Sundar lied to my face. And I consider him one of the few, absolutely known, nameable perps.

Sundar is not a dumb man. He knows exactly what he is doing. They should've used a "Michael Brown" type leader and then everyone could just put it off to "incompetence," as is the usual modus operandi. People could've blamed it on the stupidity of George Bush. But with Shyam Sundar there is no excuse here.

Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).

Come now, let's be serious.

You're welcome to explain how those photos provide ANY evidence whatsoever of the use of explosives. ANY.

Remember, NOBODY has yet, and all attempts to have been easily refuted.

By the way, NIST explained the inititiating events which no one can refute either with EVIDENCE.

"Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust..."

That makes your case worse. Perhaps you don't know how much explosives would be needed to turn 99% of the concrete into dust, do you?

Don't worry, the post-collapse photos easily refute that claim anyway since many large pieces of concrete are scattered all over the site and 911Truthers conveiently forget that all that sheetrock easily turned into dust.

So, have you ever asked yourself why you believe what you do with out evidence?

Burden of proof

The burden of proof for the official explanation is entirely in NIST and the government's hands.
If there are serious questions about their explanation (and there are many serious questions), their explanation cannot be reasonably accepted.
Ergo, a new investigation must be reopened at once.

No serious questions

There are no serious questions that haven't already been addressed multiple times over several years.

explosives are

explosives are obvious....steel doesnt get ejected upward and outward hundreds of feet from a "collapse". Just look at the picture and if you cant see it than its because you dont want to. Stop wasting our taxpayer dollars on this site and get back to your Govt desk. By the way, your bosses arent gonna be to happy with the job your doing, the exlplosives are obvious, maybe you could find a way to work them into your "no plane" theories. Sheesh you COINTELPRO guys stick out like a sore thumb. At least try to blend in...make it some sort of challenge for us. Get a new job dweeb. Stop defending an administration that would leave you out to hang in a heartbeat.


Sorry, there are no pictures nor videos nor any evidence of any material being "ejected upward."

I don't see it becuase I don't want to. I don't see it because it didn't happen.

What we DO see, and it is made particularly clear by looking at videos, are the outside walls being forced outward by the impact of the falling building and dust being sucked down behind the collpase front of the building into the partial vacuum which is the source of the downblasting. You saw what happened as that downblast was expelled outwards as it hit the ground into the streets with people running from it.

When you look at a still photo it looks like stuff is being ejected upwards and outwards but we know that is not the case. It is quite clear in the videos that dust is being sucked downwards.

And sorry, I don't work for the government. I am an educated person asking questions.

The moderator has asked that you not be antagonistic. I ask that you provide evidence for your claims.

So your saying all this

So your saying all this debris being forcefully ejected hundreds of feet is really not there? Debris is forced laterally a distance of 2 to 3 hundred feet...that doesnt happen in a "collapse".

and exactly how do you KNOW

and exactly how do you KNOW thats not the case?

Seeing is beliving. Some, instead, see only what they believe.

This image shows material being ejected upward. Straight upward. YOu can't see that as easily from a viewpoint that comes from closer to the ground. So many pictures don't show the affect as clearly

There are many other similar pictures.

I also believe you are not in good faith.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

12. Did the NIST

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST ANSWER: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

MY RESPONSE: Professor Jones did test for residue and found evidence of thermate
NIST COMMENT REGARDING THERMITE:Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.
1-The time to cut a target material was tested to be .4 seconds (point four seconds).
2-The time to cut through an I-Beam was 2 seconds (two seconds).
3-The device has been tested on several target materials including an I-Beam.]
[W]hile a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been...held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.

"It is an object of the present invention to provide a material cutting apparatus having an elongated nozzle structured to be a controlled distance or "STANDOFF" FROM THE SURFACE of a target material."

"The method also employs an energy source for generating a high temperature. HIGH VELOCITY CUTTING FLAME OR JET, SUCH AS BY EMPLOYING A THERMITE CHARGE."

The device can be held in place with simple rare earth magnets or straps.

Maybe the high paid folks at NIST are lying, maybe they are misinformed, or maybe some of them are incompetent. In any case, what they claim above is in DIRECT incontrovertible opposition to the patent for an EXISTING and MANUFACTURED linear cutting device.

These guys are diggin their own grave here

considering this much direct refutation with a matter of hours, imagine what a week worth of research, the response to this will be devestating.

