However, non of this actually proves anything. You are just posting links to opinions on the matter and passing them off as your proof because someone smarter than you typed them. I can however bring some proof as this has been discussed to death on other forums.
I will say that it is really interesting to see how some derive their beliefs. With little evidence that is. That is why these videos and reports work so well to gather the numbers of audience that they do. All they have to do is point out some little photo they took and people yell, "There's my evidence, it's real!" Even though the photo doesn't actually prove anything. The authors use persuasive techniques with limited details to enforce their statements. But all they are really doing is convincing you about something you know nothing about to begin with. In essence, you respond like a school child being taught by his math teacher in that he knows more than you, so therefore it is correct to believe what he says.
To me it seems that you really don't question anything, you just agree with it. To think that you used the term "sheeple" about others is unjustified, because you seem to act a good definition of one yourself. I'm not trying to get mean towards you to intensify a point, so don't hold a grudge. I just feel that one can always open himself just a bit more.
First, the NIST video does no better than to prove that the man answering questions is indeed irritated by his audience. That doesn't prove there were explosives in the building. I myself would be irritated too in my response when trying to explain explosive events in lamen terms to idiot biased reporters, who are simply there to unsettle you to begin with. The reporter couldn't even read his question let alone make a good point. You can't use two people who don't agree as basis for any proof, I'm sorry to say.
The NIST engineer knows how sensitive of a subject it is. He knows how easily "dumb" doors get opened. He is very cautious with his responses, and I know exactly why. He has people riding on his back, but in a different sort of way. It doesn't mean he's an inside man just because of this, or that the CIA is threatening him.
I'll next hit on the pools of steel. First, pools of steel aren't relative to explosives. Explosives create massive heat, yes. But, the time period that heat lasts is over the course of milliseconds due to the speed of gas expansion. In other words, large amounts of high explosives being detonated never results in a puddle of orange molten steel. As people realized that this wouldn't make a good arguement, they had to throw another idea out there for the wonderful public to question: thermite.
It's obvious someone had to say thermite sometime. But, for any scientist, that is quickly batted out of the air as well.
Thermite is a 50:50 mixture of CuO and FeO (copper oxide and iron oxide). Both are the oxidating products of steel and copper - something the building had very much of, what do you know! Thermite residue thus should be easy to find, it should be everywhere. But if they would have told you that, it may have changed your opinion. So that's a no no.
I won't settle with leaving you just half of the details now like your fellow reporters, I'll go just a bit further. Let's say that there were amounts of thermite placed around the massive beams. It would take a very large bag of thermite to actually melt the distance through that beam. Not to mention a good amount of time. Thermite reactions will speed themselves up in large amounts, meaning that they will produce even more heat but for a shorter period of time. The problem is it produces so much heat, nothing can contain the thermite. Sure it would melt the beams, if you could somehow hold it in place. Since there is gravity, the thermite piles would instantly drop through the floor burning, and through the next floor and so on. As you can imagine, this would have little effect on the beams. You can toss the thermite idea.
Next we have these squibs. Ok. We portray any event from a window as a squib, that's easy enough for the media to do. Compare it to a real blast, and you can quickly find that this is just what we thought: media hype. You aren't going to place a squib or two every 30 floors in a real demolition if you actually plan to bring it down. Neither do they simply detonate them at random intervals. In a real demolition implosion, the building is brought down at once. Generally, all the supporting beams are hit before the momentum interia even begins. They take out a bunch of layers so many individual sections begin their fall. This makes the building sandwich together as it falls. It levels with much less force and tremor to the earth. The trade towers were completely the opposite. It was obviously a type of collapse where each individual floor collapsed, and the total inertia gained and gained until the entire pile hit at once. This creates a much more uncontrolled fall, with much more energy when it all impacts. This also creates the toppling effect at the top, where huge debris piles fall outward due to air pressure rushing out of the center.
Speaking of air pressure, that's another great topic. Air pressure will find a way out of the building in a collapse like this, whether you like it or not. Air which is trapped in passageways with little leakage locations will blast when it reaches its maximum structural holding pressure. That pressure can be transferred down passageways and out the front doors of the building if it finds a path. This easily explains floors below blowing the massive pressure off in the fall. You can just imagine what hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of compressed air at elevated PSI will do. Little dirt clouds out windows below are nothing compared to the air pressure along the shockwave of the collapse zone. So you had best not just pass them off as squibs because some media moron told you so. By the way, those papers you posted prove nothing towards this being impossible. They butter you up with a bunch of formulas, but the data is all simple relative conclusion.
Then there is the misleading "slag steel" on the cut beams. Oh no, it must be from explosives! Not. Actually these people are complete idiots. Hot steel that shears leaves a ripped and torn appearance exactly characteristic of the photo, but nothing even close to what a shaped charge cut looks like.
Below I will post the photo that they show the public of the ever so controversal slagged steel:
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7...agsteelpf9.png
Now look at how crappy and slaggy of a tear that is. It is certainly impossible for a shaped charge to make a cut line like that. The metal is formed completely different than could ever be possible from an explosive. If anyone could tell you this from first hand experience, it is me. That is how I dispute media bullshit.
Now below are photos of real shaped charge cuts. One is a charge on a steel plate that penetrated cleanly and sliced the plate. Notice how precisely the jet cuts the steel; it is absolutely not jagged. It is like a waterjet cut. Below it is another photo of a linear shaped charge which didn't penetrate all the way through, but still demonstrates the cleanliness of an explosive cut on steel.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/scipics/axt/linearmon.jpg
http://www.sciencemadness.org/scipics/axt/lsccut.jpg
