2BFree wrote:BlueMoon5 wrote:Note the following:
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[82] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[83]
Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[10][6][7][84] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[85] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[86] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[87]
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[88] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][89] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][45][88][89][90][91] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[92] (Source for all of the foregoing: Wikipedia, "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - 7 World Trade Center.")
The "progressive collapse theory" was rejected long ago due to the fact the towers "collapsed" too quickly and the "bathtub" that the towers were built in was not damaged since there was no material to damage it when the towers dissolved. Also the seismic signature of both towers which were built on bedrock was around 2.3 on the Richter Scale which compared to the Seattle Kingdome seismic signature (2.1) which was only 1/4 the mass of one of the towers and was not built on bedrock is about the equivalent to a 20 story building collapse which is interesting because the debris pile of the two towers was approximately what you would find after a 20 story building fell so where did the other 90 stories go? As I said before, the evidence does not support either the NIST claims of "collapse due to fire" or the controlled demolition hypothesis since both would have destroyed the "bathtub" and flooded lower Manhattan with the Hudson River and the seismic signature is too low. BM2...please refrain from regurgitating Wikipedia propaganda and try for once to do some real research and critically think for yourself...thanks
Actually, I don't hold seven honorary doctorates, and I'm not a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science and Engineering at Northwestern University, as is Zdenek Bazant. . .my name is not on 15 patents, and I'm not a Professor of Materials Science at a place called MIT, as is Thomas Eager. . .I haven't personally witnessed--and documented--dozens of controlled demolitions, as has Brent Blanchard. . .and I'm not a professor of psychology, as is Stuart Vyse, whose speciality is the psychology of irrational behavior and who finds the utter silence by the alleged "bombers" to be inconceivable. Sometimes, it's a good idea to appeal to authority, which raises the question, what are your credentials?
Classic BM 
That aside, experience, education, accomplishments, professional positions held, honors--they are key indicators. A person doesn't have his/her name on 15 patents by being a slouch. 