Horrible Questions.

These are horrible questions. It sounds like a child wrote these.

Are you so sure?

See my post above.

Then tell us how much explosives would be needed to bring down the towers and "pulverize the concrete into dust" as is claimed by explosive demolition theorists.

Also, tell us how those explosives would have to be placed to bring the WTC 1 and 2 towers down top downwards in the manner seen and how they would have to be placed to insure pulverization of the concrete. So, what amount of explosives would be needed, how long to place without being noticed, where, what equipment would be needed to drill holes into the concrete evenly spaced to insure complete pulverization into dust (and why). Provide the mathematical equations explosive experts use to determine how much explosive is needed to bring down a building of certain construction and mass with pre-preparation as is normally done in controlled demolition.

You see the problem - no explosive demolition theorist has bothered to give us this fundamental information.

I'm pretty sure I know why. How about you?

Don't be fooled

what absurd logic that we must proof how and what kind of explosives are used- and the NIST logic isn't better. Instead of looking for real evidence, they made a logical case why explosives could not be used. Why this distraction?


The burden of proof is on you.

"what absurd logic that we must proof how and what kind of explosives are used-..."

It's YOUR claim, therefore YOU must support it. Remember, absolutely NO evidence of any type of explosive was ever found. So if you believe it had to be explosives, you have to present EVIDENCE of explosives.

So far we have a lot of claims proven to be false or unsupported: molten metal, 90% of the concrete was pulverized to dust, the buildings could not have collpased symetriucally, they fell at freefall speeds (when all the videos show otherwise!) - just an endless litany of false claims and no evidence. Then when I ask for how much explosives would be needed to bring the buildings down and pulverize 90% of the concrete into fine dust - absolute silence and NO answer to this important question.

The point is obvious: you can't just accept what you are being told without providing evidence or the 9/11 Truth Movement will be confined to talking to each other. Get out and get some REAL scientiic evidence.

So sure you are?

Anon: You reveal THE most fascinating mind-bend exhibited by people who hold fast to the popular narrative. Maybe you're devil's advocate, maybe your sitting in the Super Friends Hall of Justice just waiting patiently for We The Masses to "Get It" because "that's more important than simply giving the answer"... we should work for it, we'll value it more that way... whatever.

You lay-out, so much as demand from truth, that the truth should explain to you exactly how the complexity, presision, and atention to detail ("Provide the mathematical equations explosive experts use".) was brought to bear. Clearly you feel that to use explosives and demolition intent, would demand a large amount of EXPLOSIVES, and calculations and "even spacing" so on and so forth.....

Unless these details are provided to you..... what? Tin darts and lamp oil.... that's all it took, right? With some swarthy neck stabbers to scare the buildings into collapse.... straight down?

You're an idiot, or an ass.

You're trolling or shilling to run interference for murders. No, I don't have the mathematical equations to prove it, but you and your government are neirther soon to produce the mathematical equations needed to explain tin-darts, lamp oil, and a couple swarthy neck stabbers with the Klingon Cloaking needed to foil a zillion dollar air defense.

This government IS NOT protecting you!
You, are protecting a criminally corrupt government.
Catch up, Mr. Anon. The world is laughing at you.

Cut the crap.

The burden of proof is also on you.

"You lay-out, so much as demand from truth, that the truth should explain to you exactly how the complexity, presision, and atention to detail ("Provide the mathematical equations explosive experts use".) was brought to bear. Clearly you feel that to use explosives and demolition intent, would demand a large amount of EXPLOSIVES, and calculations and "even spacing" so on and so forth.....

"Unless these details are provided to you..... what?"

Apparently what actually happened means little to you. You are perfectly happy to accept what non-experts tell you if it fits your own narrative. You fail to realize that YOU are the one that needs to know the truth behibnd your claims. If YOU can't answer how muach explosives were needed and therefore the IMPLICATIONS of that, then what do YOU have to go on but unproven innuendo and claims.

You don't seem to realize that if it took 9 tons of C4 explosive to bring down each of WTC 1 and 2, that you are talking about MANY truck fulls. HOW did they get there and be unloaded and planted or unseen or without anyone talking? These are the kind of questions YOU have to answer to KNOW if explosives COULD HAVE plausibility been used.

But you don't know - and now you say none of that matters.

