asked for an explanation, not a bunch of no votes. Can't believe it. This is why I hate the voting system. How about some explanations? Or is that asking too much?

since observed radiation levels were far too low. From Prof Jones, see the last link of page:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html

Standing near a large thermite charge might lead to 'hanging skin' from flash burns, I reckon.

Joe, yes, it's important to check out some of the papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies sometimes, when you're wondering about evidence. The Journal is edited by the best scientists in the movement and covers a LOT of ground. Even nukes --

Were “mini-nukes” used at the World Trade Center?

“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers” (January 16, 2007)
Dr. Steven Jones

Conclusion and a challenge

The hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the
hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers:

1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb
fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong
evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.

2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in
the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.

3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule
out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke
hypothesis.

4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium
series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for
WTC dust.

5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.

6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.

7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the
Towers.

8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where
vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and
the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal
was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)

While many pieces of evidence may support a hypothesis it logically takes
only one soundly established contradictory piece of evidence to require the
abandonment of a hypothesis. In the list above, we have not one but several
pieces of evidence which contradict the mini-nukes-at-WTC-Towers
hypothesis.

Proponents of the “mini-nuke” theory are invited to organize their data
and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the
Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be
published.

"A falling object CAN NOT increase in speed when it strikes objects." is a rudiment which traps NIST when it admits 100 feet of free fall acceleration of Building 7.

Three Seconds of acceleration ‘example’ graphic - http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/3/8/b/b/highres_18014523.jpeg

Here are some of the websites from which the photos came.

Jim Hoffman has a hell of a site... http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html
...with photos which you can enlarge. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html

Animated Flash of the NIST computer graphic (halfway down the webpage)
http://tyrannyalert.com/800.html

This website had a lot of graphics of the NIST computer animation.
http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-7wtc4-DrSunderisitwtc7.html

This website had some GIFs animated and pics. http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=252

This website has a variety of cool pics collected by Texas activists.
http://www.meetup.com/9-11-249/photos/
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

This website had a photo of Building 7 during construction.
http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=15047&start=750