I am a designer and architect and from the 'safety' of my studio in England I watched with horror the whole debacle in September 01, phoned a colleague and kept in telephone contact whilst the buildings collapsed. As I was about to say to him "that was regulated demolition" he said "my god, controlled demolition, and you can see the squibs clearly" Stunned silence ensued. He rang off without saying another word, and I just hung up with a mixture of bewilderment,anger and tears welling up for all those poor people who had died for whatever reason? Since then I have discovered many criminal anomalies and firmly believe that the 'pigeons are gradually coming home to roost' for the real perpetrators of that horrendous act.

Rock bottom! The Stanford Daily has hit rock bottom by writing about crazed conspiracy theories (and calling them "provocative") as if they were somehow newsworthy. Anyone who believes the government somehow orchestrated or knew about the attacks in advance and then was able to pull off a massive coverup is dumb as a rock. Numerous debunkings of such pathetic conspiracy theories have been made countless times by "Popular Science" and others. But just the fact that anyone would so uncritically swallow the lie that our government rigged the towers for demolition (AND THEN HAD ENOUGH PEOPLE TO CARRY OUT THE DECEPTION WITH NOT A SINGLE PERSON LEAKING ANY INFO) just boggles the mind. There is absolutely zero proof of such a scenario and all the proof anyone could possibly want that Islamic terrorists crashed four plans on 9/11 and killed thousands. But that doesn't fit nicely with some people's worldview that there is no enemy greater than the United States. They want to remove guilt from the Islamic terrorists and say either we did it to ourselves or we deserved it. Are there any adults at your paper?? Thank you, Stanford Daily, you have hit rock bottom with your completely uncritical and irresponsible story.

Anyone who suggests that the US government conspired to bring down the World Trade Center is beyond sanity and deserves nothing short of ridicule and ostracism.

T:
Calm down, fella. You're going to pop a vein. When you define responsible journalists as those who don't subscribe to the "conspiracy theories", otherwise known as asking questions about events on 9/11 with more loose ends than the last plate of pasta I ate, it narrows the field a bit. Just try to focus on one thing. How did Bldg 7 collapse? Is there anything consistent with the behaviour of matter in the universe we live in that explains how it fell into a heap in its own footprint when it sustained minor damage and had a couple of fires on a couple of floors? And how did pools of molten steel persist for days in a structure in which the fires could not have reached the temperatures they maintained for weeks? How did the building manage to warn the firefighters it was about to collapse? No theories here, Mr. T, just askin' questions. There are a bunch more where those came from. Oh, and how did OBL get the FBI to back off his boys, and how did he arrange the NORAD standdown? I am dying to know that one. What was Mineta witnessing when he heard Dick Vader confirm the standdown order? The plane is 50 miles out, does the order still stand? What was that about? Wouldn't you think that a heavyweight commission would have answered that one? After all they grilled Dick and his sock puppet for hours, didn't they? I am sure your fealty to this criminal gang will be rewarded with something when the gloves come off and they round up guys like me in the not too distant future. It will be for our own protection, of course. Just keep on believing.

I am glad that the Stanford Daily sent a reporter to cover the event, but I think she made several factual errors and mistakes in her article. Paul Thompson’s book is entitled “The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response.” Peter Dale Scott has done more than “penned numerous articles,” he has authored many books, including "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (2003), and "The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America" (to be published by University of California Press in 2007) and he co-edited with David Ray Griffin- "9/11 and American Empire" (Interlink 2006).
9/11 Press for Truth is a very good introduction to the 9/11 Cover-Up. Over the weekend, I moderated an event in Colorado where Dr. Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan and Kevin Barrett spoke on their research on 9/11 and why the official narrative cannot be true, looking at the evidence, the cover-up, and the attacks upon academic freedom. The scientists had lost their jobs when they spoke out on the impossibilities of the official reports and the flawed science behind it. Dr. Jones paper was published in "9/11 and American Empire" and presents damning scientific evidence on the use of thermite and explosives to bring down the North and South Towers, as well as building #7 (a 47 story steel skyscraper that was not hit by a plane, whose mysterious collapse in the manner of a controlled demolition was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report).