YOU have to refute the evidence form hundreds of professional, independent strucutral engineers who each see nothing surprising in the collapses of the towers from the damage and fire they sustainerd. Unless YOU all can do that, what do you have?


And you seem not to understand that the government doesn't control the evidence or the facts.

So my questions still stands as valid. How much explosives were needed to bring down the towers and do all the things YOU claim they did. If you all can't answer that question, then ask YOURSELVES why.

You actually wouldnt need

You actually wouldnt need that much explosive at all, especially thermate since any connection below a connection that had thermate attatched would also suffer the same damage.
For example, a thermate charge on the connection holding a floor truss to the center core would burn thru the connection, fall to to floor below and burn through that connection and so on and so on.
Then its just a matter of blowing the skin of the building to make the floors fall.
Another thing to consider is this, Larry Silverstien built the WTC. It is a little known fact that buildings and submarine shelters at the end of WWII were built with explosives actually coating the rebar..this was done to make sure we could blow the structures up in the event we lost them to enemy hands. Since Bush Sr was head of the CIA at the time the buildings were started and was familiar with naval intelligence regarding these structures it is, albeit remote, a possibility the same construction technique was used here. I am not saying that is what I think happened but it is within the realm of possibility.
Though my personal belief is George Bushs brothers company, Securicom, let Mossad agents in during the 6 days prior to 9/11 to set the charges and then ran the demolition from WTC7. I also believe the planes were remotely flown into the buildings from WTC7. Its to much a coincidence to me that the very same man the administration puts in charge of accounting at the pentagon declares on Sept 10th 2001 there is 3 trillion missing from pentagon books.Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of PNAC, and oh yeah the CEO of company that designs and sells remote flying systems for 757s and 767s...and since when is bad news released on a Monday in Washington?...NEVER...unless you know Tuesdays news will bury it.
If you also take into consideration the fact that flight 11 coincidently took out all 6 floors of Marsh and McKlennon insurance brokerage, the very same company accused of billions of dollars in insider trading the morning of Sept 11th, and the hard drives recovered and sent to Germany for data recovery by a company named Convar, or the fact that Convar was in turn purchased by a company named Kroll who was in turn purchased by Marsh and McKlennon therby buying the very evidence that could incriminate it its a little hard to believe it pure luck its offices were destroyed. And who was the CEO of Marsh and McKlennon at the time?....PAUL BREMER...thats right, the very same man that announced the capture of Saddam Hussien. Hmmm, thats alot of coincidences...or not
This theory explains the powerdowns beforehand, the collapse of the towers, and the need to destroy WTC7 afterwards.

Can't help you there

Sorry, you've constructed a teetering house of cards to make your scenario work.

The towers weren't built with explosive coated rebar or anything else since there is no plausible reason to destroy office buildings in case enemies happened to land in Manhattan, it would not have been a secret to anyone if they had been, and Bush did not head the CIA until 4 years after the towers were open for business.

Let's try to keep this discussion on the facts.

Patented device contradicts NIST account

From NIST article: 12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST ANSWER: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

MY RESPONSE: Professor Jones did test for residue and found evidence of thermate
NIST COMMENT REGARDING THERMITE:Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.

Burn through time of thermite on target material IS LESS THAN ONE HALF SECOND TO TWO SECONDS

NIST comment regarding thermite placement:
[W]hile a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been...held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.

COMMENT FROM THE actual PATENTED cutting device (United States Patent 6183569)
regarding placement:Comment regarding placement in patent number 6183569:

"It is an object of the present invention to provide a material cutting apparatus having an elongated nozzle structured to be a controlled distance or "STANDOFF" DISTANCE FROM THE SURFACE of a target material."

"The method also employs an energy source for generating a high temperature. HIGH VELOCITY CUTTING FLAME OR JET, SUCH AS BY EMPLOYING A THERMITE CHARGE."

The device can be held in place with simple rare earth magnets or straps.

Maybe the high paid folks at NIST are lying, maybe they are misinformed, or maybe some of them are incompetent. In any case, what they claim above is in DIRECT incontrovertible opposition to the patent for an EXISTING and MANUFACTURED linear cutting device.


"NIST ANSWER: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

MY RESPONSE: Professor Jones did test for residue and found evidence of thermate"

Ahh, but has he found a complete thermate signature, including barium? Or just some sulphur, and traces of things that you'd expect in steel anyway due to the manufacturing process?
Where has Jones written up what he has found exactly?

