Here's an excellent and short first part of a two part YouTube broadcast that presents the physical evidence which is yet further confirmation that NIST and the 9/11 Commission lied in their supposed explanations of the 'collapses' of WTCs 1, 2 and 7:

"9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k

---

Sorry, about the grammatical and other errors above, BTW. There should be a 'to' between 'what' and 'think' in the first sentence, 'stand' in the last sentence should be 'standing'.

In the third most recent post,

"The only way this could have have happened was if the 'collapse' was in fact a controlled demolition as even the new reporter on the day comment at the end of the first broadcast."

... should have been:

"The only way this could have have happened was if the 'collapse' was, in fact, a controlled demolition as even the new[s] reporter on the day comment[ed] at the end of the first broadcast."

Here's Part 2 of the aforementioned "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U

I am watch it is I type.

It looks every bit as good as part 1 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k

Much of it deals with the thermite/thermate arguments and answers the nonsense posted by Paul earlier in the discussion.

Has anyone on this thread spotted this new publication on fragments of unreacted explosive material found in the WTC dust? This is a very convincing paper, showing how the analysis was done, proving that the material is energetic, starts with free aluminium present and finishes with free iron present after ignition, exactly as expected from the thermite reaction. The material is composed of nano sized particles therefore reacts many times faster than ordinary thermite.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

There is also a good paper by Jim Hoffman which explains the science in the above paper.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Comments will be interesting. I expect some derision of course. That way we can sort the grain from the chaff.

Paul wrote on 27 Oct 08: "Firstly thermite does not explode. It is a chemical which burns rapidly at a very high temperature. However it could not be used in building demolition because compared to shaped charges it is very slow and unpredictable." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=35#48513

Paul wrote on 30 Oct 08: "... and as we have already established thermite does not explode. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=36#48765)

Paul wrote on 31 Oct 08: "Even when thermite is altered so that the speed of burning is increased, it is still NOWHERE near the speed of an explosive cutting charge. Hundreds of kilos of thermite would be needed to cut each of these beams in the period required, with excess thermite spewing everywhere. Furthermore thermite can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Even if this was reduced to seconds, an improvement of 6000%, it would still be far too slow to demolish a building sucessfully." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=37#48846)

Paul wrote on 1 January "What do you know about explosives? You don’t have a clue about any of this as we have shown time and again. You thought thermite was an explosive." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#&page=7453685)

From "Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust" at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#density referred to above by amoeba:

"In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.

"Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives -- a classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

It's clear from all this, that it was not me who "(didn't) have a clue about any of this", rather it was Paul, that is, if he was not knowingly deceiving us.

If he ever shows his face again on this forum, I think all of us are entitled to an apology from him for the way he abused his authority as a qualified engineer in order to mislead us and confuse the discussion for so long.

I argued the 9/11 Truth case on John Quiggin's Web site at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/04/17/weekend-reflections-121/#comment-234274 in case anyone is interested.

If the OLO 9/11 truth deniers are awaiting guidance and leadership, I don't think they will find much there.