I received an excellent new documentary days before our premiere called Improbable Collapse which Features Kevin Ryan and Steven E. Jones. I’d love to show it at Stanford University, and invite the scientists to speak in Palo Alto. Dr. Jones will be keynoting at Project Censored’s Media Reform Conference this weekend, and at UC Berkeley on November 11th at a conference entitled Lifting the Fog- The Scientific Method Applied to the World Trade Center Disaster.

I don’t think it is possible to call those who doubt the Bush Administration’s official narrative on 9/11 fringe lunatics anymore. Only 16% of the people, according to recent polls, say that they believe in the official story. We know that the government has destroyed evidence, lied, and covered up the truth about 9/11. The families are calling for a new genuine investigation.

I am running for Congress in this District, on the Green Party ticket, on a 9/11 Truth, Impeachment, Peace platform, because Eshoo has gone along with the cover-up, the expansion of the National Security State, and will not touch impeachment, nor vigorously oppose the imperial foreign policy and the bogus “war on terrorism.” I’m not the only candidate for 9/11 Truth, Impeachment and Peace.

The main message of the film was that the media and government failed to pursue the truth about 9/11. At the same time, 9/11 has been used to trash the Constitution, launch wars, institutionalize torture, and grant unprecedented powers to the executive branch of government. The question is will Americans keep their heads in the sand and trust the government to protect us, or will we pursue the truth and hold our government accountable for its actions, and actively forge the future we want for ourselves, our country, and the world. The film was a wake-up call. I hope that students and faculty at Stanford will heed it and respond.

Sheree, LOL. :-)

Hi Sheree, "Al-Jazeera broadcast video of Osama bin Laden congratulating himself. . ." That wasn't Usama bin Laden, please carefully look at the video, the actor is writing with his right hand while our patsy is actually left handed. Look at the fat face on the actor, where Mr. Bin Laden has a longer and narrow face.

Bin Laden's statement on September 16 2001 was more to the point: he condemned loss of innocent lives.

Usama bin Laden is much more humanitarian than the President, Vice President, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.

Hi Sheree, "Al-Jazeera broadcast video of Osama bin Laden congratulating himself. . ." That wasn't Usama bin Laden, please carefully look at the video, the actor is writing with his right hand while our patsy is actually left handed. Look at the fat face on the actor, where Mr. Bin Laden has a longer and narrow face.

Bin Laden's statement on September 16 2001 was more to the point: he condemned loss of innocent lives.

Usama bin Laden is much more humanitarian than the President, Vice President, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.

Those using the pejorative branding labels of "conspiracy theorists" and "tin foil hats" only expose their own fears and prejudices in their rush to scapegoat anyone who tries to challenge the official versions of events. They take pleasure out of trashing anyone whom they think of as "fringe." Yet these views are hardly fringe - even a NYTimes poll recently show that only 16% of all Americans believe the so-called official version of 9/11.
I applaud the Stanford Daily for giving coverage to a meaningful event in the face of such attacks on anyone who has the courage to question and challenge.

9/11 Was An INSIDE JOB..

Open your eyes T

http://forums.courierpostonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=480

Paul Thompson actually supports the official story of 9/11 and never went more 'progressive' than LIHOP or 'outside job via pakistan'.
This article is a complete hangout joke which only satisfies 9/11 truthlings and bores flagwavers, for which this article was designed in the first place.
My alltime respect for Dale Scott, but it's a shame that he's hooking up with hangouters too often...
Here's something to laugh :)
http://www.wittycomics.com/users/ewing_2001
PS: Where is the final promised pre 9/11 terror drill article update, Paul?
Waiting now for here for 2 years and still caching a promised lockup at team8plus by myself...

