911truth hoax creation by Dr. James Feltzer

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

New 9/11 photos released

Newly released aerial photos of the World Trade Center terror attack capture the towers' dramatic collapse, from just after the first fiery plane strike to the apocalyptic dust clouds that spread over lower Manhattan. But the photos suggest something else was going on. This does not look like a "collapse".

The images were taken from a police helicopter--the only photographs allowed in the air space near the towers on September 11, 2001. Underwriters Laboratory had certified the steel up to 2,000°F for three to four hours. When NIST sampled 236 pieces of steel, it found 233 had not even been exposed to temperatures above 500°F--and the other three not above 1,200°F.

ABC News obtained them among 2,779 pictures released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA). In the air for three hours, Det. Greg Semendinger took three rolls of 36 stills with his personal Minolta Maxxum 7000 camera and another 245 with his digital Olympus U-2100.

It took a year for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to respond to ABC News. NIST may not have wanted to release them, because they contradict its theory that the heat from the fires cause the towers to collapse. Since the fires were not evenly distributed, any "collapse" should have been asymmetrical, too--slow and gradual, not complete and total.

Semendinger gave his photographs to the 9/11 commission set up to investigate the attack. From there, they made their way to NIST as part of its probe of the buildings' destruction. This one shows the fragile "bathtub" beneath the towers, which kept Hudson River water out. They remained intact only because the buldings did not collapse but were turned to dust.

Notice that the South Tower has already turned to dust, which is enveloping lower Manhattan. The modest fires only burned for about an hour in the South Tower and an hour and a half in the North Tower--neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.

How could anyone--including NIST--have viewed the conversion of these two 500,000-ton towers into millions of cublic yards of very fine dust and concluded that they had "collapsed"? It reminds me of the old Richard Pryor joke, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?" Ask yourself!

Notice the remnants of its core columns of the North Tower. Footage of the destruction of the building actually shows those remnants turning to dust--including, of course, the steel. Something quite unusual was taking place in New York City. Here you can see it happening before your very eyes--steel and concrete being converted into dust!
While CNN News described it as "smoke", what you are viewing is the remnant of the core columns of the North Tower turning to dust--which is hardly surprising, since that is happening to the entire building. That is where those millions of cubic yards of very fine dust is coming from. No wonder NIST did not want to release these photos.
Correction the core did not turn to Dust as that steel was

And the dust cloud grew . . .

and grew . . .

and grew . . .

enveloping lower Manhattan . . .

and gradually blowing out to sea.
Posted byJim Fetzerat2:33 PM
REACTIONS:

Labels:9/11 photos,James Fetzer,Nine-Eleven,WTC 7,WTC smoke

29 comments:

1.  
   David HowardFebruary 13, 2010 8:21 AM
   Google "Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC"
   BrianFebruary 14, 2010 11:31 AM
   
2. The towers "collapsed" just as much as the US landed on the moon.... LIES!!! Its so funny how our Govt makes up lies that defy the laws of science, physics, and umm... common sense. And whats even sadder is there are millions of Americans STUPID ENOUGH to just accept these lies as truths rather than do 20-30 mins. of research MAX on either of these completely ridiculous and IMPOSSIBLE feats to see they can't possibly occur. America...QUIT BEING SO LAZY, GULLABLE, AND STUPID!!!
   ReneFebruary 15, 2010 2:39 AM
   
3. So, what's the explanation for the whole building turning to dust?
   Rhene Kiyu Baaz
   bustamovementFebruary 15, 2010 4:53 AM
   
4. When I first saw George Bush address the nation for the first time, after the attacks, and noticed he kept smirking (4 or 5 times) (soon to be known as "smirking chimp), and then when I saw the videos of him sitting in that classroom, when security adviser Andrew Card infamously whispered into his ear, "Sir. A second plane has struck the other twin tower. America is under attack!". And then to see Bush sit back in his chair and just sit there for another 20 minutes. Those 2 things were my aha moments when I knew something was up. This guy looks guilty as hell! Then gradually I went from, he let it happen, to , he made it happen (the shadow govt.). Then, once my denial was gone about 911, it went away for Timothy McVeigh and the OK City bombing...
   Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war l...Walking on the moon...All lies. All propaganda. All BS.
   
   
5. CaleFebruary 15, 2010 7:36 AM
   One of the reasons many people have a hard time accepting the possibility of this is because they are simultaneously expected to accept so many other concepts which to them seem very far-fetched. If you want people to see the truth of 9/11, don't hurl moon-landing JFK Templars pyramids and reptilian aliens in their face at the same time.
   
