JP wrote:

Liar.
http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...s&search_type=

What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

And how many building have you heard collapse that were not using
controlled demolition?

How many of the people on youtube have been to a cd where they can make an
apt comparison? Again, 'sounded like' does not equal ' sounds the same'.
BTW, I've been present at about half a dozen cd.

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook
theory.

Sure.
But we built atom bombs without anyone knowing.

Not in the middle of a publicly occupied structure. Have you ever been to
Hanford, WA or Alamogordo, NM? Yup, it's the same as being in the Twin
Towers.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse.

Sorry, jet fuel fires couldn't have burned hot enough.

Sure they do.

from
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames
didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural
strength - and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen
melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief
Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To
Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging
steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when
it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior
engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction.
"And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes
that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked
off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the
metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a
professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one
of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says
that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting
inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings,
including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of
fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for
maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was
the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat
transfer that eventually brought them down."

NO steel stucture building in history has collapsed from fire.

Bwahahahahaha. Prove it.

AND if the did "pancake" where are all the pancakes?

Look up the term "pancaking". It has nothing to do with the shape created,
it has to do with the method of collapse. Surely you can't be serious with
that question Bwahahahahahaha.

How does a building pulverize to dust at freefall speed?

There was no freefall speed.

You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Sure.
www.ae911truth.org

He said 'credible' not 'k00kable'

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com