America and the World:
Read the comment above this one very carefully. Do you notice how it attempts to discourage you from looking at the evidence? Whoever wrote that piece (probably a government 9/11 perp) is the REAL disinformation shill.
DON'T let anyone discourage you from looking at evidence!
TV-FAKERY is what the government/media want to keep secret! That's why they have all these trolls attempting to discourage people from looking at the EVIDENCE!
TV-FAKERY is based on SOLID PHYSICAL LAWS, such as Newton's Laws of Motion.
Don't be fooled! Look at the evidence for yourself and don't be taken in by anyone!
Don't let anyone discourage you from looking at evidence.
If someone tries to discourage you, that's a sign that you SHOULD look at the evidence!

NEWS FLASH: Rigged DNA evidence found at WTC site less than 1 week before election!__

At first the truth is rediculed, next it is violently opposed, and finally it accepted at obvious!!! One of these days Nico Haupt will be patted on the back and told: "Of course the 2nd WTC video is fake; anyone who takes the time to watch can see!!!!"

The media are severely controlled and we know they are....they admit they receive calls regularly from the whitehouse. Scientifically, those building broke about 6 laws of physics. Muslims are very clever. And so is Bush of course. His administration has rewritten those laws because he doesn't believe in science. Are we 'conspiracy nuts' or just simply asking a few valid questions...the onus is on the government to explain building 7 therefore a new investigation would be helpful for both sides of the argument. Now, doesn't that make sense?

The poster "Brainster" demonstrates by his uneducated use of "South Park" as his proof and the fact that he attends to smear the credibility of 9/11 truth researchers instead of addressing their points that he is willfully ignorant.

His ad hominem attacks are the kind of uneducated arguments used by individuals who are unable to think for themselves without automatically trying to destroy the credibility others.

If i were to say 1 plus 1 equals two, you should address my assertion, not try to smear my image by saying "Oh my goodness, you are not a mathematician with a doctorate therefore your assertion is not true"

this is the kind of illogical, uneducated thinking that those who try to smear the 9/11 truth movement use

And thank YOU for once again repeating the same tired old lies. 1) There's no pipeline in Afghanistan, and no US company has any plans to build one. 2) Silverstein's policy came out to 3.5 billion, not 7 billion. Also, he has, as of this date, lost $600 million due to the fact that he has to pay $120 million in rent for the WTC complex, while the site sits empty. You can figure on him losing at least $1 billion by the time the towers are rebuilt, meaning he has a grand total of $2.5 billion to rebuild something like 6 buildings. The total expected rebuilding cost for the WTC complex sits at $9 billion. Therefore, unless something changes drastically, Silverstein will lose $6.5 billion on the deal. 3) High enough death count? That's simply retarded. Whether 300 or 3,000 Americans were killed, the country would still have given Bush all the support he needed. 4) PNAC never called for a new Pearl harbor, which you would know if you had bothered reading the PNAC report. In fact, PNAC outlines a totally different military strategy than the one which was implemented post 9/11, and specifically recommends NOT getting tied down in a ground war in the middle east. --- And so on, and so on. There's not one single speck of truth in your entire comment. This is why I say that "9/11 research" is a misnomer when it comes to you and your ilk. You don't actually research anything, you simply repeat the same lies over and over again, hoping to indoctrinate those who are unable to think or research for themselves. For those readers who actually posses an IQ in the triple digits, I invite you to check the facts for yourselves. You'll find that the "truth movement" is largely motivated by lies, hate, and paranoia.

Complete Truth is NOT Nico Haupt. But that really doesn't matter. Don't let anyone discourage you from looking at evidence! Anyone who tries to discourage you is a disinfo agent. Steven E. Jones is a fraud http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html
Don't get taken in by Jones' faulty research! And DON'T let ANYONE discourage you from looking at EVIDENCE! ANYONE who discourages you from looking at evidence is a disinfo agent!

Star Wars Beam?

Well....Bush used to bullseye womprats in his T-16 back home, and they're not much bigger than 2 meters....

also note that the government had all airplanes grounded ONLY during the WTC collapses. Right after the 2nd collapse, military planes were allowed back in the air. Strange.. isn't it?? Also, most of the concrete (and steel!) got pulverized into powder. If one million tons of towers collapsed, downtown Manhattan would have been flooded. Look at all those toasted cars as well! To reach a scientific conclusion, ALL of the data must be accounted for and explained. (Note: Steven Jones does NOT address ALL the data.)

