EVIDENCE?

[PatrickBatemen]

alot theroies about 9/11 are never going to be proved, such as the pentagon. united 93. holograms, remote control aircraft. what evidence is there that can prove explosives were used in towers and jet fuel did not cause the WTC to fall, didnt steven jones say he found thermite? same with WTC 7 the govt is just going to say fire and the hole in the building caused it to collapse,

[scar]

Most of the government explanations NIST etc have been debunked.
They dont stand up to scrutiny.
Have you watched any documentaries or done much research?
Controlled Demolition is the only way those towers could have come down as they did.

Check this new film on the demolitions:
9/11 Mysteries_Part-01
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=9%2F11+ mysteries/url
9/11 Mysteries_Part-02
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=9%2F11+m ysteries/url
9/11 Mysteries_Part-03
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&q=9%2F11+m ysteries/url

Its very thorough.

[chek]

Here's some basic evidence you can look at - it's taken from one I posted in another forum on the same subject (links to the backup info included) but maybe answers some of your questions.

"1510C (2750F) - melting point of typical structural steel
825C (1517F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in
the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating
(premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

"The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800C.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in
the South Tower."

site: 911research.wtc7.net page:
911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html

The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own
statement.

"Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400
to 600 degrees C, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown
higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees C or greater
were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by
the fires.

The Institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing
surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to
the buckling of the towers' core columns."

Phew!
To guage the truthfullness of NIST's statement, the maximum internal
temperature of a Rolls Royce RB211 engine, as used on the Boeing 757
is 1300 degrees C, under ideal conditions - that is to say with a
perfectly regulated atomised fuel burning in an optimum airflow.

Such perfect burning conditions aren't going to happen anywhere else in that environment outside of the engines.

NIST are saying that the smashed engines had to continue operating
at max power to maintain the temperatures they judge to have occurred - and even then, that would only affect the girders exposed to the continuing jet blast for as long as the unleaked fuel that didn't burn away in the fireball kept feeding the still perfectly operating engines.

A ridiculous notion when you think a bird can break an engine yet these ones had just crashed through aluminium sheet, massive box section steel girders and glass. I'd suggest it's more likely the turbines would've seized instantly as the engine casings were forced between the steel columns.

http://www.qfom.com/collections/virtual/vh-ebq/stats.html?
PHPSESSID=8933c75bf20d9a18cf0a2e01dbcdb0ef

In addition, the buildings steel (36"x12" box section girders of 4"
steel) of that quality and construction would need to heatsoak for
hours to even make it soften to malleability in that temperature range - far below the melting point - and that is only possible in a maximum of two extremely localised spots that the miraculously still working engines are blasting away onto. Both fires lasted 104 minutes for the North Tower, and 62 minutes for the South Tower.

http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14250/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_steel

I've also followed discussions on the science message boards
(phys.org for example) attempting to calculate the amount of energy
it would take to powderise most of the concrete and contents of the
buildings and cause those pyroclastic dustflows that travelled for miles like a volcanic eruption, compared to how much energy the Official
Version's 'gravity collapse' could generate.

A 'gravity collapse' means the available energy that the collapse
could generate. This comes from the potential and kinetic energy of the buildings, and is calculated from:
the weight of the materials,
the distance those materials could fall,
and the speed they could attain during that fall.

The missing energy - in the thousands of times more kiloJoules
required - can only be realistically accounted for by the explosions
visibly blasting massive steel girders out horizonatally for hundreds of feet that can be seen in many of the videos and stills taken during the collapses.

With WTC7, an unevenly damaged steel frame building with fires on two floors and possibly the basement could never collapse totally symmetrically. It's physically impossible for the unaffected steel to fail as fast as any damaged parts of the building's frame.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html