Reply #15: This and that [View All]

[KJF]

The best 9/11 sceptic sites are:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
and
http://www.911review.com/
for explosive demolition

and
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
for the other stuff - the whole thing is too much, just click on the various chapters to get a feel (OK, I'm biased here).

You might also want to read Steven Jones' paper, which you can find here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

As you point out in your post 9, the insulation is key to NIST's theory. NIST's testing of the insulation can be found here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
It begins on page 263 (p. 315 of the .pdf).

I don't buy and impact and fire collapse, for various reasons, such as the damage caused by the planes was only reduced the gravity load-bearing capacity by about 15% in each building, the planes' fuel tanks were more than half empty, the fuel burned up in the first 10 minutes anyway, the recovered steel doesn't support NIST's simulation results, the Twin Towers were combustibles-lite, etc. Plus, 7 wasn't hit by a plane, so I can't see what stripped its fireproofing.

That the hijackers were "right in the middle of the FBI's counterterrorism coverage" is a quote from the 9/11 Commission's staff director, Eleanor Hill; it was broadcast on an edition of MSNBC's Hardball on 21 July 2004. The full quote is:

"Rather than the hijackers being invisible to the FBI, they were, in fact, right in the middle of the FBI's counterterrorism coverage."

By it she means that in the US the hijackers associated with 14 terrorist suspects the FBI investigated before 9/11. I mean that there are more imporant issues than why the WTC collapsed. Also, I'd like to point out that the NSA intercepted some of the hijackers' communications from/to the US.