UPDATE: Graph added below per request from Joe Bastardi.
But first, let’s listen to expert on all things public, scientific, and climatic, Rosie O’Donnell
From Fox News:
Living in an era when pop culture celebrities can assert “expert” opinions on any subject, why wait for science to catch up with pesky facts?
If Rosie O’Donnell says global warming caused Joplin’s destruction, then it must be true, right? As Hollywood knows best, there’s no need for lab research, instant proclamations are good enough. It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11, so why not weather can’t cause deadly tornadoes outbreaks before this? Must be global warming then. Yeah that’s the ticket.
Alright, now having weathered that, here’s Joe Bastardi on Fox News talking the science.
UPDATE: Joe Bastardi writes in and asks this graphic to be included (which apparently never made it into the interview). Click for a very large version.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The average surface temperature started to climb right after we moved the thermometers from the woods to over by the office air conditioners in the parking lot full of hot pickup trucks.
Obviously, this caused “a few thermals” that rotate into thunderstorms or worse. We’re sorry…..
ferd berple
June 4, 2011 at 8:49 am
Here Ferd . . . . there are pleny of sites . . .
9/11 Truth and the Collapse of Steel Framed Buildings
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=WTC+collapse&tbm=blg
ferd berple
June 4, 2011 at 8:49 am
Here Ferd . . . . there are plenty of sites . . .
9/11 Truth and the Collapse of Steel Framed Buildings
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=WTC+collapse&tbm=blg
@Bublhead
I don’t think he was trying to refute anything you said. He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was not behind the tornado outbreak. You didn’t list the one and only thing he intended to refute in your list of things he failed to refute.
BTW, most of the readers on hear know that there is a slight warming from increase of CO2. It is the feedback that is in dispute. You didn’t list that item, either.
Oops, in reply to Bublhead,
The following:
“He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was not behind the tornado outbreak.”
Should read:
“He amply refuted the assertion that AGW was behind the tornado outbreak.”
@Laurie Bowen
I don’t think Ferd is interested in what mechanical and civil engineering experts have to say on the issue of the WTC collapse. He’s more focused in why money was transferred on this particular day (as if money isn’t being transferred all the time). His theory is a lot like saying some particular person’s sneeze caused the Japan earthquake. Certainly he could find someone who would remember someone sneezing right before the quake.
>>Neanderdull
>>Having established that it certain looks and behaves like molten iron
>>it has been a longstanding challenge to demonstrate that any other candidate
>>metal can be made to look like that.
An aircraft contains a hell of a lot of aluminium and magnesium alloys, which all melt at lower temperatures and burn with great ferocity. And if you get the heat up a little, as a blast-furnace chimney will, there is also a lot of glass around there that will look just like that when it melts.
You really are clutching at straws with this conspiracy. Aircraft hits building, and building burns – I reckon that is prima face evidence of the true cause in any courtroom. But you want to believe that aircraft hits building, and a man in black overcoat and dark glasses sneaks in and plants explosives or the like. That, is pure nuts. Why would he bother? The job has already been done, for the price of an airline ticket and a box-cutter, why spend any more time and money, and get found out in the process? The perpetrators would not want the buildings to fall – best leave them burned out and standing, as a lasting legacy to their evil work. The falling bit was both unnecessary and unwanted, so your nutty conspiracy fails on all counts.
.
“The melting point of steel is 1510 deg. C. A hydrocarbon fire (jet fuel), under optimum atmospheric conditions, burns at about 815 deg”
Must be magic then. 30 feet back from an F-14 at maximum power the exhaust is at about 982°C. I guess that is not optimum since the temperature is too high.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine-05.htm
>> Shanghai Dan says: June 4, 2011 at 8:37 am
>> Again, well below your 810 deg C office fire temperature.
I shall repeat it again, but see my posting above.
