"no planes on 9/11" thoery

Continuing my previous format, thought I doubt I'll be able to stay within the limit with the amount of nonsense I'll have to refute: "watch the wtc contruction, do you still think jet feul and office fires pulvarized this building?" You have no idea the energies contained within the combustion of jet fuel. One kilogram (~2.2 lbs) releases 50 MJ per minute. Knowing that Mega is the SI prefix for 1 million and by using some simple algebra conversions, this works out to a release of 20863500000000 joules per kilogram per minute released by the fuel. I know of very few things that could survive that output of energy without significant deformation. Furthermore, the fire did not "pulverize" the building, the weight of the Twin Towers themselves (read Potential Energy). "What about the nano-thermite (high grade military explosives) found in all three "collapse" sites" Despite the fact that you lack any proof whatsoever for this claim, I'll indulge it because it's a rather common one. When you burn hydrocarbons at extremely high temperatures, you will often get molecular derivatives of "high grade explosives chemicals" - or more simply C-H chains with assorted functional groups. For clarification, derivatives are molecules that are structurally different from a parent molecule, though they retain the same composition proportions. Stating that "high grade explosives chemicals" were present at the WTC is rather misleading as the G.C.M.S. cannot distinguish between these chemical derivatives (C-H chains) and the parent chemical ("nano-thermite"?) itself. Therefore, the only thing we can conclude is that hydrocarbon derivatives were present at WTC - which is easily explained by the combustion of organic molecules (read paper, desks, anything really). "THE "AMETUER" VIDEOS ARE SOOOOO FAKE!" You must provide proof for your claims. Remember, this is not a shouting match, nor is it a street corner. You do not win by being loud. You win by being correct. And by proving the validity of your claims through verifiable scientific evidence. "Usama bin laden "admitting to 9/11" is fake again" You have complained that Popular Mechanics is an illegitimate source, and yet you find Osama Bin Laden to be more credible? That is absurd. "OK so what your saying is this mathimatical equation completley disqualifies the fact that the plane went through the steel building and came out the other side with its nose completley intact (an anylasis of the pixels shows a micro presision match). this is a common technique used by 9/11 white-washers to stump normal people, it doesnt justify a plane going through a biulding." I'm curious as to what "micro presision matching" is exactly. I'll go ahead and assume that you meant through this jargon that people looked at Youtube clips and made unfounded assertions from these viewings about the nature of an extremely complex collision. Furthermore, you have no proof - again - that the nose came out of the WTC unharmed. As for your "characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives", I'll begin to refute those here: 1) "Rapid onset of "collapse" This means absolutely nothing. "Rapid onset" simply means that at the temporal point instability, the building fell quickly. This isn't exactly scientific evidence. 2) "Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse" Buildings tend to implode when they collapse, therefore you would expect to hear interior deformations before you can see the exterior results of the said deformation. Furthermore, you cannot isolate the sound as "coming from the ground floor". To assume that you can is illogical and naive. 3) "Symmetrical "collapse" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration" This doesn't make any sense. A "symmetrical" collapse would be through the path of least resistance whether by explosion or by implosion. The geometric orientation of the building as it falls has little to do with what caused it to fall, and more with the construction of the building itself. 4) "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" This is evidence of a collapse. It does not dictate either implosion or explosion. 5) "Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD" Proof? And even if you had proof, I've already explained the presence of "thermite" 6) "FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples" That proves nothing other than the metal was rapidly heated from a cold temperature, aka in a fire. You don't even seem to understand the evidence you are providing me. As for you said "lack of characteristics" of destruction by fire, I'll again refute those here: 1) "Slow onset with large visible deformations" If I recall the towers were hit at 8:46 and 9:03 A.M. They then collapsed at 9:59 and 10:28 A.M respectively. They took 52 minutes and 102 minutes, again respectively, to collapse. I believe most would qualify this as a slow onset. As for the large visible deformities, I would classify those as the giant holes in the buildings where the planes entered. 2) "High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed" Give me one instance in which a fully fueled jetliner was crashed into a building, left to burn for approximately an hour, and is still standing afterwards and I might be willing to concede this point. Might. 3) "Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises" This actually disproves your theory of explosives, as the amount of time in which an explosive has to transfer its potential energy makes the process adiabatic - making the thermal energies required to reach "molten temperatures" infeasible. This is why explosives "throw" rather than instantly melt their targets when releasing energy. Therefore the presence of large pools of molten steel indicates a long burning fire undisturbed by explosions on the "ground floor". 4) "No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire" Read this and try to understand the ability of fire to change the physical properties of steel: http://www.hindawi.com... 5) "Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage." They were designed to withstand the failure of 1-2 external load bearing columns. Not 50% of them. You cannot double the load on a steel structure, subject it to extreme lateral forces, and then heat it exponentially and expect it to stand. It simply a matter of chemistry and physics. 6) "All the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind." Notice how he said 100 mile-per-hour wind and not 1 hour of combustion in a jet fuel bath. 7) "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." This quote is deceptive. He clearly does not mean that he can cut the external columns in half and then increase live load by 2000%, because then he would have simply done that when building the WTC and saved hundreds of millions of dollars. He said you could cut the column number in half, or your could increase the weight - not both. "Don't turn your back on this research do something about it" One could say the same thing about you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent opted to provide a deluge of information, some of which I was able to refute, but others I was unable to due to character restrictions. Furthermore, he has consistently offered zero verifiable proof for his claims.