Building 7

Building 7, Building 7. If they refuse to address that issue then I'm not even listening.

coming in 2007 ;-)

coming in 2007 ;-)


"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."

Shaking before collapse

And then there's all those hours of live footage of people talking about explosions... as well as the 911eyewitness video...

Why use the qualifier?

It's just suspicious. Why qualify, "prior to Sept 11th?"

Why use the qualifier, "explosives planted prior to Sept 11th?"

Are they implying some could've be set, or something happen, on that day? Or middle of the night?

Why not just say "using any pre-planted explosives."

There is a rumor I picked up from a Press person off the street, while handing out fliers, that a homeless man, who lived in St. Paul's churchyard, saw vans coming in the middle of the night. And a few teams of men in black.

I asked homeless people on the street in the area if they knew of this man. They said a lot of homeless disappeared after 9/11.

The man who gave me this information works for a successful NYC newspaper and told me also that the Media is sitting on evidence, including an interview with the homeless man from St. Paul's.

He said he never knew the Media was not to be trusted, and that stories are changed regularly, until he began working in the newspaper business. He didn't want to get involved with the 9/11 movement, but just wanted to unburden himself to an understanding ear, in an anonymous way, of what he had trouble thinking about and dealing with.

So nothing is out of the question. Explosives could've been planted the night before.

Anyway, I suspect there is a clue here. Why not ask NIST the next question, "So, you had no evidence of explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. What about the day September 11th itself?"

It seems, by this reply, that is what they're asking for.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

How much?

"So nothing is out of the question. Explosives could've been planted the night before."

Tell us how much would be needed, how many trucks, how many people to carry it all, how much time to plant it, and why not plant it all at the base?

Unless you can answer these questions, it would be premature to say explosives "could've been planted the night before."

a few NIST contacks nearly 100 FEMA,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Your point?

Please explain your point.

clueless people

some people, such as "anonymous" are either co-intel-pro or just to ignorant discuss the matter. personaly, given the amount of evidence out there I believe this is co-intel-pro work at its finest. And if he isnt all I have to say to him is this...educate yourself...we can show you the door, we cant make you walk through it.

I have educated myself on the subject...

....and I do so by asking questions - just like all you claim to do. I have to wonder why so many here don't like having necessary questions answered.

NIST gets owned!!!!!!!

Poor saps, I almost pitty them....... well not really, but this does show that our force is being felt by our adversaries and that they are watching us(possibly right now:) which makes sense because as the old saying goes, know your enemy, and the powers that be damn well know where the enemy, and right know there engaging us through there shills like Popular Mechanics, NIST, FEMA etc. So now we just need to keep standing up to them and keep reminding them that we know the truth, we see throught there lies, propaganda, and disinformation and we will never back down no matter how hard they come down on us, Live Free Or Die!!!!!!!

Also, I foreget what caused WTC 7 to collapse? There's just so many reasons they've given I get confused sometimes, could someone explain??

What caused WTC 7 to collapse?

WTC7 collapsed due to extensive fear..... the same way America may, if she doesn't wise up fast.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

It collapsed for real reasons

WTC 7 collapsed from extensive structural damage and fires as the firemen knew it would after seeing its condition.

If you know the truth....

...why can't you answer straightforward questions?

Gentlemen, cover your asses!

Methinks some LAWYERS had a hand in this series of Q&A. Note the various instances where what they say is true but incomplete--and always attributed to "NIST", not an individual. NIST concluded this, NIST didn't consider that because NIST had concluded the other thing. This is basically a house of cards intended to look like a solid refutation. Not because they wanted to refute, but because they could be held liable if they don't explain their bogus investigation in a way that exonerates individuals with the excuse of groupthink. See, NIST made all these conclusions, not people! They say they never looked at controlled demoloition because they concluded that other factors were responsible. Well, that's no excuse--just because you can make a plausible case doesn't mean there isn't an AIRTIGHT case you're overlooking, and in this case that is CD.