Right Alex, the Bush administration had no interest in the very large Caspian oil
reserves - that was clearly an
over sight on my part. The twin towers were white elephants requiring
major renovations and losing money and tenants. You have not touched
the SCIENCE Alex. Where did all the energy come from to create the
dust cloud, to create the dust in the first place, to cause the entire
extremely strong steel structures to instantaneously fail and produce
huge pools of molten metal? You seem to be avoiding this. Why?
Because you cannot explain it and you cannot argue it away with the
same blurring tactics, superficial arguments and hyperbole you've used
so far. Oh, and what about that 2.3 trillion pentagon lost. Do
explain that scam and the very coincidental annoucement by Rumsfeld.

Let me make this REALLY clear:
How does the 'collapse' of one of the towers produce many times more energy than could possibly be produced by it falling from one mile above the ground? If you believe the official story, than you must believe that it is possible to do so. You may as well say that you could kick a football to the moon.

Stated Correctly:
"No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”

Alex, sir, what is your theory on how the three steel buildings all collapsed at free fall speeds. If not with explosives to clear the obstructions of each floor below collapsing floor, how do you account for your theory defying on of the fundamental laws of physics: <b>Conservation of Momentum</b>. If your a phsyicist, than you know your theory is not only impossible, but proposterious. So tell me, HOW?

Alex: Amount of energy to create the JUST the dust cloud far exceeded
2.0TJ. So already we have used up the 1.0TJ per building that you
cite (going to great extents to impress us with how much energy that
is). And of course that would be 1.0TJ for ALL of the building, when
only less than a fifth of the buildings mass initiated the collapse.
And, yes, the research has been done, so to verify my numbers (before
you try to flame me again) take a look at it here:
http://www.911research.com/talks/towers/dustvolume.html - check the
summary and you'll see how all that energy you've cited could not
possibly explain what was observed. (Note: in this example Jim Hoffman
uses kWh, not TJ, if you look it up 1TJ = 300,000 kWh (approx)). He
has also given a more realistic amount for the potential energy of the
towers (about 1/3 of what you have cited, since, of course, the entire
mass of the tower did not fall from 400m). I must also add, Alex,
that I can't help wondering if you and the other so called debunkers
are following some sort of script, like a bunch of telemarketers,
since you have used the identical arguments I have already encountered
with the usual smatterings of defamation, ridicule and exaggeration.

If the official theory is that the Saudi Arabian citizens Bin Laden and his 19 terrorist conspired to attack us on 9/11, then why did we invade Afghanistan and Iraq as retaliation and not Saudi Arabia? And why if you look on the www.fbi.gov site under "most wanted" there is no mention that Bin Laden has something to do with 9/11? Please explain that.

