I live in the Special Administrative Region of a Communist country, so this is not high on my list of concerns.

I note that this is not a response to the argument at hand. It is a red herring. Detonation is always much faster than deflagration, that is a basic fact about explosive reactions, and detonation will always render an active metal inert by oxidation. That also is a basic fact about ionization and metal reactivity. Aluminum is a more reactive metal than iron, and so it will displace Iron oxide. But Aluminum oxidizes very quickly, and once oxidized is no longer reactive. It cannot participate in the thermite reaction. This is very basic chemistry. Anyone who went to high school should know about displacement reactivity and oxidation.

At any rate, it is hard to express the sheer magnitude of error in your statement that I have never taken a science course, but I don't need to defend myself here. I simply invite you to answer the simple question I posed in the other thread, and we can see which one of is is pretending to know about the subject matter.

Since it has already been proven gasoline was enough to melt the metal let's go onto your other unsupported assertions.

During the time of the event people were fleeing the building or rushing into it to get as many people out.  I highly doubt they had time to properly investigate any other sounds occuring in the building to verify that they were indeed set explosives going off.

The presence of "drilling sounds" doesn't not lead one to conclude that there was actually drilling or drilling for the purpose of weakening the structural integrity of the building.  That's merely wishful thinking without any verifiable evidence.

Next maybe you'll tell us none of the Apollo missions actually landed on the moon.  You pack a lot of faith into your assertions, and like creationism, you are light on the facts and heavy on the illogical non-sequiturs.

There were never more than a few Arabs on the planes. certainly not 19.

The ones that were on there were probably patsies.

Passenger list from Sept 17, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010917033858/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Passenger list from Nov 10 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011110121024/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/13/MN199465.DT...

Even (relatively) minor damage on the outside couldn't *possibly* have started fires on the inside, and ruptured fuel supply lines leading to the 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored IN the building, though, could they?

What about this, Ux? Are you saying that several construction crews came in during the "power down", broke through all they'd have to break through to cut the columns and stood there calmly cutting through all the columns? While, outside, air craft were coming toward the building intent on collison?

Fine then.

WTC 7 was damaged on the south side, the side facing WTC 1 & 2.

I don't fear losing it. I've already admitted there are unanswered questions; but you can't even get basic physics right, you assert speculation as fact, and you ignore posts that address the issues at hand. How am I to take you seriously?

I too would like it to make sense. I'd like a simple narrative with no gaps. Conspiracy theories don't provide that. Neither does the official story. The official story makes more sense, though, based on what we know as fact.

There was damage to the south side of WTC 7. Period. End of story. Video evidence should be sufficient, I hope? I won't need to dig up testimony from the many firefighters who stated they saw severe damage to the south side?

I've been studying 9-11-2001 news reports and available firefighting operational and command, descriptions and accounts for well over 21 months now.

Yes, there were secondary explosions before the collapses, including what are now believed to be two or three BLEVE which;  a) are potentially unrelated to the planes that slammed the structures and b) may have caused other failures extraneous to the central core.

However, the secondary explosions cannot be said to be numerous, if by numerous your intended meaning is that said explosions created or hastened the collapses. The total number of "other" explosions have been guesstimated at approximately three dozen. Those reported explosions were/are still minimal compared to any that caused major structural failure.

Finally, firefighters within the incident command structure heard only a report or possibly two, although one is questionable, that fires were actually "small".

Floors that were described repeatedly as "fully involved" would never mean the fire was under control.

However, yes, Ux, you are correct in that no evidence has been brought forth yet that describe any of the fires as being "raging infernos".

Aside from the science, how many people can keep a secret, and all the way to their death bed?  911 was to big of an event, to many involved, to keep secret, a huge conspiracy as suggested by Ux. I am missing something?

Are you missing something?

Not at all, iGay. Not at all.

Sorry -- didn't mean that to be an inference to your sexual preference. No one who knows you from the boards would doubt your adoration of women. I'll do iGod from now on.

                      My perspective is I just wasted 1:58 of my life for nothing. That duche doesn't know the first thing about oceanliner dynamics,  he thinks an iceberg bounces like an ice cube or that at full speed ahead the Titanic can stop on a dime; How?  Any steemer needs a mile or two to dead stop.