They also confuse the thermite issue suggesting that we're saying only thermite was used. Nonsense. Thermite was used in order to weaken some of the thicker columns that would have required too big an explosive charge to just outright break. The explosive charges needed to be relatively small to not be obvious, so they had to weaken the thicker columns (in the center core where the thermite reaction wouldn't be visible from the outside. Once the collapse initiated with small explosions at the thinner columns near the top, the dust cloud and debris hid the progressively larger charges that were set off by radio as the collapse progressed. The explosive used in conjunction with thermite was probably something like RDX (I have reasons to believe this that I won't share, suffice it to say that some agents on the street are so eager to debunk that they let slip things voluntarily!) By suggesting that we claim only thermite was used they can say "well that would have taken TONS!" Not so with RDX. And unless WTC occupants liked to hang out in the central core of the building and took their coffee breaks in the elevator shafts, I don't see how they would have witnessed any planting of explosives--just the comings and goings of blue collar folks they were accustomed to avoiding eye contact with. So there. This piece is invaluable, thanks GW!


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Three Card Monty.

Real Truther: I hear you, and agree that the wording was VERY careful, as it should be, but not careful in an effort to explain and dispel confusion... but careful not to tell too much, nor allow return focus directed at people and reputations. So they hope.

The premiss, as has been ever more perfected from day one, is to "tell" people things from the positions of institutions like the FAA and NIST "known for their commitment and dedication to public safety." Invoking the good name and impression of FAA and NIST creates very powerful images of respectability and therefore, acceptable believability. If this can be kept up for several years, the ability to loop back and reference this material helps to "extend the milage".

Institutions rise and institutions fall. The fall, is almost always precipitated by people, post generations from the founders, compromising the historical good name for a selfish interest. It is rather easy to establish, at least for me and my personal experience with NIST, that the individual workers populating the halls of the modern NIST feel they have much more to lose by NOT backing the popular "cave-man" narrative, than should they address the material in a genuine and scientific manner.

Should the personal at NIST allow social unrest to ensue by publishing the real odds against astonishing symmetrical collapse induced by asymmetrical kinetic impact and fire...... the lucrative government contracts with NIST, would dry up as fast as the evaporating fiat dollar from that very unrest.

Too bad NIST doesn't have the long view. If they had chosen to uphold their historical good name, at least they would have marketability in whatever new economy springs up from the evaporating dollar anyway.

Same for the FAA, and every other damnable alphabet Three Card Monty.


(Fixed my incorrect alphabet reference. As for NTSB: your recent release seems the cleanest, but does not jive with the popular narrative... too bad you seem to feel gaged by thugs.)

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

You dance around the facts

"The premiss, as has been ever more perfected from day one, is to "tell" people things from the positions of institutions like the FAA and NIST "known for their commitment and dedication to public safety."

As opposed to what you claim? That you believe things from people who have no qualifications, who repeat claims already proven false, who don't back up their claims with facts or evidence, and whom you chose to believe no matter what?

Why do you not choose to question those who tell you things you want to believe?

Not convincing

"See, NIST made all these conclusions, not people!"

No, real people drew their conclusions from the facts and evidence, laid it ALL bare for the world and their peers to analyze and question, and SIGNED their names to it.

If you want to refute NIST, do so scientifcally.

You can start with your claim that explosives were used and tell us how much was needed. You must know the answer.

Not Convincible, You.

Hello Nameless:

I see you're rather busy working hard on this post, to cast doubt upon doubt. Should your efforts succeed you will have helped to insulate the FAA, NIST, FEMA, The U.S. Government and those who foolishly take them at their WORD.... from rigorous challenge. What a brave and heroic soldier you are (not).

Your method, if what you do can be called something other than mindless, is to demand... dear friend.... that unless We provide YOU with examples and explanations in minuet detail of how 9/11 was in-fact conducted (an impossibility, you know full well), that because we fail to perform this impossible task.... then we must be failures.... thus, you imply that "9/11 questioning is stupid, worthless, meaningless...." leaving only the popular narrative of a Villainous Band of Evil-Do-Ers hiding under every bed, and that Protection rests only with a Lilly White U.S. Government that needs to be accepted into our hearts.

Say what you like to the contrary.... but you're position is that, clear as day.

There is another possibility, you actually do seek truth and honesty from your government and by playing devil's advocate, a tool you admire, you imagine (good for you) that this will flush out the truth. However, your lack of personal confidence to use a real name or even an internet persona begs otherwise.

Because you are stuck on a few things like demanding explosives application be explained in detail "otherwise they are not", or that multiple symmetrical collapses are common in a chaotic world.... you therefore exhibit a rather confidant tone that all of this 9/11 hoopla is just that, "go back to bed people, nothing to see here."