   
6.  
   Jim FetzerFebruary 15, 2010 8:51 AM
   How it was done has become the $64 question about events in New York City. I have outlined my reasoning for inferring that the destruction of the Twin Towers appears to have been done using some very sophisticated unconventional methods, unlike the case of WTC-7, which was clearly a classic controlled demolition from the bottom up.
   On WTC-7, see, for example, "This is an Orange" and many other videos found on YouTube, including an interview with Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, by doing a copy-and-past of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
   My "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" can be downloaded from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum by going to http://911scholars.ning.com and entering in the search window, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11".
   
   
7. Jim FetzerFebruary 15, 2010 9:07 AM
   In response to Cale, I think that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. This post is not about any other issue than the destruction of the Twin Towers and, in this case, the North Tower specifically. So why mention them?
   Another link to "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" goes directly to it, http://religionandmorality.net/links/An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20WTC%20on%209_11.pdf for those who find that easier to access.
   Jim FetzerFebruary 15, 2010 9:38 AM
   
8. David is not the only one to raise the possibility that mini-nukes might have been involved, http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2009/07/35-reasons-for-many-small-fission-nukes.html. But my own research undermines at least some of the reasons he offers. See "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories" for further discussion of these issues, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html.
   moseljackFebruary 15, 2010 3:12 PM
   
9. Columbia University: See Seismological anamoly PRIOR to and immediately during the "collapse" sequence. Seismological evidence proves ground shock well BELOW surface and PRIOR to "Collapse".
   Seek the science... Conservation of momentum "freefall" speeds physically can not account for mass being overtly "in the way" for 110 stories successively(Pancake Excuse Theory)and provide for sustaining gravitational freefall speeds thus sustaining the acceleration of mass (consistently) to the ground. If this were a rare physical anomolly, granted (building #1 gets a "a pass"). However, this occured 2 times identically and the anomoly that requires "Protection" from accusation of internal energy as evidenced, producing this effect CANNOT stand. Pulverizing of concrete into microscopic dust has to have been exposed to incredibly high explosive energy. Both the buildings' steel spires were additionally found to be at 36 foot lengths, identical to the flat bed legnths that would conveiniently carry them away.
   This is science and forensically established fact. No second gunmen about this one.
   Seek Science -- get results... Demand truth. 9 years later, THIS IS the smoking gun behind all of the worlds' troubles of today... Except for the one or two thousand "Extra-Privileged" who profitted and continue to benefit from this tragedy.
   Is this our heritage's legacy? Our Swansong?
   What would Thomas Jefferson do or say?
   GOD SPEED IN TRUTH FOR US ALL PLEASE.
   Whole2thFebruary 15, 2010 5:29 PM
   
10. New photos released--or time to restimulate in the traumatized minds of sheeple the psy-ops mythology of 19 Islamics on the eve of invasion and occupation of Iran and diffuse the AE911truth press conference announcing the 1000th member?
    Silverstein, Hauer, Wolfowitz, Bill, Kristol, Zelikow, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, ODIGO, COMVERSE, ICTS, Dancing Israelis--how many Israeli connections does it take to realize the Israel framed the Muslim world in this "false flags" attack? Israel--not Muslims--did 9/11 along with traitors within the US which we might name Kosher Nostra or Zioncons.
    At least we have a name for the criminal element of Italians--the Mafia. We've been conditioned not to criticize or scrutinize criminal behavior by Israelis--lest the "anti-Semitic trick" be played.
    ReDiscover911.com and whodidit.org
    It is time for grand juries--investigations are more than sufficient for indictments.
    ReplyDelete
    
11. 
    Jim FetzerFebruary 15, 2010 6:13 PM
    The explosions in the subbasements occurred as much as 14-17 seconds before the reverberations from the alleged plane strikes. See Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", for example, at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html
    On indications of Israeli complicity in the events of 9/11, see, for example, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" and "Is 9/11 Research 'anti-Semitic'?" OpEdNews, as well as documents and links provided by sites like http://ReDiscover911.com and http://whodidit.org.
    David HowardFebruary 15, 2010 8:14 PM
    
12. 9/11 First Responders Dying of Cancer ...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5S8UuB3fcM
    Google "9/11 Nukes - Radiation-induced cancers"
    ReplyDelete
    
