Ah, Arjay, the Manhatten Project.

>>The Manhatton Project,ie the development of the nuclear bomb involved 130,000 people.<<

And it leaked like a sieve.

Russia started their own programme in 1941, based on information from their spy network, among them Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall, both of whom worked at Los Alamos.

The US even shared their research - for a while - with the Brits. Who as we know, had their own leakages.

The Manhatten project was secret only in name, not in reality.

>>Months before 911 extensive elevator renovations were carried out in the towers.Marvin Bush, George's bother,owned that company.So we have the opportunity and also the motivation of going to war for profit and power.<<

I see you have already retracted this piece of disinformation, along with it your attempt to describe opportunity and motive.

Face it, you have nothing.

And what's this?

>>Nano thermite can be painted on and is only volitile when critical temps are reached.So painters could apply this not knowing it's potential<<

You are kidding me, right?

Where was this paint applied? To the structural beams, would seem to be the obvious place.

Let's see how this works. You get a bunch of painters to paint the steel columns with this special paint, and the idea is to heat it up all at the same time to make it explode.

Am I on the right track?

So you fly a plane into the building to set the whole thing off. All that aviation fuel should burn hot enough, don't you think?

So why did it then take so long for the "nano-thermite paint" to ignite?

And - given your "instant collapse" theory - how did they manage to get every column to ignite at the same time?

Also, just for good measure, how much paint would be needed on each column to heat it up sufficiently to turn it into a molten stream?

Arjay, you are straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Ah, now that sounds much more plausible. Building 7 collapsed
because of human bungling, ie the sprinklers ran out of water!

Interestingly, in rebuilding the building, they seem to have
learnt their lesson and this time are using reinforced concrete,
rather then the lightweight design of the last building.
That kind of says it all really.

Yes I know.
I said I would not come back.
But I have questions.
Who did fly those planes?
Did Bin Larden lie on congratulating them?
Who tried to blow those twin towers up first time.
Did the USA or the Donald Duck conspiracy team murder also the plane passengers.
As it cost so very much to as near as you can get fail in Iraq was it worth it.
Last, maybe more important than all the other, is it not true those who gain the most from this childlike theme are those most of us know bought down the buildings?
LIES remember are a way of life for some.
Yes I will draw insults, be belittled as others have, but retain my senses and know truth from rubbish.

Yabby,

Whether or not sprinkler failed in parts of WTC 7 does not explain how WTC collapsed in exactly the same manner as controlled demolition, which included an initial 2.25 seconds of free fall through 8 stories.

How do you explain that free fall, unless explosives were used?

---

Pericles, perhaps spies acting for Russia and acting for the UK were able to pass on some information about the Manhattan project, but they sure kept it a secret from the US media and the US public.

---

There was no intended disinformation in Arjay's post about Securacom as Pericles well knows.

The fact remains that Securacom, which looked after much of the security for the World Trade Center, had links with the Bush family. Even if Marvin Bush left in 2000, those left would have still had close relationship with him and other members of the Bush Family.

---

All of Pericles' 'arguments' about nano-thermite are silly non-sequiturs.

Painting it on is only one means of applying it. It can just as well be applied in more conventional ways as the video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743 shows.

Pericles has yet to specifically explain what is wrong with this video.

Daggett, if you read the history of that building, it certainly
was not a typical design. It was built over the top of a sub
power station, designed to take 25 stories, they added 47.

Then when the lease changed, they removed most of three existing
floors, to suit the new tenants, as they had trouble renting the
place out.

The top floors were of tubular structure. So lots of engineering
went on to make things fit, which might have seemed like a good
idea at the time, but clearly was not!

Then you had 90000 litres of diesel on the fifth floor.

The weight of the concrete floors and cladding etc is going to
pull inwards, not outwards. Once steel is soft from heat and
enough of it gives, the whole thing collpses.

For me there are plenty of reasons why that building would have
collapsed, when the sprinklers failed. But to do a proper study
you'd need the plans and know what was altered and how the debris
landed up.

There are plenty of qualified architects, who would have the
information to form an informed opinion. Plenty would be
democrats too, so would have yelled pretty loudly, if they had
thought it was a way of getting Bush out of office and there
was any merit to your arguments.

Whilst Yabby's post just may, if we were not to dispute any of his assertions, explain why WTC 7 collapsed, it does not begin to explain how it could have collapsed excatly in the manner of a controlled demolition falling at free fall speed for the first 8 stories.