British Steel did a full-scale fire test on a steel framed office, full of normal office materials, and it hit a peak temperature of 1,223 oc. Centigrade, mind, not fahrenheit. That is pushing the melting point of steel, just with a six-floor steel structure.
And that was an office that did not contain 40 tonnes of kerosine and another 20 tonnes of aluminium and magnesium.
And as I understand it, you can make thermite with aluminium and plaster. Now the WTC not only contained a great deal of plaster (it was used as the stairwell fire proofing), it now also contained a great deal of aluminium. Ever seen thermite burn?
.
.
>>mike g says: June 4, 2011 at 11:10 am
>>I don’t think Ferd is interested in what mechanical and civil engineering
>>experts have to say on the issue of the WTC collapse. He’s more focused in
>>why money was transferred on this particular day.
But that is quite logical, and not a conspiracy theory at all.
There would have been a number of people who knew this would happen, and some of them, like Bin Laden, were well versed in world investments. It would not take much for Bin Laden to ring up a few mates in Saudi and the USA and say: ‘I’ve got a top tip here from an inside source – short sell airline stocks at the end of October.’
How do you think these guys finance terrorism? And do you really think that anyone in Saudi would warn America, even if they knew exactly what would happen? Don’t be so naive – there were parties being held all over Saudi (and in many towns in Britain) after 9-11.
.
“His theory is a lot like saying some particular person’s sneeze caused the Japan earthquake”
Immediately prior to the 911 attack there were massive financial transactions likely to benefit from the attack, such as short selling of airline stocks. The size and nature of these transactions was not in line with normal trading patterns. While it was widely reported at the time that these transactions took place, the source of these transactions has never been made public.
These likely explanations come to mind:
1. Co-incidence. Investigators typically don’t believe in co-incidence as an explanation for events where humans stand to benefit financially.
2. The events never took place – possible but they were widely reported at the time and there have been investigations trying to uncover the source of the funds and the beneficiaries.
3. Bin Lauden and cohorts did the trading – perhaps but then why were the financial transactions never traced? The banks involved were not destroyed and governments around the world would have cooperated.
4. The computerized trading programs recognized that current events were unfolding in a pattern that matched disaster related events, and automatically traded to take advantage of pending events. This begs two questions. Why did the trading computers recognize a pattern that the law enforcement and intelligence agencies computers and human agents did not? Also, back to point 3. If it was computerized trading, why did the banks not come forward to reveal the source and beneficiaries.
5. The reason the banks have not come forward to reveal the source and beneficiaries is because the person(s) involved control the banks. These people need not have planned the attacks, simply through their own private intelligence agencies became aware of events ahead of time and moved money financially to take advantage of the possibilities. Rather than inform the authorities to prevent the attacks, they allowed them to happen to gain financial advantage.
One should not underestimate the size and power of the banking industry worldwide and the intelligence agencies they control. The US Federal Reserve, the source of the money in circulation in the United States, is not owned by the US government. The US Federal Reserve is owned by private banks.
When the US government bailed out the banks during the financial crisis, where did the money come from? It came from the same banks that were being bailed out, through the US Federal Reserve – which is owned by these same banks. The US government borrowed the money from the banks and them paid it back to the banks to bail them out. Leaving the US taxpayers to foot the bill.
Remember the panic of the financial crisis? How the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve chairman told us we had to act immediately to bail out the banks? Do you really believe the timing was a coincidence? That the financial crisis occurred immediately before a Presidential election? The sense of panic and urgency in Washinton this created. Do you really believe the financial trading ahead of 911 was a coincidence? If so, why have the banks never come forward to identify the parties involved?
“It would not take much for Bin Laden to ring up a few mates in Saudi and the USA and say: ‘I’ve got a top tip here from an inside source – short sell airline stocks”
And the banks, seeing this activity, by people in a place to know, moved to take advantage. Someone in high places starts shorting airlines, you could ask “why”, or you could say “I better do the same”. Likely the banks did both. It isn’t like bankers to bet on anything less than a sure thing. As a result, the banks have never come forward to identify the parties involved, because the fingers would also point at them.
