So I\'ve been looking at a lot of stuff about 9/11 in the last few weeks, and there\'s one thing that\'s really bothering me.

You guys (especially Jason) seems to be very keen on the controled demolition theory.

Now, here\'s the catch. Assuming that the demolition had to begin at the point of collapse in order for it to \"look right\" (as in, the towers not to collapse under the actual point of impact which would look very awkward). Assuming that the temperatures at the point of collapse was higher than (by lower estimates) 650 degrees Celcius...

The question is:
How can the explosives, their detonators, as well as the control wiring, survive a 650oC fire for the lenght of time that the towers burned, without any adverse effects?

Remember that while thermite (which you guys love so much) might only start reacting at 1300 degrees C, what normally ignites thermite is Magnesium, which ignites at only 473 degrees C, and whatever detonator is used to ignite the Magnesium (which is only a catalyst to get the temperature up) has an even lower ignition temperature.

Technically speaking, if a provable answer cannot be given to this question, then the CD theory cannot hold, it has been defeated. What say you?

No one wants to take a stab at this, huh?

I guess I thought so...

If wired correctly, it would not set off the rest of the thermite,

It may well have had an effect on the thermite (if it was used) or other explosive devices, if it had been directly effected by the fire.

But it still would not set off a chain reaction.

and thus should not effect the rest of the building that was not effected.

Hmn... \"If wired correctly\" ?

I am talking about the collapse initiation point here - the place where the fires were raging. We do agree that this is where the CD would have started if this was true, right?

Besides, you say as if it\'s possible if the initial impact could have set off *some* thermite, thought not all of it. You realize that if thermite (or it\'s magnesium catalyst) would have ignited at the time of impact, the towers would have gone down immediately, right?

Why don't people like you understand... that discussing issues that can be proved or disproved (unequivocally) with the laws of science is infinitely more enlightening and/or important than discussing an event that can only be addressed with conjecture or speculation? i.e. what ignited the thermate.

Thermate actually has a lower ignition (temp) than thermite... but that's beside the point... because we know... that igniting thermate (regardless if you aren't aware of possible technologies that can be used to ignite it remotely) is no where near the realm of scientific impossibilities.

We know thermate is real... we know it can cut through steel... we know that large pools of molten metal were beneath all three buildings... and that red hot molten metal (no aluminum planes hit WTC 7... too bad for you) cannot be created by the max temp of jet fuel based fires (backed with irrefutable scientific data) ... thus, we have a big scientific anomaly here.

WTC 7 fell at or near free fall speeds... again, this defies scientific laws because it means the steel and concrete in WTC 7 had physical properties comparable to AIR... which creates another scientific impossibility, that can only be explained when an artificial catalyst i.e. thermate/explosives - is factored into the equation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

I'm glad I could help you with your problem. Now... please, stop trying to debunk 9/11 with events that can only be answered with speculation... that is the JREFers favorite little trick i.e. explosives couldn't have been used.... BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO PLANT THEM WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING!

And, yes... JREFers try and use this type of evidence to debunk Truthers... and as you can tell... it's all based in science i.e. mindless speculation.

Hmn... \"If wired correctly\" ?

I am talking about the collapse initiation point here - the place where the fires were raging. We do agree that this is where the CD would have started if this was true, right?

Yes and i stand by what i say, last time i looked at the videos of the towers burning, not all of the impact zone floor[s] were completely ablaze.

Besides, you say as if it\'s possible if the initial impact could have set off *some* thermite, thought not all of it. You realize that if thermite (or it\'s magnesium catalyst) would have ignited at the time of impact, the towers would have gone down immediately, right?

And your evidence for a total collapse due to a few cutter charges going off on initial impact instantly, is.......? I mean, the fuel explosion was very powerful, if what you are insinuating is to be believed, then surly that a loan was enough to bring the towers down?

If it was wired correctly, then with just half the floor ablaze (as can clearly be seen in videos and photos) you can detonate the rest of the explosives at a later time for maximum effect.

Why detonate them so early?, simple, so you can have at least 1 hour of. two 110 story buildings, burning on screen for a good length of time, then blow one, and leave the other, its a master piece of propaganda in the making.

Kingdom,

I\'m not talking about falling speeds, nore am I talking about the time it took to place the explosives.

I\'m talking about how the explosives could have survived the fires, and you have no way of answering that because *there is no answer*. The only \"explosive\" that could have survived the fires is thermite, and the only thing that can ignite thermite is a 1300oC temperature. If the towers had reached those temperatures at the time of impact the thermite would have done it\'s job at the time, not 1 hour later. And if didn\'t react, then the magnesium or the blastic cap that ignites it would have, which comes to the same thing.

I don\'t see how this is unscientific. Oh wait, I can see. Because you can\'t answer it on your own, it must not be possible or I must be wrong, is that it? If you cannot answer this question, the CD theory has lost.

Well, honestly I see that the planes (at least the north tower one) went straight trough the core and out the other side, so it would have initially affected everything on those floors, not just half of it.

As far as my evidence of a total collapse due to a few cutter charges... It\'s precisely the same as the evidence for a controlled demolition being explained by a few squibbs.

