>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And NO I DO NOT believe 9/11 was done by US government. What they did was, since this event
>>>>>>>>>>suited certain interests, they simply distorted proper investigation and exploited consequences of this tragedy
>>>>>>>>>>for pushing for consecutive wars. Only God knows how many secret services, agencies, military groups, militias,
>>>>>>>>>>security companies (and God know what other crazies) are out there who have military experience (kind of top national skill huh ?) and acces to re$ources necessary for commiting crime like that.
>>>>>>>>>>On top of it they are cross-connected with other such 'units' all over the world, which are connected to drug syndicates,
>>>>>>>>>>terrorist groups and so for. Finding particular group is perhaps is like looking for needle in haystack. They will never get found. Flashing fake passport on TV and saying Al-qaeda did is exactly saying; We have no clue, and we don't care either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is actually unimportant who really did it, point is that this event showed how easy was to create global mess
>>>>>>>>>>when it suits certain interests, and how unprepared was US to deal with it in a prudent way. When greatest power
>>>>>>>>>>on the world can be pushed in a state of euphoria/hysteria (and 2 wars thereafter) this easy, then whole world security
>>>>>>>>>>is actually one big house of cards which can be brought down very easy. This is something everybody should be worried about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why do you say the towers did not collapse as a result of fire? The heat generated by that amount of burning jet fuel was well above the melting point of the metal support beams.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No still-frame building EVER colapsed as result of fire. At the point and the time of of impact temperature might have reached
>>>>>>>>melting point of (naked) steel beams. But jet fuel melting steel beams all the way through thick cement of support columns
>>>>>>>>and then building colapsing at free fall speed is totally banana (pancake) story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If floors colapsed on top of each other because of those 'bad joints' it would still leave middle part (support columns core) standing all the way up. This article does not bother explaining at all how come core of the buiding (concentrated support columns) was knocked down to ground at free fall speed.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So your alternative theory is that it required the combined effect of the aircraft flying into the tower *and* carefully placed explosive charges around the base to cause the collapse ?
>>>>>If this were true then the perpertrators must have access to a structural engineer clever enough to work that out - who, by your standards, would need to be infinitely more clever than the engineers who later tried to work out what happened.
>>>>>OTOH, if such placed charges alone would bring down the tower why bother flying planes into it?
>>>>
>>>>I did watch and read quiet a bit about this, but personally I do not have 'alternative theory'.
>>>>All I said was that official theory is IMO deeply flawed. BTW theory that you developed as supposed counter argument
>>>>to my objection on article you posted, have many supporters out there. Explosive that they mentioning as possible cause of fall is termite;
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>>>>(Analysis by Danish group of scientists)
>>>
>>>The report states that the particles in question made up .1% of the dust samples. Given the total quantity of dust doesn't that seem to indicate rather a lot of explosive material ?
>>>I still be interested in your opinion on why both planes and explosives were used ?
>>
>>I have no idea if it was 'lot' or 'a little' but considering the result, I would perhaps cast my bet on word 'enough'.
>>These tests tend to prove presence of termite. Now evidence of thermite on the wtc site would make official story 'little bit pregnant'
>>would'nt you agree?
>
>No. Evidence of a small amount would be more convincing. A conservative estimate put the total weight of dust at 80,000 tons. That implies that there was 80 tons of *unexploded* material in the dust. Does that sound feasible to you ?

Article states 0.1% ratio which downsizes your estimate from 80t to 8t.

Quote:
'In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay the fraction of red/gray chips
was roughly estimated. Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were
extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete
fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust.'

Now if this is plausible qty or not, I do not know. I am not demolition expert.


>
>For a third time: I'd still be interested in your opinion on why both planes and explosives were used ?

Did not understand how is this question any relevant here. Besides I got no specific answer.
What is your take ?