You are wrong "my friend", and the simplicity of this game amuses me only to a point. Take back your finest meats and cheeses, for you are an unworthy opponent. Be it this virtual internet, or the battle field face to face.

I am no closer to discussing explosives with YOU (though I have with others here in public), because you, "my friend" are nameless and have no standing in a community of people trying to untangle a world of lies and war. In the last, since you continue disparaging this effort here that it may wither, recede and die... you demonstrate as much as come right out and say "I up-hold this Government, damn to its old constitution and subservience to its people and the rule of law".

Buddy, my friend, pal-o-mine..... there are in fact things much worse than being 'knave' or traitorous.... those you may be.

I am neither hiding, nor fearful (try as your kind might), I do not shy away nor cower from aggressors, my strength comes from love and compassion, and if you think..... if you are convinced beyond doubt.... that I represent a real and present danger to this cabal.... then you should pen a letter, tap out an email, or get them on the phone and TIPS them with my name (you can do so anonymously).

My will and determination to uphold my sworn Oath to protect and defend We the People, no matter the feebleness of my efforts.... extends to the point of looking our greatest danger square in the face... people like you, and the tyranny you represent.

Good day, good night, and may you leave this effort behind..... or scurry from We the People the rest of your days.



Im still waiting to hear

Im still waiting to hear his evidence that supports the "19 hijackers did it theory"...any evidence at all...
In fact maybe he could explain to us who are less intelligent than him why the FBI refuses to list Sept 11 next to Osamas picture on its 10 most wanted web page.
Maybe he knows something we all please sir, enighten us with your knowledge...What really happened on Sept 11th?

There is something else

Perhaps He can also tell us where that matching DNA came from, The Global Hawk/with missle that did its deed in the Pentagon,The lack of concern in Bushies face when the news was given to him,the lack of Secret Service to escort Him out of the school,the scores of Israeli Mossad hangin around,the fact of Israeli's having prior knowledge,the fact of Germany having prior knowledge and telling Bush on Aug. 6,2001,the fact that We have been spied upon without We the peoples consent,without consent to FISA...speaking of FISA,they grant warrants over 99% of the time,with those odds, why not ask them for a warrant? Perhaps maybe it wasn't for getting a warrant to spy on so-called "terrorists",instead more for spying on Congress.
We have certainly witnessed the death of an opposition party since 9/11,haven't We?. The Patriot Act to push down our civil liberties,The head of Homeland Security,Chertoff,who has Dual-citizenship status;Israel and American,his cousin Benjamin being the main consultant in Poular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11" article (a little conflict of interest there),the blocking of the firefighters transmissions.So why be a stupid purveyor of criminals blocking truth,or real serious investigation? We are here to defend this nation against ENEMIES,FOREIGN and the Constitution insists that We do,and I swear to uphold this document.
Maybe you are just like Bush,who called it a G**damned piece of paper,what a joke.

I'm looking for evidence for your claims.

I'm looking for evidence to support your claims that the towers were brought down with explosives - by Bush or anyone else.

If you have concrete evidence, tell us how much explosives were needed, what kind, how they were planted, and all the other questions I've asked since no evidence of explosives has ever been found.

If you can't do that, just say so, investigate further, and see if your claim holds up and get back to me when and if you can come up with irrefutable evidence.

To just list a bunch of stuff that has no meaning as evidence is not answering the question.

In other words...he has

In other words...he has none.

In other words

You can't answer the questions, so there is not much reason why anyone should believe there were explosives.

and you cant provide

and you cant provide evidence of 19 hijackers so your "theory" also holds no water.

Not interested

I am not interested in your opinions about me. I am interested in you and those here in supporting their claims and assertions.

It is evident that you have formed an opinion, but, as the wise man said, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

I am interested in the factual basis for claims that the government was responsible for 9/11 and will naturally ask those who make those claims to support them. As I have asked you.

You claim that I "...imply that "9/11 questioning is stupid, worthless, meaningless...." Pardon me, but making specific claims that the government - or anyone - blew up the buildings with explosives is not "asking questions". You make a claim, you support it.

Just as you do here:

"you demonstrate as much as come right out and say "I up-hold this Government, damn to its old constitution and subservience to its people and the rule of law".

You see, my questions have nothing to do with upholding any government. My questions are clearly directed to you supporting YOUR claims. I could care less about the government unless you give me specific reasons to back up your claims. The fact that you and others get huffy because *I* dare ask questions of you only demonstrates a total lack of confidence in the claims you make.