Let me just put you on the spot... and make you look stupid because you wouldn't shut up... hey, bud you asked for it... so here it IS!

Plane hits building... okay... some of the explosives don't "survive" so what happens to them? They explode? Oh shit man... sounds like they did their job to me... now the remaining explosives are detonated... and voila, all of the explosives have done their job. i.e. EXPLODED! If they didn't explode... than what happened to these explosives that didn't "survive?"

A building doesn't come down after a couple explosives go off... go watch some CD videos... lots of explosions go off, before you see any movement or signs of collapse on the outside of the building.

Shit man... what just happened... did I own you or what? Let me guess yer a programmer... who specializes in .js - WOW, I'm like psychic!

er... i think you missed the point of the total collapse thing i was getting at,

You stated that even if ONE thermite cutter charge had gone off during the initial impact, then the there would have been complete structural failure?

I asked you were your evidence was?

As far as i have seen, only parts of the first aircraft, made it all the way through, the rest of it, are lodged in the building's central core, (that's the part that held over 60% of the total structural weight)

From what i have gathered so far, regardless of how and if cutter charges were used, no one on the "i believe the official story" can account for TOTAL structural failure,

And why if it truly was a pancake effect, why we do not see a 10 to 30 story structure of pure collapsed floors upon one another?

No one on the official story bench wants to address the issue of why we don't see the top of world trade center tower 2, topple all the way over, instead we see, it start to lean and then just change direction of travel and then, fall strait down?

I would like you to explain to me, how the central core collapsed to the ground?

I guarantee this guy runs away now that I am making him eat his own words... he doesn't have an answer... so he will now proceed to avoid the issue in which he brought up and I have answered... then state a complete lie... like I haven't answered it... say we're wasting his time... and then leave... watch!

probably,

I would still like him to give his hypothesis on why the central core had a total collapse, In both buildings.

So i hope he doesnt leave just yet.

1. Some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel.

2. Explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation.

3. Both aircraft flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings. Is that simply a coincidence or were the computer rooms equipped to play a role in the crime? Were there ILS homing devices, for example, in these rooms that guided the planes to their targets? If so, the charges would have been arranged so as to avoid these regions. Assuming that the jetliners were being flown by autopilot at the times of their impacts, the ILS navigation systems could have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet. More on this can be found here:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

4. It is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts' voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.

My God, youre full of yourself. Ignorance and ego is a defestating combination.

Its too bad the JFER\'ers handed your ass to you in a sack before you left...your panties were in such a bunch that most wanted you to stay and watch you implode.

Ok smart guy, let\'s see you explain this.

If there were cutter charges on all of the columnts (which would account for \"all the resistance being pulled out from under the falling tower\" that you claim is necessary for free fall),

How come the north tower, with a full floor a complete blazing inferno (as per hundreds of pictures taken as visual evidence) did not collapse right then an there, instead waiting for over an hour? I\'m not talking about random charges on one floor here, I\'m talking about a whole set of \'em, on all floors the plane hit, all of them would have detonated and make the towers fall at the time of impact.

As far as explaining why the central column didn\'t remain standing... I think you\'re still living in \'02 my friend, the pancake theory is long gone. The fact that the towers were meant to be hollow except for the central core and the exterior columns means that the building could never have reacted like the previous \"no steel high rise has ever collapsed before\".

Let\'s play the analogy game. Let\'s say you\'re able to hold a 50lb weight over your head, with both arms extended. You have no problem carying that weight like that. You\'re structurally sound.

Now let\'s say someone takes a 50lb weight and drops it on your extended arms from about 4 feet high. Do you think your arms would be able to simply block the weight over your head without any sort of problem? No, the weight would continue it\'s fall, folding your elbows and hitting you in the head (possibly breaking your neck in the process).

This is the same thing that happened in the towers. It\'s all fun and games to say that the 47 core columns did their job and handled the weight under normal circumstances, but the fact is, when those 30+ floors started going down, there was nothin\' stopping \'em. They went down 6 feet, hit the next floor, which couldn\'t hold the weight + the inertia. That then created 31+ floors that went down another 6 feet, then 32+ floors, then 33+ floors... All picking up speed as they went down, as well as inertia and weight.

It didn\'t require charges all over the place. It just required a single collapse point, and gravity and inertia did the rest. Kapitch?

If it fell as you describe, then it would have lost speed, not gained speed. as it encountered each floor.

I'm sure my arms might give way, but my feet, my foundations wouldn't, you still haven't given any real evidence to explain why the central core, had a total collaps, I'm not talking 90 floors here, I'm on about 108 floors, of total central core collapse.

Once the main lot falls, if it did indeed fall as you discribe, then it would "squash" or "flatten" the bottom floors, as they hit the foundations. and we would see this in the photo evidence, yet we do not.

The analogy is, like all, flawed. Why? Because you\'re not square, and you\'re not equal on all levels. Your torso would of course hold the weight, as well as your feet, especially if planted appart.

But in the case of the towers, there\'s nothing different between the floors other than what\'s on them, so there\'s no reason to believe that the bottom 10 floors would behave differently from the top 10.