[I apologize to the writer of this email for copying it without his permission, but it addresses the very problem we see in these posts.]---WHY THE COLLAPSES ARE A DEAD END---"[These posting show] exactly why the demolition of the buildings will go nowhere other than endless scientific debate over non-existent physical evidence. I've been in architecture for 26 years and have not yet come across another architect in this state (Colorado) that has doubts about the "official story" or can talk intelligently about it. And the Pentagon has been used in the same way against us. Because we have allowed ourselves to believe that somehow the collapses would turn the tables on the government, we are now in an endless bloviating discourse about something which the general public has no knowledge. Believe me I know this. They know nothing about how buildings are designed, constructed, how fire-life safety issues/codes affect design etc etc... NOTHING! Let alone physics. And more astounding, I've talked to numerous architects who are completely ignorant of how this improbable event could have happened without the help of explosives. Glib remarks like, "the plane hit the building and it went down! " Or "how can you expect aluminum to withstand that kind of heat?" I am not kidding. These are actual statements from architects! Most architects don't know or understand that high rise structures are designed for airline collision. Remarkable ignorance. But these are people who have been propagandized from birth, like all Americans are. ¶ I was driving home with an architect friend last week, from Castle Rock (in his Ford Excursion) and we were talking about the collapse. He's a Bush conservative, no questions, Bush is right, nothings his fault etc etc... He is however a smart guy in a lot of ways. Very thorough thoughtful design professional as far as the projects I've worked with him on. Good parent and dad. But......he quoted almost verbatim the Popular Mechanics article and the recent "critical" analysis written by Brent Blanchard of implosionworld.com. And this after he had watched the Steve Jones lecture I gave him some weeks ago. Nothing I pointed out to him re: the anomalies gave him pause. He had a comeback for everything based entirely on the P.M. and Brent B. articles. And a physics class he had in college. BUT.........when I started talking about the stand down and the accompanying details, he slowed down and started to take that information in. I felt the whole exchange shift. He was interested in the details of Rumsfeld's delay in evacuating the Pentagon. And of Myers' delay in responding. Of why no jets were scrambled from Andrews. He was interested in the perspective of why anything at all hit the Pentagon..........not what. And that led to talk of military transponders, anti aircraft guns etc.....and he listened. When I brought up Minneta's testimony, he perked up and said, "yeah I remember that" and there was a palpitable feeling that he was needing more information. And then I recounted the exchange between Cheney and the aide showing Cheney is a major suspect. When I mentioned how the FBI confiscated all known video of the area which would have shown us what hit the building, he was quiet and thinking. When I told him how the Joint Chiefs order for NORAD intercept was changed in June 2001, and how it affected military response, he was listening. When I mentioned the stock puts that happened on the exact airlines in the prior week he was present. When I talked about the 9/11 Commission cover up and lies by NORAD now admitted by Kean and Hamilton, he was thinking. When I brought up Atta and Able Danger, he listened. And when I asked him why no one was held accountable for this astounding breach of security and duty to protect, he had no answer but I could tell it bothered him. ¶ The building collapse and the "what hit the Pentagon" argument not only take us into the never never land of scientific debate, speculation without evidence (other than photographic) and dealing with public ignorance, but also takes the spotlight off of the guilty. Oh sure you may say well, what about Silverstein? Peter Peterson? Giuliani.... Well, they're not in the government and Giuliani is gone. Sure they need to be subpoenaed. Yes, the collapses were demolitions. Oh, and yes Jones has discovered thermate......so what? There are a million ways all of this can be explained away or misrepresented to an ignorant public. The questions around the collapses, not of the collapses are more interesting and useful. FEMA's presence, tracking of trucks by GSP, who ordered the barges so quickly, why no firefighters in WTC7 putting out these small fires, why didn't fire sprinklers in WTC7 put out the fires, who ordered the evacuation of streets around WTC7 so that it could collapse, why did NYC not release the firemans oral histories until being sued etc.... ¶ I don't know who started this line of reasoning re: the buildings collapse being the key to exposing 9/11 but whoever it was, was not thinking things through (unless they intended this distraction) or not reading what Ruppert told us. The key to exposing 9/11 is in the immediate stand down of the military, response timelines and people's whereabouts, words and actions and financing. That is how we expose the guilty. Not by turning our attention to endless scientific debate and opposing experts views or government studies that point to unknowns or compartmentalized people as guilty parties. Unless we change our presentations and education tactics toward exposing those truly guilty of this crime, in the Pentagon.....we're going nowhere, fast. ¶ The other hugely important tools for educating the public about 911 are: PNAC, the 9/11 Commission Report and false flag operations. Terror Storm is a good start. Tarpley's book is a good source. Zwicker pushed this fake terror perspective too........and the stand down. Griffin's 9/11 Commission book. Let's stay away from the collapses and what hit the Pentagon. Anyway.......my 2 cents.
¶ Thanks for reading, [name deleted]

Alex, what are you doing here? Trying to earn enough kudos to garner a window seat at the company? If you are trying to whip up a brown cloud over 9-11 truth seekers, you have overshot your authenticity and now appear to be throwing feces like a monkey for the sake of throwing feces, is that how you're tasked? Because that's what it looks like. Why don't you head over to a Criag's List Politics section and throw some more feces willy nilly over there. Questioning the largest attack on the country is patriotic. Questioning those who do is un-American, un-Patriotic, and frankly, immature.