Which, as you should know, is a good thing for you since it should lead you to question your OWN claims if you can't answer basic questions about them.

So, if and when you have concrete evidence, bring it forth. Don't just get huffy and on your high horse because you don't like the questions that are being asked.

Fool Psyoper

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Look, We've already proven why the government's story is an irrational, implausible myth.

The government steals trillions (Trillions unaccounted for out the Defense Dept., never mind HUD).

All the exotic weaponry and scientific development that could be done by our government, with that missing money - and the money tagged for the defense budget, is top secret.

We, the people, are not privvy to whatever weapons and capablilities they have developed from their gigantic power.

Let's put it this way, whoever did it didn't get the explosives for it at the corner hardware store.

Is that where I'm supposed to go to get the answer you demand?

And certainly, if I took your question in good faith, (which I don't, BTW, since it doesn't deserve good faith), and I decided to research at the public library about "what kind of explosives could've brought down the Towers" then I'd be flagged as a "terrorist!" Gee, it's a lose-lose situation here. Just like the perps want it.

The government, now apparently, has the power to decide who are the criminals, without having to prove it.

The government decided it was 19 named Arabs, Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers, along with Osama bin Ladin, who did the deed. Even though they admitted, at one point, that they may not have gotten, even, their names correctly. And the the proof of their guilt is top secret. Except for Osama bin Ladin - who the FBI states is not connected with the 9/11 crime. So all the perps, according to the government, are dead. Suicide. How convenient. No trial. No need to produce evidence.

Give me some supoena power and I'll find out for you how much explosives were needed, and what kind, to blow-up those Towers.

We don't need to to tell you exactly how it was done in order to have our theory be correct.

Darwin's theory also didn't answer all questions. Still it is a sound theory. You are like someone who tells Darwin, "Well, how was the world created then? If you can't answer that one, then don't expect me to believe your stupid theory."

You're not in good faith because you taunt us for not having all the answers. When the reason we don't have all the answers is because of government secrecy and malfeasance.

Action Item: The Real Truth about 9/11

Hoffmann responds to NIST

Jim Hoffman has drafted some brief responses to the NIST fact sheet:

A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

by Jim Hoffman Introduction

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.

* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".

* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.

* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.

* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".

* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.

More at
The essay he mentions, "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century", is at

Hoffman, and amateur investigator, fails to make any case for...


I asked the question that nobody has answered. How does a WTC floor meant to hold 1,400 tons of static weight support a 40,000 ton mass of FALLING building?

Why does Hoffman fail to understand what every strucutral engineer - far more qualified than Hoffman - understand this fundamental fact and Hoffman doesn't.

The answer is pretty clear. Hoffman, Fetzer, Jones and the whole group of amateur investigators believes politics can change scientific fact. But we know that scientific fact is ALWAYS unconcerned with politics - it ignores it.

The question then becomes WHY you would believe these amateurs over the world's experts?

Until evidence of explosives is ever given, you have to look in the mirror and ask yourselves WHY you would believe people like Hoffman, Jones, and Fetzer.

Paul Thompson Complete Timeline

(8:47 a.m.-9:50 a.m.): Engineer Finds Major Damage in Basement and Lobby of North Tower

my own paraphrasing:
The eyewitness experience of Mike Pecoraro an engineer working in the WTC in the BASEMENT on 911. After the plane hit the building Mike starts up the stairs, a 50 ton hydraulic press disappeard on Level C. A 300 pound steel/concrete door looks like used alumnimum foil. Read the article

Pecoraro recalls seeing similar things at the Center when it was bombed in 1993 and is therefore convinced that a bomb has gone off this time.

Hard to dispute eyewitnesses.

This comment is totally ludicrous...ask the questions in reverse

For example, in #8, if I were trying to demolish the buildings, why wouldn't I ***deactivate*** the water sprinkler?!

This talk about controlled demolition is pure horseshit.

I fail to see why the mere act of a building falling is any more greater than the pure SHOCK value of seeing two jumbo jets FLY INTO the buildings! In other words, if this is a conspiracy, why is it demanded that the buildings actually fall to the ground, when the damage really began with the airplanes filled with people flew into the buildings!

Some conspiracy websites even suggest there weren't any passengers on the planes!

This is sick talk.