13. 
    Jim FetzerFebruary 19, 2010 10:41 AM
    Quoting "Thomas Potter" :
    Jim-
    The claim that ABC News made about these photos being unreleased and recently obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology through the Freedom of Information Act are bogus.
    On 09/13/2007 Ronald J. Burch, New York State Museum Curator of Art and Architecture, posted a presentation entitled "Military Photos of the Twin Towers" which contained these "unreleased photos". But then, what else would you expect from a fascist state posing as a democracy?
    Tom
    PS- Incidentally, the second to the last photo in Mr. Burch's presentation is labeled incorrectly. It was photographed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the data was used by the U.S. Army Joint Precision Strike Demonstration.
    New 9/11 Photos Released
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
    Chilling Aerial Photos of 9/11 Attack Released
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9796098
    Military Photos of the Twin Towers
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/282415/Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers
    Ronald J. Burch
    Curator of Art and Architecture
    New York State Museum
    http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/staff/details.cfm?staffID=16
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm
    MarkMarch 10, 2010 12:07 PM
    
14. Box cutters my butt...looks like Directed Energy to me....
    9/11 was an Inside Job
    David HowardMarch 16, 2010 9:51 AM
    
15. Google "The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects"
    
    
16. sohailuddinJune 3, 2010 1:27 AM
    Please follow the links below to find detailed reports on thermite explosives.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15285013/2009-Active-Thermitic-Material-Discovered-in-Dust-from-the-911-WTC-Catastrophe-
    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
    JamesFetzerJune 3, 2010 5:34 AM
    
17. In response to Tom, some of these photos--possibly all of them--had been available previously, but they were hyped as "newly released":
    "New aerial NYPD photos of 9/11 attack released today"
    By Ula Ilnytsky and Colleen Long (February 10, 2010)
    http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1587879357/New-aerial-NYPD-photos-of-9-11-attack-released-today
    They apparently were released as the result of a FOIA request, but there may have been a psy-op aspect to this. I thought it was an opportunity to better inform the public about what actually happened on 9/11, so I resequenced them in order to present the story more coherently here.
    
    
18. 
    Jim FetzerJune 3, 2010 6:09 AM
    Steve and I had a parting of the ways in December 2006 because I had become convinced that thermite/thermate/super-thermite cannot be the whole story (in converting two 500,000-ton buildings into very fine dust). I have discussed my differences with him in "The Science of 9/11" section on the home page of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org. I would especially recommend the transcript of my discussion of his work under the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community", where I consider his latest paper. It can be found at http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf
    
    

James for someone whom lacks any qualifications in demolition or has any knowledge of he forensic science behind a 2,000 foot high 1 acre square building no wonder people are abandoning your unfounded pseudoscience
 
JamesFetzerJune 20, 2010 8:58 AM

1. Lest anyone draw the wrong inference, I did not give Steve the boot. He resigned. I was not unhappy with his research on thermite but with his lack of willingness to consider alternatives with the potential to explain the phenomenon. He is still using the word "collapse" when the towers clearly did not collapse. Here's another useful source:
   "Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition"
   http://www.infowars.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition/
   I have always been a "bit tent" guy who encourages research on alternative possibilities, such as mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids. Even Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show on 9/11 used (nano-)thermite(?) on a steel beam and was unable to cut through it in the time available, which seemed to be more than 10 secs. Here is some of what we have to explain:
   "9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Destruction"
   http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html
   With respect to my own efforts to sort all this out, I have a piece that explains my reasoning in moving toward unconventional explanations for the phenomena. I would think that anyone who studied the photographic sequence here would understand that there is no conventional explanation for what happened to the towers or to the WTC entire:
   "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
   http://911scholars.ning.com, enter the title
   Jim FetzerJuly 9, 2010 7:28 AM
   
