Hello Lex,
I havent studied the case of WTC 7 yet, but I'll attempt to answer your
questions about WTC1 and WTC2.

1)Seismic Spikes: The data for seismic spikes can be found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

The idea that the spikes could be caused by an explosion rather than the
collapse does not bear inspection. Let us quickly estimate the
kinetic energy in each of the falling towers.
weight of towers: (approx) 500,000 tonnes = 5 * 10^8 kg
speed of impact with ground ~ 200 km/hr ~ 55 m/s [see
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html]

kinetic energy= (1/2) m v^2 = 7.716*10^11 J ~ explosive power of 184
tonnes of TNT.

This is the explosive power of a 'tactical' nuclear bomb!

The energy of the towers falling greatly exceeds the energy of any
conceivable explosive that could have been placed in them. So, unless the
building was wired with 200 tonnes of military grade explosives(which
seems to be absurd), the seismic impact had to be that of the towers
hitting the ground and not of anything else. This is also what the
Columbia group(cited above) says.

2)It is true that much of the wreckage was hauled away, but the NIST
report did study many samples of the recovered steel. See Section 6.4,
Page 86-90.
The study of this recovered steel was used, by them, to gain information
about what happened in the interior of the building. So, the steel was
meticulously examined.

3)The other study of steel, you mention comes from the JOM 53(12), 2001 ..
pp 18 and may be obtained at:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

It deals with WTC 7. As of now, I have not studied this in detail.

As far as WTC 1 & 2 are concerned NO molten steel was found. See:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The temperatures produces were not high enough to melt the steel.

I would like to reserve comment on WTC 7, till I study that collapse in
detail. As far as WTC 1&2 go though, it seems clear that the evidence for
the conventional theory[that they collapsed due to the impact of the
plane] seems quite persuasive. If everyone agrees with this, we can move
on to WTC 7.

Suvrat



 On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Merrick Lex Berman wrote:

a few added items on physics:

seismic spikes:
many articles generally debunk the idea that seismic spikes were caused
by explosives at the base of the towers before the mass of the buildings
struck the ground.   nonetheless i remain slightly skeptical that the
largest spike would occur at the onset of the collapse if the pancake
theory is true.  also it seems odd to me that the towers collapsed
directly onto their own footprints.   i have seen implosions and even
under IDEAL circumstances a lot of things could go wrong.   when a
single plane crashes at a lateral angle into one corner of a structure
like the WTC (which was DESIGNED to absorb a plane impact) i am
skeptical that it would cause such a perfect collapse.  that just
doesn't make sense to me either statistically or mechanically.  the
mechanics would argue that the WEAKENED point would cause a lateral fall.

hot spots:
okay, tell me why molten pools of metal remained too hot to approach and
were visible in space for weeks after the collapse?   and why did the
metal show these characteristics:
*Rapid oxidation and intragranular melting of steel pieces*
The limited metallurgical examination of some of the few pieces of
structural steel that escaped the blast furnaces shows very peculiar
features, such as rapid oxidation turning inch-thick steel into
paper-thin scrolled pieces, cavitation giving steel the appearance of
Swiss cheese, and intragranular melting. These suggest a more exotic
process of destruction than mere explosives.

how did this occur?  you tell me!  and furthermore, why was the metal
IMMEDIATELY hauled away and disposed of, instead of being meticulously
examined?  that in itself is beyond strange... it simply stinks.

building 7:
it did not have significant damage or fire and went straight down.
you've got to be kidding me if you think it was not imploded.  there is
no mechanical stress that has been mentioned (to my knowledge) that
offers even a remotely plausible explanation of the physical collapse of
wtc7.   therefore, one may right question, in my view, the causes of wtc
1 and 2 collapses as well.

lex



Suvrat Raju wrote:

To conclude I find the evidence for the "controlled explosion hypothesis"
scanty at the moment.