He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:

First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.

But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.

Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.

Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.

Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.

He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.

And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers '” in fact, there was another building between it and the towers '”and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.

Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read … 4&Trace=on

The government invaded a country based on it, of course the burden of proof is on them.

Fyi Bin Laden is not credited as the man behind the attacks by the FBI. Quote:"There is not sufficient evidence to link Bin Laden to the attacks of 911".

Not sufficient evidence, and you invade a country? That alone is reason for impeachment.

Popular Mechanics is not the government providing proof. 911 Commission Report is the proof of the government.

Proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY … re=related

The eyewitness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmOmWrgEJEQ

Physicists have proven time and again that they have trouble reaching a coherent and logical conclusion. Take NIST, they worked on the scenario for years, still they can't seem to make their models work. The story has been changed several times. There's still no unison conclusion.

These aren't a few witnesses. I remember the day very clearly, and a common thread in the initial reports were 'bombs' 'explosions' 'secondary devices'.

And if the witnesses weren't qualified, why is the 911 Commission basing a lot of their conclusion on their testimony? That is, the testimonies that 'fit'.

I thought it was interesting information. I'm not building an argument around it. Not everything needs to be a pissing match.

But for your information, the amount of clocks that stopped at 9.31-32 (yeah, that's inaccuracy) isn't 1, it isn't 2 or even 3. It's dozens. Richard A. Clark (I think) said himself that the impact occured at 9.32 in a speech he gave.

Of course that is possible. It's not a particular strong argument, isolated. But put in the basket of all the other evidence it gives leverage to the case. Especially when BBC confronted with this, claimed the tapes had been lost in the archives. That's a moot defence though since it's all over the net.

Circumstantial in terms of what? If you're thinking about 'bush and the government did it', sure. Eye witnesses and photographic evidence however, are not. 

On a side note, chill out a little man. No need to get worked up.

Which reminds me...

(An old aristocratic lady to Churchill at a dinner party)

If I was married to you, I'd put poison in your tea!

(Churchill replies)

If I was married to you, I'd drink it.