2. This has been posted on another thread, but it comes from a chemical engineer, so I'm posting it here as well (in two parts). Here's Part I:
   Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:19:50 -0700 [02:19:50 AM CDT]
   To all,
   Back around Christmas 2007 I purchased the DVD set for the 2007 conference, The Science and Politics of 911, What's controversial and what's not and watched all 14 hours of it. See description below.
   The full August 2007 Madison, Wisconsin conference on DVD (14 hours, 2-disk set). Professor James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, presents the most provocative research in the 9/11 movement. Subtitled "What's Controversial, What's Not?", here's your chance to review the most hotly debated 9/11 theories and evidence, delivered by the researchers themselves. Featuring Dr.s Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Bob Fitrakis and Doug Rokke; authors Jim Marrs, Morgan Reynolds and Barbara Honneger; and geoscience/space experts Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre, among others.
   This video is still advertised for sale at
   http://www.avatarproducts.com
   I also watched at least two of the no planer videos, September Clues and 911 Octopus, I believe it was called.
   I came away from this with a respect for the case that the proponents make for both the no planes theory and the directed energy weapons theory.
   I was sad to see the breakup of Scholars for 911 truth, but after watching this 14 hour DVD set I chose to join Fetzer's group just to take a stand for the side of the fence that is more in line with my inclination towards free and open thinking and research.
   Since I am an engineer I also chose to join Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, even though they have a very narrow focus.
   How many of the people who I am "replying all" to on this email have watched all of these videos that I have watched? If you have, and you think the case that they make has been soundly refuted, then please refer me to the best articles that refute them so I can get the other side.
   I will admit that getting someone new to entertain the no planes theory or the directed energy weapons theory is a much harder sell than the seemingly more conventional thermite theory. It is kind of like trying to convince someone that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a prerequisite for understanding that 911 was an inside job.
   When I look at the videos of the live TV broadcasts of 911 I see what appears to be pretty obvious evidence of some monkey business with regards to the footage that was being shown, even covering up parts of the videos upon playback. Why would they do this if they did not have something to hide.
   Also, the physics shown in the videos of the planes entering the buildings does not look right to me. You have the low density and more fragile object achieving victory over the much higher density and stronger object upon their coming together in collision. How would it have looked different if the properties of the two objects were reversed? The plane being dense and strong and the building being light and fragile. It would have looked the same as what we saw in the videos. Therefore the authenticity of these videos is suspect in my view.
   Jim FetzerJuly 9, 2010 7:30 AM
   
3. Here is the rest of the commentary from a chemical engineer. Part II.
   I have read the nanothermite technical paper, and it seems like a solid technical paper to me. But it just implicates thermite as having been found at the scene of the crime. It does not explain how much thermite was used, how it was applied, and how it could account for the massive amounts of dust as well as molten iron in the subfloors. If nanothermite can function as a detonating explosive capable of creating all that dust, that thermite would not have produced molten iron in the subfloors, because the iron would have been dispersed in the dust and would have solidified as its small particles cooled in the air. So does this mean that there was other thermite that functioned as an incendiary to cut the columns and leave massive amounts of molten iron? But then what about those massive explosions that we can hear before the "collapse" of the buildings on the Rick Siegel video? Were those also thermite explosions?
   I think that people of good will should be able to debate these issues without calling each other disinfo agents. (Am I exposing myself as a disinfo agent by saying this?)
   I also think that it is much more important to unite and focus on the "who did 911" rather than fight amongst ourselves over the "how it was done." But the "how" should not be entirely neglected. I appreciate that there are those who are dedicating themselves to this.
   One last comment about Fetzer that popped into my mind. I really appreciated the debate he did on the subject of 911 with Michael Shermer. I thought he presented the arguments very well and won the debate. Many years ago I had read some of Shermer's books as I was going through my period of skepticism, and was a fan of his, so I was disappointed when I learned the position he was taking on 911. But I even appreciate Michael Shermer for his willingness to debate Jim Fetzer, because how else, if not through debate are people going to be able to think things through and make up their own minds.
   To all our searching for truth,
   Mark
   T Mark Hightower
   San Jose, CA
   AnonymousOctober 23, 2010 9:11 AM
   
4. Jim Fetzer and Will of www.tnsradio.com are doing a live broadcast on 911 and the JFK murder on Wendesnday 27th October 2010 at 4pm Eastern time
   DDMaven_comOctober 29, 2010 8:55 PM
   
5. Can you add my FOIA strange small jet photo at the WTC on 9/11?
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6LmJZbvOjo
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDF_1WyZuE
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivEN35NwMs
   
   
6.  
   craig hillMay 10, 2011 8:02 PM
   People who lump the lie of 9/11 in with the reality of the Moon landings just do not have any sense of proportion, not having been born till way after, reading about them from BS artists who deny it, and who easily fool the too-young. A round trip from here to the Moon and back really is just not that difficult. Just titanic ally expensive. And the "criticism" of shadows and "wind" is really just so half-baked. ALL easily explained. It actually happened, folks, 6 times.
   What amazes me about 9/11 are the otherwise-solid researchers who also have some bullshit ax to grind, by claiming the government was NOT involved. Just an innocent bystander, coincidentally keeping all air defense out of the way for 1 hr 51 mins. About as dumb, really, as the Moon landing deniers are pathetic.
   