Questioning may be patriotic, but there's nothing patriotic about misquoting witnesses, butchering the scientific method, casting unfounded accusations of mass murder on politicians and CEO's, and accusing hundreds of thousands of police officers, paramedics, firefighters, soldiers, and engineers of helping cover up those murders. The twoof movement doesn't ask questions; you invent conclusions, and libel both your government and your countrymen. You're about as far away from "patriotic" as it's possible to get without committing outright treason, so don't don't you be hiding behind the "it's patriotic to ask questions" line. If you were truly "just asking questions", you'd be paying attention to the answers.

Hey alex, I see your drunk with a sense of political correctness.
Shame that 'correctness' is based on a web of lies. Your first lie:
"My calculations don't assume an average height of 400 meters because
unlike you I actually CAN use the relevant data and formulas."
??????? Wow, that sure is a mouthful. For those of you reading this
allow me the pleasure of untwisting this little trick of reasoning our
'debunker' is employing. First the facts. Total energy of all the
buildings mass (both WTC1 + WTC2) (500,000 tons as Alex has cited)
falling from an average of 400 meters = (mass x gravity x hieght) =
(500,000 tons x 33ft/s x 1300 ft) = 453592370 kg x 10 m/s x 400m =
1814369480000 joules = 1.8 TJ or 0.9 TJ per building. So given the
RELEVANT DATA and FORMULAS Alex's numbers are in fact an exaggeration
for the entire mass falling an average of 400m. So when he claims he
does not assume that 400m is the average hieght, he is clearly
decieving us. Second fact, the 'ideal gas law' is the easiest
approximation to use in this analysis and it is accurate to well with
+- 30%. The Ideal gas law assumes particles of equal size as
constituting the gas. To the extent that the particles of dust are in
fact of such a small size, but larger than molecules of gas, this
approximation is likely to give lower energy results than those
actually existant. Jim Hoffman gives his reasoning for using this
formula and makes clear the approximation errors possible. On top of
this, much of his calculation is dealing with water vapourization,
heat energy transfer and energy needed to pulverize concrete to very
fine dust, and standard formulas are used for these calculations. The
combination of those energy sinks (minus the dust expansion using the
ideal gas law) far exceeds the energy input of 1.8 TJ by over 10
times. If you add in the use of the ideal gas law its over 100 times.
Granted the use of the ideal gas law could be considered unorthodox,
but it has merit here since the descrepancies it may have introduced
are far far far outweighed by the magnitude of the didfferences
between 2.0 TJ and 200 TJ. Even if Jim Hoffman is 50% off there is
still a factor of 50 between these numbers. Don't let the misguided
reasoning folks like Alex would use decieve you. These buildings were
blown to smithereens. Why else would they force people to work in
toxic air to get rid of the evidence as quickly as possible, those
same people who we called heros but now over half are dying of lung
diseases from that toxic dust. Why else would that farce of a 9/11
commission report be delayed for over a year, when a proper
investigation was needed immediately. We are supposed to just buy
this stuff, tow the line like Alex here, and let this administration
create more and more laws that take away freedoms and give them
dictatorial powers. Pick your side.

Oh, and as a side not, you state the following: "The combination of those energy sinks (minus the dust expansion using the ideal gas law) far exceeds the energy input of 1.8 TJ by over 10 times. If you add in the use of the ideal gas law its over 100 times". Alright, so let's assume the low ball figure of 10 times 1.8TJ. Now, we know that the explosive power of 1kg of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 mega joules. You're saying we have an energy deficit of at least 18TJ. So, let's do the math. 18tj = 18,000,000mj. 18,000,000/4,184 = 4,302,103. So in other words, to produce the kind of energy you're talking about we'd require 4,302,103kg of TNT, or 4.3 KILOTONS of explosive power. If we assume that the "100 times" figure is correct instead of the "10 times", you end up with 43 kilotons. Meaning either the WTC had TNT crammed in every nook and cranny, or someone set off a nuclear bomb. Now, if you're one of those idiots who believe that a nuke was set off on 9/11, well, I'm sure the rest of the readers will join me in laughing at you. Otherwise, these figures are a clear indication that the guy talking about expansions of gas has no idea what he's doing.

