I'm not an expert by any means, but I do know that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. Why would the welders cut so many columns diagonally creating more work for themselves?

that WTC 7 was a 47 story skyscraper, right? You do realise the rubble pile was about 5 stories high, right? Do controlled demos of 47 story highrises fall EXACTLY within the footprint or can there be some spill-over? Do you get my point?

Please weigh in on this discussion, as I believe that you possess the skills and knowledge to speak authoritatively!

--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

Are these photos false?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

If anyone has not seen Appendix C of the FEMA 403 report, I urge all of you to look at it, this in combination with Jones research is the SMOKING GUN!

Section C.6 1st 2 Sentences:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Looks like Jones Identified it!

My Ass

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

by mentioning anything having to do with 9/11 on Crooks & Liars. Screw them.

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

kind midas strikes again...

Also, when Steven Jones spoke in AZ I believe he mentioned that his experiments have also now been replicated in other labs. Why no mention of that in this article?

Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002).

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Lots of use of permanent in the PNAC document.

Fukuyama: "Sept. 11 was a godsend [for neocons]"
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/15172/Fukuyama_Sept_11_was_a_godsend_for_neocons

And let's not forget the Israeli policy paper "Clean Break" that preceded the formation of the PNAC by just a couple of years:

Israel's "Clean Break" + PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" = 9/11?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2617

_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening

My mistake. I thought those involved here were familiar with the exchanges between me and Steve, which are archived on 911scholars.org under "The Science of 9/11". Insofar as this thread is a discussion of a paper in which I explain some of the problems with his research, I suppose I am entitled to presume you are or should be famiiar with what I have said, at least in the piece at the start:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8790

where the most important discussion of Steve's latest paper occurs in sections 5-8. You need to note that he does not actually claim to have proven that thermite was used, but only that its use is "consistent with" the small iron balls he has discovered in the miniscule dust samples he has been studying. That dust samples include iron balls indicates that the steel, which is principally constituted of iron, was turned into dust! It does not prove that thermite was the mechanism. In fact, other indications of the use of thermite are absent. The data is consistent with any source of energy that would have produced such effects, including lasers, masers, plasmoids, or other devices. These could have been part of a "controlled demolition", which means a demolition that is planned and executed under supervision and control. I am not saying that thermite was not used, but only that, for all of the efforts (which have been ongoing since I invited him to join me as co-chair of Scholars) he has been pursuing since December 2005, I have seen no new experiemnts, no new hypotheses, no new discoveries, suggesting that he is involved in (what Imre Lakatos would call) a degenerating research program. The claim that his work is a "slam dunk" could only be made by someone who doesn't understand either the paper, the issues, or the science. Take a look. If the 9/11 community puts its faith in shoddy research and attempts to take legal action on that basis, we are going to lose all credibility. That is the outcome I would like to forestall. We are just beginning to figure out how all of this was done. There is no need to rush it. Certainly, Jones has not proven his own case! Thanks for asking, though. I took for granted that you would be familiar with our past exchanges. Certainly you should have read the paper you are commenting on. But commenting without reading, much less understanding, is the rule here, not the exception. If I had done no more than brief remarks on threads like this one, your ad hominem complaint would be well-founded. But whenever I post here, my comments are immediatey buried by the praetorian guard enforcing group think, which I also address in my piece on the manipulation of the 9/11 community above, where 9/11bogger is in the vanguard, in case you have not noticed. So I have resorted to brief comments in the subject line that can't be buried! I find very little here that is serious and quite a lot of pablum. Your post was refreshing, even if you should have known better! (My first book was dedicated to Karl Popper!) It at least suggests that you care about the issues, which is untrue of most of those who attack without understanding. The latest serious science on these subjects may be found at drjudywood.com, by the way. Good luck in pursuing the study of the greatest mass murder mystery in history.