   
7. Just as the 911truthers that have no expert
   
8. 
   
9. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2011 9:34 PM
   
10. To those saying that there were nuclear bombs at the base of the building, therefore causing the earth to shake, are completely wrong. Don't you think if there were nuclear bombs planted anywhere near the base of the towers, that the base of the structures would not be in tact still. As opposed to the upper part of the buildings that were pretty much demolished from impact, fire, collapse, etc. ? If you have done your research, you would know that according to the building codes of 1968 in New York City, it did not require as much fireproofing in the buildings as it did back when the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Back when they used masonry to fireproof building in New York. The fireproofing they did use was in small amounts and was that spray-on stuff. When the plane collided with the buldings, it blew off whatever fireproofing was intact. Ignited jet fuel did soften the columns and did cause the buildings to basically "implode". If there were bombs set, we would've seen more explosions. I know the govt aint perfect, but look into the facts before you start spreading more controversy. Thank you.
    ReplyDelete
    
11. 
    Andrew SmithOctober 16, 2011 10:16 PM
    is it really possible for height like WTC to go down proportional when hit at the side? i thought it should go down leaning to the side.
    Smith | support hose
    ReplyDelete
    
12. 
    AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 9:51 AM
    Fascinating conversation. I appreciate everyone's dedication and am overwhelmed by the complexities. Though I'm confused (who really isn't?) about various aspects of the who and how's, one thing I'd like to look into is the media coverage before, during, and after the event.
    For example, I don't even remember any talk of a hurricane off the coast of NYC until I watched Dr. Judy Wood's interview. I do recall seeing a video where a newscaster (BBC?) speaks of WTC 7 collapsing while this building was still visible in the background. etc. etc.
    I'm mostly interested in a detailed analysis of all live coverage, which upon re-broadcasting, was never used again. The kind of stuff which couldn't escape being shown/spoken on live TV (once) but which, for some reason was deemed too dangerous to show again...with the hope that 99% of us would forget what we'd seen the first time. And being in a state of shock is probably a good way to lose track of such details.
    Can anyone point me to a good video/article which specifically deals with media coverage, differentiating between the "shown once only" vs. the stuff that was repeated multiple times, with the supposed aim to drive home the official message?
    Thanks,
    Joel
    WV
    
    
13. AnonymousJanuary 17, 2012 7:19 AM
    What happened to the passengers of the planes that did not hit the towers or the Pentagon?
    
    They died as a result of the planes being hijacked and deliberately flown into the WTC tower 1, WTC 2, Pentagon and Flight 93 that was crashed by hijackers after/as the passengers retook the plane
     
     For Clarification
    
    
    James  it is you that have not proven anything and  The physical evidence proves you  just  can’t see what is real  and  wish to replace it with your opinion  and philosophy.  You do not have to explain anything that already has an physical cause that is explained and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I have backed up my charges go run into your denial of reality like the insane pastor whom believes The light in the night  sky is a demon even after the aircraft passes by he still says it is a demon.   Your statement about directed energy weapons and wtc towers or wtc 6 is bogus.  Just as any further statement from you yes it is a complete waste of your time to push your baseless opinion upon someone whom is more educated about what happened on  9-11-01 than some buffoon whom is snake oil sales man selling his baseless philosophy.
    
    You are years behind the curve and you statement only applies to yourself it is called mirroring in a psychological term and is a form of transference and a mark of someone whom is delusional.   You only try for a personal attack when you cannot back yourself up. Sorry a lot of people do take me and every other survivor of the attacks seriously because they lived through the terrorist attacks.   More like you are the complete waste of time here you came with nothing and leave not even with a satisfaction of having added anything.
    
    You really need to stop telling people a lot of logical failures and assumptions. Now comparing buildings that do not share the same construction as the WTC towers is misleading and a logical failure. There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. Then you have a fire on the impact floors fueled by Melted Aluminium, jet fuel and secondary fires from an acre of offices.  In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).
    
    "Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
    
    Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.
    