Well I'll give you credit for being able to admit you're wrong at least. Very few Twoofers can do that. As for the rest, your basic problem is that you assume his calculations are correct. That's not science. When the observable effects don't match up with your calculations, you don't assume that the observations are wrong! What you do is go back and recheck your methods and calculations. At 50TJ, you would have required just under 12 KILOTONS of explosive power. Think about it, your average pickup truck is rated to carry 1.5 tons, so you would have required something like 900 pickup trucks fully loaded with TNT to generate the energy you're talking about. There is no way in hell this would have been achieved with conventional explosives. I'm not going to get into why a nuke couldn't have been used because that should be obvious. So there's obviously a massive problem with this guys calculations. You want to know what the problem is? It's simple: dust drifting in the air has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion of a fixed volume of gas through heating. They're two completely different things. If you want a practical model of that, go home, fill a cup with flour, and then throw it up in the air. If you then measure the dust cloud created by that flour, and apply the expansion of gas formulas, you'll find that using the same logic you would have required a tremendous amount of energy to generate that flour-cloud. A lot more energy than is present in the motion of your arm moving the cup upwards. Now, when considering your calculations, you have two options. Either you can go around telling people that your arms can generate massive amounts of energy, or you can say that the CIA placed explosives on your arms, OR you can accept the fact that you don't know what the hell you're doing, and that you've used the wrong formula to try and explain your observations.

From FEMA: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than
4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the
structure." so that is actually 0.4TJ of GPE, not the 0.98TJ you
calculated. The reason for that is that well over half of the mass
was in the lower half of the building (light top, heavy bottom). I
knew there was a reason I thought that your estimate of the potential
energy in the towers was an exageration. It would take slightly more
than 0.4TJ to crush the 90,000 tons of concrete contained in one of
those towers to dust particles of 60 microns in size. So all that
0.4TJ of GPE is already used up. Futhermore, if the concrete mass of
the building is turning to dust immediately and a very large portion
of the building is being blown away (as anyone can see just by
watching a video of the collapse) - how does it crush the lower part
of the tower? We don't even have to talk about the dust cloud or the
molten metal to see that the official 'theory' is a crock of
you-know-what. If you don't believe the testimony of people who
experienced the dust cloud first hand, take a look at the pictures of
its size or the videos of it chasing people down the street or the
aftermath of inches of dust piled on everything. The cleanup took
months, janitors were cleaning it out of air and heating ducts where
it had settled in a thick blanket. The majority of those same people
involved in the cleanup are now suffering from severe lung disorders.
I know someone who lived there on 9/11 and passed ground zero every
day. The summer after he suffered from severely painful coughing fits
- he thought he was going to die. Others just get worse and worse
until they just stop breathing. But I guess you would take the
NYTimes point of view that it would take years to prove scientifically
that these health disorders were caused by this dust cloud. Maybe
someone should tell them about statistical probability and that other
thing called plain old common sense. There will always be people like
you Alex, who will always find some way to explain away the obvious,
that will cling to the official story, no matter how bogus.
Apparently you just cannot be helped.