Sorry, I meant at the end of August. Why do Yanks write the date backwards? Its bl**dy confusing.
.
Shanghai Dan & Jose Suro:
Nowhere do I claim that office fires do not weaken steel. Of course fire can weaken steel. My comment was with respect to MELTING of steel. Engineering principles would not permit the use a material that completely deteriorates under anticipated extreme conditions.
A fundamental engineering principle of disaster response in structural design is “deformation, but not collapse.” When designing a building for earthquakes, the Design Philosophy is to permit sufficient ductility so that the building deforms during the event, but it does not collapse. The building may not be salvageable afterward, but you have mitigated loss of life because the building has not collapsed and people have had a chance to escape. Note that there were very few (if any) building collapses at Fukushima as a result of the earthquake. (Of course the tsunami was an entirely different story)
The same Philos0phy applies to Fire Protection Design. You permit deformation of the building, but you design to avoid complete catastrophic collapse. This principle applies to the primary level of protection, i.e., the structural members, exclusive of the fireproofing applied later to the members. Buildings are designed with very conservative factors of safety and multiple levels of redundancy so that even if localized fire temperatures were high enough to induce significant loss of strength you incur only deformation, rather than catastrophic collapse. However, if typical occupancy fires were hot enough to reduce structural strength to zero, that is, to the melting point, you can be assured that it would never be used as a building material in high rise buildings.
Having said all that, my main point is that there is abundant and extensive eye-witness testimony of molten metal found in the rubble pile weeks and months after 9/11. The reports are coming from the cleanup workers and experts like Leslie Robertson, WTC structural designer. These people will know the difference between molten aluminum and molten iron. NIST claims that gaseous temperatures did not rise much above 1000 deg C, and that those events occurred for no more than 15 to 20 minutes in any given location. Note this is the gaseous temperatures, not steel temperatures. Steel temperatures would have been much lower. This cannot explain the molten iron found in the rubble piles.
something that i have not seen addressed is that fact that inside the towers there was a very powerful electric service.
somewhere in one of the vertical corridors in the building (either a trunk near the elevators or at one of the corners of the shell) there are copper cables about an inch in diameter that feed stepdown transformers that provide the power for hotel services…..
also somewhere in the building is an airconditioning system that will really suck the juice.
what i’m leading up to is that there is a lot of electricity in the building. when transformers short out they EXPLODE. when one inch copper cables ground out they can also make a noise that is very much like gunfire.
and so we see in the case of many industrial fires the assertation that there was a bomb in the place. didn’t happen, it was the electric power system destroying itself.
and so for those among us who can screw a lefthanded nut on a right handed bolt, the chances of a 90 ton aircraft at 600 kts. made mostly of metals (all of which conduct electricity) plowing through a building with a large componenet of its structure being steel and not grounding out the electrical service would be somewhere between slim and none.
C
“It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11,”
I’m still having trouble believing that those small fires in WTC7 brought that building down as if it was imploded. Of course, I don’t believe for a second that if it was imploded, it was done by our government.
there is no fear:
most industrial materials (including steel) have a property whereby they soften under pressure.
you use examples of this pretty nearly every day, every minute and every hour.
they are called injection molded plastics.
when they make the keys on your computer keyboard they pour “pellets” of plastic into a chamber (that is warmed) a piston raises a certain amount of pressure and the plastic flows through passageways into a mold. when the pressure is released the plastic solidifies and alah you have the button.
about bldg 7, ask the fireboys, fires can lay dormant for considerable amounts of time. its not uncommon for very small forestfires to lay down for up to a month. also see my comment above. a heavy ground in electrical service can be unnoticed in the “fog of war” and contribute to precisely this problem.
besides there can be god knows what kinds of chemical reactions going on in the rubble. thats why the fire departments are so interested in what chemicals you use in your endeavors and where they are. colleges and other places that have “chemistry labs” have a habit of having a little store room about that has huge numbers (in small amounts) of things that are truly horrible. if they tried to dispose of them properly it would cost as much as a new building. (however when the corks and stoppers on those liddle boddles rot out they will need a new building anyway.)
