The Physics of 911

tell him about the coal mine fire in Centralia Pa

Unlike that of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan by the US was on solid legal ground. The Taliban saw it coming.

War on Afghanistan is Illegal

...

Though President Obama has frequently spoken of “renewing our commitment” to international law, he escalated military action in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal from its inception, contrary to conventional wisdom that the horrific crimes of 9/11 and the Taliban’s “safe haven” for Al Qaeda justified full-scale war. America’s use of military force to punish, seize, kill, or dismantle Al Qaeda and the Taliban violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and key provisions of eleven international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.3 U.S. and NATO actions constitute war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.4

The UN Charter prohibits the use and threatened use of any force in member states’ international relations; states must settle their disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of forces against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us,

Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5

Article 51 of the Charter, which defines member states’ right of self-defense, does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks. Former Guild President Marjorie Cohn explains that Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after 9/11, and the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”6 President Bush stretched traditional notions of self-defense by assigning the Taliban regime responsibility based on “harboring” Osama bin Laden and his operation.

Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8

“The Charter,” explains a treatise in International Law, “is based on the belief that international law should not be enforced by the commission of more crimes.” With every passing day, the U.S. commits more crimes in Afghanistan and the rationales for this war continue to crumble before reality.

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal/

No, it couldn't, Olivier.

and recognises the right to self-defence, and none of the UN Charter provisions your quote invoqued applies in a case of self-defence.

The Security Council approved the US rsponse. 'Nuf said.

He has admitted that there was a fire ragging in the rubble.

He has admitted that there was a fire ragging in the rubble.

Whether it was from termites or plastic and paper makes no difference to the fact that steel could have melt in that fire...

New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]
Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]

In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

No, steel cannot be melted by "plastic and paper".

Why would the fire professor in the video be so surprised about the steel being vaporized?

Anyway, the important thing is that you agree that steel could have melted in that fire, post-collapse.

It's the principle of a bloomery...

we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen."