Mr Robinson I said “The building designers did not design for the impact that occurred”. That is fact. The ConEd story is everywhere on the conspiracy sites, but not on the ConEd website. Your reference to religion is somewhat bizarre for so many reasons. Many bad things have been done in the name of religion, so I question your reasons for mentioning it. I am afraid that the opinion of your mother is not particularly relevant either, unless she is suitably qualified to assess the collapse. I have to object to you using the usual “truther” trick whereby you are entitled to your opinion yet I “have a personal attachment to my opinion”. You are effectively telling me I am not entitled to my opinion and that is not acceptable. At the end of the day, I am a chartered structural engineer and I understand the collapse mechanism. As for your last response to Mr Allan, all of these points are dealt with by NIST, and indeed many posts on this forum. Most of these forums have eventually degenerated, and it is only really worth proceeding if you can provide proof or compelling evidence rather than soundbites from the conspiracy sites. To be honest, approaching this from a different angle I would even like a sensible reason as to why or how anyone could have blown up these buildings and for what gain. I have yet to hear a sensible answer to that one.

1) Frank Demartini's Statement Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. 2) If you don't understand the religious reference, then I'm talking to the wrong crowd. There are certain beliefs we take on in our lives that we do not challenge no matter what. That's all I will say on this as I understand the linear approach you may be coming from. I don't find the reference odd at all as there are many correlations from the belief structures people hold in religion and about politics in general. 3) ConEd is ONLY on conspiracy websites? Do you know the definition of conspiracy? From dictionary.com: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. - This sounds like 19 hijackers and a man in a cave calling the shots. So be careful what you call conspiracy sites. Not only that, but my father works for Con Ed as do 5 of my relatives. I also had 45 con ed workers and managers at my wedding. I think I may have an understanding of what is going on inside that company. Have you ever been to NY? Even been in those buildings? 4) There are no personal attacks unless you are taking them personal. The reason I mentioned anything about opinions was you are not giving real facts about the NIST report and molten metal. Just saying they covered it is just not accurate. 5) If you don't understand what was to gain, that does not matter. I get it as many do, there are many ways of finding that out, but that does not change evidence. 6) Do you know the United Nations did a study on our financial system and it's held together by drug money. Were you aware of this? This might give you some help in understanding why someone could be involved in such a tragedy. 7) Being chartered in anything means very little to me. I have many doctor friends who I would not go to for a common cold. No offense to you or anyone as I think you could be a fine professional, I'm just not impressed by titles or memberships. I'm a president of a consulting firm, I'm using common sense here. Lastly, I would love for you to call NIST and setup a live debate on this issue. I think that could do wonders for many involved and give this some closure. I will work with you on setting up any event. Coming from a chartered member may make them more inclined to accept a debate.

1) Construction manager is not a structural engineer. He may know a bit about buildings but he does not know what is involved in the design 2) This is a forum for structural engineers to discuss structural engineering matters. Religion is irrelevant in this context. 3) There is no mention on the website of ConEd - fact! ConEd is large enough that you could have a 1000 family members working there and still have no idea what was going on within the company. 4) NIST address molten metal - fact! If you cant be bothered reading it then dont call me a liar. 5) Nice dodge, but I agree that hard evidence is key! 6) If the financial system is held together by drug money then why are we in a recession caused largely by the housing market? 7) Understanding the behaviour of a structure requires a knowledge of structural engineering. Generally chartered structural engineers would be considered the most qualified in this field? But using your analogy, if you want to use a car mechanic to do structural alterations on your house then dont whine when it falls down. Why would I call on NIST for a debate? You will note that only a tiny number of civil/structural engineers put their names on the petitions. That is for a reason. Common sense.

So from your statement, I should not really give much credence to your lack of knowledge about the recession since you are a structural engineer and not a financial analyst or economist. The housing market crumble is a result not a cause of a much larger problem. Have you heard of the Glass Steagal Act? Not sure why a company would put a lawsuit on their website. It would most likely appear in a press release. However, being that the case is not yet over, why release any info. They were already awarded 37 million. So you have not been in those towers before, is that right? I have many times and I find it almost insane to think within a combined 30 seconds, two of the largest towers disappeared into fine dust. 220 acres of concrete just vanished before our eyes. As an engineer, if you are ok with that, that's very concerning; about as concerning as the trillion dollars in drug money flowing around into our banks. Here is an article that is just the start of information on this topic if you are interested, note the source. This is not a so-called conspiracy site :) http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLP65079620090125 Can you please give me a brief summary of NIST's explanation for the pools of molten metal found under WTC7? I do hope you are not taking anything here personally, I do not know you and my impression is that you are quite intelligent. This is just a debate.