C
Still waiting for JB’s prediction about a recovery of the arctic sea ice from the long term downtrend to show up in the real world. Joe seems to think humans have no effect at all on climate and we can just look back in the record books and wait for some long term cycle to repeat itself. Problem is Joe, that there is no 30 or 60 or 100 year cycle that includes the current levels of CO2. We’d have to back at least 800,000 years or more. Now, the 2011 tornado outbreak and other wacky weather around the world certainly has happened before (at least the tornadoes did during the last cool PDO/La Nina), and it is premature to link them to AGW, but currently arctic sea ice remains at or near modern record lows, and you’d think if JB is right, we should have started to see a recovery. With all this cooling that supposed to happening, why is the the arctic not cooling and the sea ice not recovering? Why? Because the arctic is responding to long term warming of both ocean and air temps in the region, and is less influenced by the short term ENSO cycle which an cause the rapid up and down extremes in troposphere temps that Joe alluded to– though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.
thereisnofear writes:
Nowhere do I claim that office fires do not weaken steel. Of course fire can weaken steel. My comment was with respect to MELTING of steel. Engineering principles would not permit the use a material that completely deteriorates under anticipated extreme conditions.
The conditions weren’t anticipated. Listen to interviews with Leslie Robinson, the engineer who built the World Trade Centers. As a fellow engineer, you obviously understand that you cannot design for every single catastrophe or condition – it simply isn’t possible or feasible. You take the best you can estimate, add a safety factor, and go with it.
Having said all that, my main point is that there is abundant and extensive eye-witness testimony of molten metal found in the rubble pile weeks and months after 9/11. The reports are coming from the cleanup workers and experts like Leslie Robertson, WTC structural designer. These people will know the difference between molten aluminum and molten iron. NIST claims that gaseous temperatures did not rise much above 1000 deg C, and that those events occurred for no more than 15 to 20 minutes in any given location. Note this is the gaseous temperatures, not steel temperatures. Steel temperatures would have been much lower. This cannot explain the molten iron found in the rubble piles.
Here’s a direct yes-or-no question for you: have you ever actually been involved in and witnesses the process of refining and forging steel?
I’ve done quite a bit of it (as well as with aluminum, plastics, and other metals); in fact, I was just at a foundry in Shengzhou this last week checking over a new production of forged components. You learn a lot of things hanging around a foundry, things you never learn in school or from textbooks. Like how iron that splatters from the crucible into the coke pile actually experiences a higher temperature – out of the frying pan, into the fire, so to speak. Inside the pile of coals and burning debris you find higher temperatures – ask any good pitmaster about that!
And how simply dropping more iron ore into a crucible of semi-molten steel will cause spattering, with wonderful little droplets cast everywhere – even when the temperature is NOT above the official melt-point of steel.
You may know building codes; you may know how to do static and dynamic loading analysis of metal beams with your FEA packages; you may know the proper density for rebar in concrete. However, do you know how to actually work and forge metal? That’s the question, and for all the references you supply – I don’t see anyone who’s actually worked metal and who does so day-in and day-out. Ask a foundry worker about how steel behaves before it turns completely liquid – you’ll find that it’s quite a bit different than what you think.
R. Gates says:
June 4, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
==========
Whatever, now we come to the crux of the problem.
Who will pay for these flights of fancy?
“GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700”
Temperature has been increasing rought .5C per century since the little ice age. No one knows what caused the little ice age so it is impossible to say why temperatures would increase afterwards. We do know that increasing temperature releases CO2 from the oceans, which is consistent with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem for climate science is that the GCM do a very poor job of answering why temperatures were flat to decreasin from 1945-1975, or why the the predicted tropical hot spot has never been observed.