Please go to this website:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=181
and look at the first photograph, top left, no. 5973.
It is a sequence of four photographs of one of the towers, I think the South with the North obscured by smoke, but maybe the North, it doesn't matter.
The sequence seems out of order, the first photograph should be the 3rd from the left, then 1, 2, 4.
See how the top is already gone in photo 3. Yet this is the immense weight is supposed to be what is pile driving the building down into dust in photos 1, 2, 4. It's gone, so how is that happening?
The building was pulverized into dust from the top down. How did this happen?
Alex's argument is flawed, to be kind:
"Each tower weighed roughly 500,000 tons, and was roughly 400 meters tall. If you do the math using those numbers you'll find that each building contained roughly 1 terrajoule in potential energy. That's a LOT of energy. More than enough to sever the brackets propping up each floor, and plenty to pulverize quite a bit of concrete."
Alex, the potential energy is based on the mass. This goes both ways -- that mass of the building would offer tremendous resistance in a collapse starting at the 80th or 90th floor. Yet the underlying structure, 80 to 90% of the 500,000 tons, offered no resistance, hence free-fall speed. NIST has not explained this. In order to destroy that mass a tremendous amount of energy was necessary. Where did it come from?
In response to WHY THE COLLAPSES ARE A DEAD END above, the writer of this email should show this photograph to his architect friends. There are many other pictures. Show the picture of the South tower top leaning to the side, then disintegrating.
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
Show them the pictures of pulverization into dust on this page:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
Then, ask your architect friends if they really think this was a gravity-driven collapse. Anyone, without any special training, applying common sense, as formulated in fundamental Newtonian mechanics, can see that this was not a gravity-drive collapse. NIST made no attempt to explain and only modelled to the point of collapse initiation, simply saying "global collapse ensued," without any explanation of the pulverization into dust going upward from the 80th and 90th floor of the towers, and going downward from those points.
Again, the top floors can't be pile drivers if they are gone.
The email posted by WHY THE COLLAPSES ARE A DEAD END mentions the report of Brent Blanchard.
Here it is:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
Here is a reply which I think is pretty good:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
Blanchard has not explained what is happening in those pictures, and doesn't even try. Based on much undisclosed evidence, he just says that it did not look like a controlled demolition and no evidence of explosions or thermate was found. All this may be true, but it still does not explain what happened.
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=265
Top left, No. 5797.
The building is being pulverized into dust from the top down. Look at the size of that mushroom. How is this happening?
Demolition expert Blanchard states in his report:
"One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing th floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so the had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly shows about 95% of falling debris being force away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around the perimeter."
5 questions for Mr. Blanchard, based on above picture 5797:
1. The weight and mass of the upper sections is gone in this picture. What is driving the floors down?
2. NIST has disavowed the "pancake" model, because it does not account for the massive cores. What is happening to these cores in this picture -- what mass is destroying them with gravity?
3. You say this pancaking is "extended duration," but the building was destroyed to the ground in free-fall time.
4. Where were the floors that "pancaked" down? Not in the small amount of rubble.
5. You say the walls are "falling out," hence the mushroom cloud. Why are they being pulverized into dust in this picture, rather than falling away at an angle on a pivot; how are they being propelled upward and outward if they are "falling"?
Here are compilations of videos of both towers collapsing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc4plbUtCas&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-luTU0zSKw&mode=related&search=
That email talks about Michael Ruppurt, who for years has been telling everyone to ignore this physical evidence. Ruppert is wrong, to be kind. All the stuff about stand down orders, NORAD, put options, etc. is too hard to prove, too easy to explain in an innocuous manner. This evidence can fit anyone's theory of what happened - Al Queda, U.S., Israel; opportunism, LIHOP, MIHOP. The destruction of these buildings leads one place, in my opinion, and it's not Afghanistan.
The destruction of the towers cannot be explained by the alleged airplane impacts and the fires. These could only explain, and this is a big maybe, a slow, sagging, assymetrical collapse that would likely be arrested by the floors below, making the path of least resistance a falling off to one side. The pulverization of the towers probably cannot be explained as the action of a non-state actor at all - this is a sophisticated military operation. If this kind of capability has been privatized, we are in worse trouble than I thought.
Conventional explosives and incendiaries would have to somehow be installed in large amounts. That seems unlikely, as Blanchard states in his report, although that doesn't mean it can be ruled out if the alternative is believing the NIST fairy tale. The indisputable fact is that a tremendous amount of energy was applied to turn those buildings to dust. Wood may be right -- some kind of new weapon was used. I could see such a weapon possessed by the U.S. or Russia, no other state. We are not at war with Russia, so I'll rule Russia out.
This physical evidence must not be ignored. JB, show your architect and construction-industry friends these images, then ask their opinions. Don't talk about how it happened, as we do not know. Just show them that it did happen - this is not a gravity-driven collapse. That must be explained, and put options and stand-down orders won't do it.