Quoting from the last 9/11 thread when it was terminated; "This thread has strayed too far from the original post and has deteriorated into a never ending argument. The Institution message board is not the correct medium for any conspiracy based theories and content should relate to technical aspects. Open debate is encouraged however, users who continue to use the Institution forum as a platform to solely debunk organisations and promote their own views will have their access rights to the forum taken away. "

Molten metal in the debris piles of the WTC is NOT a conspiracy theory. It is a statement of fact based on witness statements and photographs. conspiracy: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act. [19 hijackers] I am NOT saying WHO did it [conspiracy], I am just presenting witness statements and photos describing WHAT was seen in the WTC debris piles. i.e. There was molten steel/iron under all three buildings.

Richard Gage AIA has presented evidence for controlled demolition of the Trade Towers and WTC 7 at the American Institute of Architects national convention in San Francisco and the regional AIA convention in Washington D.C. In allowing Mr. Gage to have a booth and present this evidence, the AIA has recognized that he is not a conspiracy theorist but rather a sincere professional presenting scientific evidence. Here is an article Mr. Gage published at World Architecture News.com http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.commentview&comment_id=158 It is worthy of your consideration. Please extend your professional courtesy to professionals of other disciplines and read this summary of the scientific forensic evidence.

Mr Sarns, Read the article and not impressed with "evidence" presented. As far as I can see, on all the threads on this site about 911, only 1 chartered structural engineer supported the demolition theory. He was challenged to write a paper for submission in The Structural Engineer journal. By nature of the journal this would need to be of a technical nature and stripped of any flowery claims. This is keenly awaited and should be encouraged by yourself as it would provoke the discussion amongst structural engineers that you seek.

Anybody see the demolition in Turkey that went badly wrong? The building that did the forward roll? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8179857.stm

The perception that only structural engineers are qualified to speak on this subject is incorrect. This is not rocket surgery. Regular folks can look at and understand the available evidence. Most who do come to the conclusion that all three buildings were controlled demolitions. Here is an article about 29 structural engineers who have studied the evidence and have come to the same conclusion. http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

This thread is about the molten metal under all three buildings. That involves chemistry and physics more than structure. Highly qualified scientists have examined the dust from the WTC and found nano-thermite, a very high tech explosive. Prof. Niels Harrit PhD, University of Copenhagen, and Prof. emeritus Steven Jones PhD, Brigham Young University, along with other scientists published a paper on the subject. http://blog.puppetgov.com/2009/04/03/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-911-world-trade-center-catastrophe/ TV interview with Prof. Hattit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Mr Sarns, Quote from the link to the paper written by structural engineers (and by the way this paper is not representative of all structural engineers as implied): “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?” This quote is from Mr Scott, who has been challenged on this forum to put a paper into the journal (as per my earlier post). He "has the expertise", and I look forward to reading the paper. If the molten metal has nothing to do with structural engineers then why is it posted on this forum. In fact, if there is so much evidence, then why dont the "truthers" put out a fact based paper of a similar nature to that produced by NIST? (I mean extensively explained scenarios in a substantial scientific document rather than soundbites) Surely this would achieve your aims? Mr Scott and others "have the expertise" I await the document.