When Einstein made his theory(s) of relativity, he made a number of unexpected predictions, some counter-intuitive, and they have all been observed to be true within the limits of error.
Predicting that climate will change is not an unexpected prediction. Climate always changes. Predicting the tropical hot spot was an unexpected prediction, and had it been found this would have helped validate GHG theory. However, the failure to find the predicted hot spot despite repeated observation is fairly strong evidence that the GHG theory is fundamentally flawed.
Had Einstein’s theory of relativity failed to correctly predict subsequent observations, the theory would have been rejected. The failure of Climate Science to treat GHG theory with the same skeptical approach demonstrates that GHG theory is not scientific. The GHG theory is a political and economic theory.
I have worked doing structural steel for many years, many of you people don’t seem to realize that there is a huge difference between heating a thin light gauge truss, and applying heat to a column or beam, that has flanges, web’s or box section that is two to four inches thick, these heavy gauge steel’s require a huge amount of heat/energy to straighten or bend. If you set up one of these piece’s of steel and lit a fire beneath it, it would take many many hours of constant fire to warm it enough to make it slightly plastic.
Some in here don’t seem to know anything about the construction of those towers, they had a massive core structure, read this about the core column’s, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Then you have to understand that every perimeter and core column was joined by the “Hat Truss”, this is what allows the column’s to share load and also this redistributes load in case of a aircraft impact. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html
This guy certified the steel.
Kevin Ryan has addressed the issues of fire and steel temperatures in a now famous letter to the NIST. Ryan has played a major role in the so-called “9/11 Truth movement”. He had been a certified expert working for Underwriters Laboratories, which was tasked with the responsibility of analyzing the fire and collapsed buildings at the WTC. He sent this letter of rebuttal when he began to realize there was a government whitewash going on.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) had been working on a report that was allegedly going to explain how mere ‘fires’ brought the Twin Towers crashing down. On November 11, Mr. Ryan sent the following letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST.
The response to Ryan’s correspondence was that he was immediately fired. This gives a partial answer to the question some may have as to how such huge undertakings could be successfully kept from the public:
There are in fact, quite a number of ‘whistle blowers’ who have been unjustly gagged, fired, marginalized, imprisoned and murdered as they have attempted to reveal many of these shenanigans. Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News is one such fatality, and more will be said about that later on.
Here are some excerpts from Kevin Ryan’s letter:
There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel. He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.”
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTME119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C [500F].”
To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C [about 2200F]. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
(Letter from Kevin Ryan.)
GRUDGING CONFIRMATON FROM NIST
In September of 2007, there was an interesting development on this issue of steel temperatures at the WTC. A rather amazing and grudgingly concessionary letter from the NIST, written to the head of the largest “9/11 family members group”, Bill Doyle (who has also strongly concluded 9/11 was an “inside job”)…in which the NIST is doing some very strange backpeddling.
Under pressure from the family members of 9/11 victims, the NIST has now admitted (as of September 27, 2007) that all the steel samples they have retained from the WTC’s “ground zero” and have subsequently tested…were shown to have heated to no more than 500F. (See Section E)
Just exactly as Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, unwilling witness “Corus Construction” and several hundred other experts have predicted. My oh my. So, how could these buildings have possibly collapsed if the steel never heated beyond 500F??
You can barely bake a cake at 500F, let alone cause a 110-story steel structure to freefall into a pile of smoldering rubble.
u.k.(us) says:
June 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm
R. Gates says:
June 4, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“though conveniently failing to mention that the arctic continues to behave as GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
==========
Whatever, now we come to the crux of the problem.
Who will pay for these flights of fancy?
