peer reviewed paper: WTC downed via demolitions

I remember listening to a radio discussion many years ago. It was a discussion on the benefits of wood vs. steel as a structural material. The argument, supported by evidence, was that a wood framed building would do better than a steel framed building in a fire.Sure, the wood burns and the building fails. But as the steel heats, it loses its strength, and the building collapses. And this happens more rapidly with the steel framed building than the wood framed one.When 9/11 occurred, it struck me as a demonstration of that principle.

This is a strange claim. I'm not wrong, and I have no idea why you would say so. This is a quote of Professor Jones from the link from your own OP (Sorry! - Deseret News): Arguing for controlled demolition is the whole point of Jones's article, and of WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC Building 7.As for the government doing it, that idea isn't mine. Regardless who you wish to claim planted the explosives, the whole idea is a conspiracy fantasy.--Percy

He argues for demolitions, but he pointedly states we shouldn't assume the rest, but just take it one step at a time, making sure all the facts are clear.

Fair enough. I was similarly unimpressed with the quality of the presentation, and it's still not clear to me in what sense the article was "peer-reviewed."

And when the unlikelihood of terrorists being able to obtain the necessary access was pointed out, the response (I thought from Crash, but maybe not) was that our government did it.I'm just trying to stay consistent with you guys. Keep in mind that you and Crash are backing different variations of the same conspiracy theory, and I think Crash may have advanced both a "the government did it" theory and a "the government allowed the attacks to happen" theory. And then there's the variation from Professor Jones, whose "Let's not speculate on who set the explosives" is neatly lifted from ID's "We don't speculate as to the identity of the designer." If you don't like the idea that the government did it don't complain to me, it wasn't my idea. I'm just replying to what's been claimed.I stand by my original point, that controlled demolitions as the cause of the tower collapses is a conspiracy fantasy, outlandish at first sight, at odds with the facts, and with only innuendo for support.--Percy

Hmm... so you can heat iron red hot in your fireplace, but you don't think tons of jet fuel could do it? Double-think or what?That fire was not a "fairly quick" explosion. It burned for quite a while before the collapse - probably longer than it takes to heat iron in your fireplace.Ever hear of a blacksmith? Do you know what they can do with red-hot iron?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I don't know how full the hijacked planes were (other than they were picked because they were cross country flights which would carry a lot of fuel), but a Boeing 767 has a fuel capacity of nearly 24,000 US gallons (91,000 litres).I'd expect that to burn for a while. This is taken from a BBC Horizon programme about the WTC collapse: All it would have taken was for the steel columns and trusses to weaken, not necessarily melt. The following two quotes are from Channel 4 over here:

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This guy argues for the more extreme version. That the planes alone could not have brought down the towers. Page not found - LewRockwell.comI wish I was a structural engineer (instead of computer) so that I could more thoughtfully analyze his information. I consider this scenario pretty unlikely right now.The more likely scenario is that cheney knew ahead of time. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that he did:Alex Jones' EndgameAs for conspiracy theories. I'm going to start a new on the 2004 elections. It's pretty obvious (at least IMO) that something shady was going on with the votes.

Didn't see this posted yet, but I just skimmed...anyone seen this? Error 404 (Not Found)!!1It goes into a lot of the physics of why the towers COULD NOT collapse due to fire damage, and other interesting things...one thing that I saw here first I'd like an opinion on is the 167 billion in gold that was taken from under the WTC that day......or maybe I've become what I've always feared...another nutjob from downtown...

The video raises a lot of questions.However, it is easy to spin together lots of curiosities, and make it appear as if they are part of some grand conspiracy. It is harder to go and actually check all the facts and see if there is any credibility to the story that has been woven together.Count me a skeptical of this. The Bush administration, even with its penchant for secrecy, could not bottle up this kind of conspiracy. There would be leaks and they would be exposed. So my conclusion is that this kind of conspiracy is very unlikely to have happened.

i think we should send it to mythbusters. we should have them build identical mockups. then fly a plane stuffed with fuel into one and demolish another and do a half screen.

what if the demolition was for another reason? insurance payout, clearing space, what have you?

i think you're mistaken. it is quite possible to talk someone out of something using facts if they are willing to listen. i'm willing to listen and you're simply discussing how crazy we all are for entertaining this idea. you're not discussing facts at all and as such not really contributing.

no, no. ohio really has invisible, unrecorded voters.

i think the biggest reason you're wrong about this is psychological. you know all the country spirit pep rally bullshit that's been going on here since 9/11. not to mention the prevalence lately of anti-conspiracy theory stuff. conspiracy theories are big news recently... as huge jokes. so between being labeled as nutters or unpatriotic, there may be a sufficient damper on investigatinve reporting or leak publishing. not to mention the kind of money at stake in the media and of course the fact that the most interesting things on tv are clearly paris' cooch and brittney's child abuse.