    This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
    
    "Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the best," said Thomas Eagar, a materials scientist at MIT who has also studied the fall of the towers. "I do not see any merit to this new, more-complex explanation. Any firefighter trying to extinguish a fire without having the water or the electricity shut off will tell you that there will be periodic explosions from inside the building. I don't need to invoke some water/molten aluminum theory to explain this."
    Eagar also objects to the notion that the aluminum, if it did melt, would definitely have reacted with the water it encountered. Most of the time when water is sprayed on molten aluminum, "there is no explosion because the water turns to steam and excludes the oxygen, preventing the growth of the combustion," he said.
    Along similar lines, Zdenek Bazant, a professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University who was first to model how fires could have caused steel columns in the towers to buckle (leading to the buildings' collapses), thinks that the official explanation suffices. "I've explained it in six papers in leading journals," Bazant said. In his opinion, all factors related to the collapse have been accounted for.
    As For  Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note:  the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
    
    Also they other towers have no construction similar to WTC tower 1 or 2 or 7 so another Apple to oranges disscussion better known as the red herring.
    
    You do not understand the implosive and kinetic explosive effect of a structural failure due to fire and aircraft damage in a super high rise building that is what WTC 1 and 2 were.
    
    The following independent study proves controlled demolition is a hoax as assumptions based on truther programming that is based on logical fallacy and evidence creation to fit their agenda.  go read it will give you the data needed http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
    
    1. 
       
       
       You lack of understanding that wtc 1 and 2 are separate collapses and have different collapse mechanics although the primary cause of both is weaking of structural support due from Impact damage from An aircraft and Secondary fires on multiple floors primarily at the connection points
       http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf.
       You will now place your blinders on and not look at the facts but look to further the hoax of controlled emollition even going as far as misrepresenting kinetic energy transferring through the structure shattering and pulverizing concrete like an explosive. How does a sabot round from a shot gun work explosive force and kinetic energy there is no explosive in the round Just as there is no explosive other than the weight and momentum that builds as it falls until it hits the ground releasing all the kinetic energy.
       Now one point you bring up is building codes and thickness of fireproofing which has been a question since the codes were relaxed during the construction and asbestos abatement was taking place . It is plausible that wicking did occur helping spread the fire before the jet fuel burned off burnt by that time the fire engulfed three floors of south tower and was moving this can be seen by multiple vidieo shots from NYPD and channel eight helicopter as well as others.
       http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
       Further explains that there was no controlled demolition.
       When Jones falsified paint chips as thermite and had the paper published in an vanity journal for $800.00 and he could not link any of his findings to WTC 1 or WTC 2 because of secondary sources not being taken into effect and the age of his samples vrs USGS report on the dust.
       The reason you fail to understand is you don’t understand WTC 1 structurally or wtc 2 structurally.
       Illustrative point you have been proven  wrong years ago and that is the real truth of it.. You failed to address any of the cause of the collapse just an bogus science of directed energy weapons that never were used. I see also you tried to apply it to another  aircraft crash of an airbus that was his by lighting in a storm over the ocean.  So the whole pattern s clear as to how you want people to think.
       But your statements and actions over the 8 years of discussion with the transcripts prove exactly what I have stated is correct.
       Jim has not  done anything to change the physical cause of the collapses of wtc 1 and 2 or  change the facts that it was a plane bombing by terrorist whom planned this since 1990 and had teams embedded at the airports prior to the attacks whom worked on the jets as well as within the security companies whom screened them at those airports.  
       This has been told to you and proven beyond your opinion and is just the reality of what happened.
       Apparently you are threatened by the real truth so you  run away.
       I believe that reflection on the concept of the burden of proof would be a key failure in your discussion and so  all your efforts have so and
       will only discredit the efforts for 9/11 truth and justice.  So in fact you are just undermining your own philosophy  by  a lack of burden of proof or physical evidence to back yourself up.
       You just made an complete idiot out of yourself by presenting works of
       fiction that have no backing in physical facts. You should read scientific
       peer reviews on your works of fiction. They only have a backing in your
       personal opinions and are fictional because of that fact they hold no real
       facts based in physical evidence. You use of philosophy instead of factual
       research is why you have no clue as to what I am stating as I state physical
       reality and you start your own little fantasies that have no basis in
       physical facts or physical forensic evidence of the incident. It is
       delusional to believe in your own propaganda and have no physical proof to
       back yourself up. This is the idiocy of Jim's delusional reasoning and
       philosophy. Sorry to say Wilks has a point is rooted in forensics and
       physical evidence not empirical pull an idea out of my ass and act like my
       opinion is scientific. I have seen your phony public speaking events and
       was present at three where you were publicly shown the idiocy of your
       presentation yes you had security censure the persons but you are just the
       propaganda machine that is how you make money. You are just a snake oil
       salesman you learned that in basic training it is called indoctrination
       philosophy.