———-
You are probably talking about financial payment but that may not be the most important kind in this instance. The Holocene has generally been pretty kind to humans and allowed our numbers to expand to some 7+ billion. We can be sure that some kind of Black Swan event will test our ability to keep this large mass of humanity fed in the coming decades…whether human caused or natural. That test will be the true payment…
ferd berple says:
June 4, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“GCM’s have projected when factoring in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700″
Temperature has been increasing rought .5C per century since the little ice age. No one knows what caused the little ice age so it is impossible to say why temperatures would increase afterwards. We do know that increasing temperature releases CO2 from the oceans, which is consistent with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
——
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the end of the Little Ice Age has been primarily due to human activities. It has reach levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. These are the known facts. What we don’t know is exactly how the climate will respond to these levels as the natural response through the carbon and rock weathering cycle is to accelerate the hydrological cycle which increases rock weathering and this will slowly bring CO2 levels back down. This process is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.
I am not aware anyone has made the claim that the 9/11 fires melted steel that THEN caused a collapse? So we are starting out with a straw man’s argument (kind of like what Al Gore does all the time).
However fires easily weaken and soften steel unless you never heard of a blacksmith using a wood fire to make horseshoes?
The twin towers structure is also most unique as there’s no central steel structure that supports the building as you see in a typical building. The load bearing and structure of the building is actually on the outside. The best way to think of the twin towers is to think of a cardboard milk carton like this picture:
http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ppCMz4ia8qh6U6eSJCRz-VB8VS4xkyGSQgyBT8P6_DOj9t7Yyposh5YFiKtP3JviYH8VpgXD2OtxNv7ElWStAfQ/milk2.png
Cut the top off of the above carton and you can support a can of paint on top of that.
And here’s a picture of the twin towers. You again clearly see the support structure is on the outside of the building.
http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ptHGvUClHzLOipEpSVI1uqstHApR_amY966unpf1h-BnOn0_mmFpiUsZsGaQxDcFKzuOHgDD6K_NMOqbWk6e4Nw/wtoutside.jpg
Cutting out part of the structure (where the plane entered) means that serious load bearing material was removed. Same goes for the milk carton above and cut it with a knife or have any twist in that structure and it will not support even a coffie cup on top let alone any kind of load.
Here is a great shot showing the external skeleton of structure on the towers and how amazing hollow the building is
http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pxfnaqOYwCuXI2wTr8K3ow7YP0jnnmt145wtXBLXnsruoIuoCENtrE9x51UMhTtR9Hn-n55OP7BjlhI-iSCM-6g/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
Above is an amazing picture since it really shows how unique those buildings are (before furniture and offices been walled in).
This unique building approach saved significant costs by reducing the amount of steel and materials required for such a building. It also did a spectacular job of increasing the available floor space inside.
With a fire to weaken and soften that load bearing structure that had been cut like a knife by the plane entering, then that structure ceases to do its purpose. A bit of twist and leaning of the structure and it going to come down. In fact you do not even need a fire at all.
And when a building comes down, it going to come down due to gravity in exactly the same way when a building is demolished as that’s how they always fall down (it called gravity). Any building coming down is going to look like any building coming down.
It’s also not clear at all as to what melted materials people are talking about. There are all kinds of materials like aluminum and ventilation ducting materials that will easily melt under such heat. There is also the issue of this huge pile of rubble with fires burning under that mess for weeks. And assuming the ridiculous position of demolition charges you NEVER see pools of melted steel in such demolitions anyway. It just silly to claim that melting steel was to blame for taking down the tower or even that it shows charges were used when charged explosions never create piles of melted steel either.
As for the financial transactions? Who says the transactions were massive? And who says they did not trace where these transactions came from? And if the government did this job then why would they need to make some transactions to make money on this? You have to be a fool to be so smart to pull off such a magic show and then blow the whole cover by phoning up your stock broker? Transactions traced no doubt would go back to the terrorist groups and their immediate families. After all Bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Family.
Like the claim of global warming, intelligent digging into the facts shows that man’s co2 is not driving temperatures as claimed and it not a reasonable position that charges were used to take down the twin towers.
Albert D. Kallal