Numerous highly qualified people, firefighters and others verified the existence of molten steel in the WTC debris piles. Peter Tully, one of the prime contractors in charge of debris removal told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. Richard Riggs, debris removal specialist said in a History Channel special "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up." Abolhassan Astaneh: Professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 said: "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." Mark Loizeaux, founder of Controlled Demolition Inc. said: "There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators." Firefighter Fuchek “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Firefighter Joe O'Toole As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." There are about two dozen witness statements describing molten metal or molten steel. These statements and these photos of molten metal confirm the existence of molten metal/steel at the WTC. NIST does not address the molten steel, as a matter of fact John Gross denied knowing about it in a news conference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Mr Robinson, Yes I have been to WTC prior to collapse. I would expect ConEd to announce the win of £37 million, if only to boost share price. Aware of Glass Steagal, and it has nothing to do with drug money. Mr Sarns, We have been down this road before? Molten metal or molten steel? Which is it? NIST does address molten metal and you know it.

JB, Now we are getting into my area of expertise. The repeal of the Glass Steagal act in 1999 is at the heart of corruption including drug money and other profiteering schemes. As I do, go to any university near you and sit down for a few hours and discuss this with a Dean or Economics professor, they will be thrilled to have the discussion over a lunch. Then you can do further research to fact check their opinions. At least you understand now that drug money is a major form of liquidity in many countries including the U.S. For not knowing about Con Edison's lawsuit then for making the accusation that I made it up (they would have announced it), you have lost some credibility so this will be my last post. Con Edison to get $17.6 mln in Sept. 11 case. It was not that hard to find. Here is a link. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssUtilitiesElectric/idUSBNG49544020090728 From having been in the WTC buildings and you still believe two of them turned to dust in 12-15 seconds each and another dropped in 6.5 seconds, that tells me you are not defending facts, you are defending a story. Good luck to you and when the truth becomes mainstream (even if it takes 20 years) you can deal with your inner-self knowing that you may have been duped (Kind of like Bernie Madoff, or did that not really happen since our government "SEC" was on the watch). Just like the other proven false-flag events, this will be added to the list. I will know that I was not fooled by the system and I will support those that were hurt by it.

Glass Steagal - onward irrellevant rambling with no connection to structural collapse mechanism. ConEd - 34mil then 17.6mil. And looking at your link there is absolutely no reference to any doubt on collapse mechanism. It is a straight insurance matter. If it is proven in the future that the WTC buildings collapsed for reasons not directly triggered by the plane impacts then you will deserve your moment of smugness. If presented with evidence of another cause then I would accept it in a rational manner and move on. The problem is that in the absence of evidence you and your ilk continue to besmirch the good name of fellow professionals at NIST and elsewhere. I also suspect that it provokes further hurt for the victims of 911. At what point will that stop? And lastly, goodbye!

Mr Robinson Before you go, please take this on board. There have been several papers published on both sides of the pond concerning the speed of collapse, and these have shown quite convincingly that the speed was well within the bounds of possibility in the circumstances. It seems obvious to me when considering the energy equations that progressive collapse was an assured outcome of this deliberate act of destruction. The design allegedly took account of the impact of an aircraft possessing ¼ of the kinetic energy and a small fraction of the fuel load actually carried by the hi-jackers. Bear in mind that in the 1960's the synthesis of such an arbitrary catastrophe would have been limited by the computational tools available, and very sweeping assumptions would have necessarily been made. It just might be that this late imposition of the impact resistance requirement, when the design was already advanced, wasn't given the weight of consideration that might in retrospect have been regarded as satisfactory? The result of the sudden and catastrophic release of gigawatts of potential energy is going to lead us into uncharted territory. The video clips I have seen certainly did not show molten steel, but quite possibly molten aluminium. But take a more distant view, if you would be so kind. Imagine for one moment that you wanted to inflict such a wound on Uncle Sam and wanted it to look like the work of terrorists. You would have to recruit 19 suicidal zealots, and ensure that they pulled off their part of the drama. Why on earth would you try and 'guild the lily' with an inconceivably difficult and risky effort to reproduce progressive collapse? Wouldn't the impacts themselves have been sufficient? I just don't understand the need to look for something else to explain it. Indeed all of the points you have been raising have been exhaustively debated on this Forum in the past, and have resulted in no-one (as far as I can detect) changing their views. Such an argument is therefore fruitless. I have read much of the NIST output as well as the work of Bazant and others. I am not in the least convinced about the 'thermite' evidence as this is highly speculative and has been shown to have a variety of other explanations. In short, just because I don't agree with you does not mean that my mind is closed. Anyone here who knows me will confirm that I'm not naturally predisposed to conform to orthodoxy.

JB It was molten steel or molten iron. FEMA and structural engineer Aboljhassan Astaneh have photographs of melted steel beams. The USGS, R.J. Lee Co. and Prof.Steven Jones found small iron spheres in every sample of the WTC dust. Firefighters saw beams dripping molten steel. Peter Tully, Richard Riggs and Mark Loizeaux are confident that it was molten steel. There is no reason to doubt that the molten metal was steel or iron. These photographs show molten metal at temperatures far above what office fires can attain, much maintain long enough to melt tons of metal. http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg The semi molten metal in the crab claw with fully molten metal dripping off the bottom is consistent with the color chart for steel temperatures. NIST refuses to acknowledge the molten steel/iron in the debris pile because the only explanation for it is thermite.