I\'m wondering why you think it would \"flatten\" the bottom floors instead of just pulverizing them like all the other ones.

And about accelerating... Remember it\'s not just the top 30 floors that are going down and encountering resistance. Every floor that follows adds to the weight, the inertia, and the speed.

I\'d gladly ask you for a mathematical model of the theory, but you don\'t have one, and neither do I. It comes down to who you believe - Dylan & Co, or NIST and Co.

But back to the OT... I have yet to see an answer as to what kind of explosives, their detonatores, and wiring, could survive the floor-wide infernal fires that blazed on both towers, especially the north one.

Additionally, if there were explosives in the whole length of the building, what happened to the wiring, explosives and detonation caps in the top floors? They couldn\'t have detonated, because their wiring would have been instantly cut by the start of the collapse, so why wasn\'t the wiring, explosives, and detonation caps found at ground zero?

The analogy is, like all, flawed. Why? Because you\'re not square, and you\'re not equal on all levels. Your torso would of course hold the weight, as well as your feet, especially if planted appart.

But in the case of the towers, there\'s nothing different between the floors other than what\'s on them, so there\'s no reason to believe that the bottom 10 floors would behave differently from the top 10.

I\'m wondering why you think it would \"flatten\" the bottom floors instead of just pulverizing them like all the other ones.

With the central core at its strongest at the bottom of the building, if nothing else, it would of looked like one mass of twisted square H and box beams. instead we have nothing but pulverised metal and dust. for it to completely collapse in the fashion you describe, all of the weld joints that held the central core columns to one another, would have to give way, even at its strongest points. i aways love the way people think these buildings where built with no thought to strength in mind.

And about accelerating... Remember it\'s not just the top 30 floors that are going down and encountering resistance. Every floor that follows adds to the weight, the inertia, and the speed.

What i think you meant to say was, every floor that follows adds to the resistance that is encountered, as it has to smash its way down through all of the high tensile steel bolts that hold the floors in place. Also another miss conception, is that you have a complete ridged floor system almost like a washer, one solid unit that encompassed the central core, it was made from individual floor trusses, and would of had a uneven decent at best, instead it just pealed like a banana and some how took the core with it?

I\'d gladly ask you for a mathematical model of the theory, but you don\'t have one, and neither do I. It comes down to who you believe - Dylan & Co, or NIST and Co.

I believe neither, both have points to and against the cause, I believe my own eyes, and ears, i tend to sway more towards the "inside job" than the "official story" because there is more evidence for it.

But back to the OT... I have yet to see an answer as to what kind of explosives, their detonator's, and wiring, could survive the floor-wide infernal fires that blazed on both towers, especially the north one.

I would like to see this "floor wide" photo, as I have only seen a "half floor wide" shot (viewed side on it covers one side of the trade center and just for a single floor, ill come back to this later), and I have over 5000 pictures of the WTC from that day.

Additionally, if there were explosives in the whole length of the building, what happened to the wiring, explosives and detonation caps in the top floors? They couldn\'t have detonated, because their wiring would have been instantly cut by the start of the collapse, so why wasn\'t the wiring, explosives, and detonation caps found at ground zero?

Why are you assuming that you would need to plant so many explosives? what would be the point? anyone who has researched the construction of the world trade center knows, that the strongest parts of that building are,

1. The central core [lower section, including foundations where the building was set into the bedrock]
2. The perimeter wall.
3. The 3 sky lobbies [built as 3 separate building's on-top of one another



here you can see the sky lobbies, sorry but they don't seem to be weak enough to let the tops "accelerate" to me.



Here we can see the inner core, and its complex construction, not as weak as everyone makes out, it not only supported 60% of the structural load, it had to cope with the force of high wind speeds and stresses from nature.



This is the only picture that comes close to showing a "raging inferno", I have to dig out the isometric view with the same "raging inferno" in, ill up date once I've scoured my photo collection.

*edit*, found it.

Here we see the back shot of the WTC south tower, as you can see, the raging inferno stops after the crash damage,



Next is a Isometric view showing the "raging inferno" and also the back of the building.



And here is a close up of workers near the core, please note the intricate design for maximum strength.

But once it smashes through that floor...you have to think about what happens to the material that made up the floor that was just smashed. This material joins the other falling material, increasing the momentum even further before encountering the next floor. The further it fell, the more mass it had. (Like an avalanche)

Yes, the avalanche does seem to be a more plausible comparison, in the sense that the snow isn\'t stopped by other snow under it, but rather it accelerates, taking on more and more inertia and mass until it finally reaches bottom, where it stops only because it can\'t go downwards anymore.

Good one jakeb

Unfortunately, as much as that sounds like a nice idea in practice, in general it doesn't apply,

You do not take into account of friction, snow in a avalanche is of particle size, even thought the world trade center also ended up in particle size, if it was a uniformed collapse, it STILL would of encountered enough resistance, as it fell. to make make an effect on the falling matter.

Take the photo I've provided of the construction of the world trade center, At a guess, (will work it out later) the area covered by the central core, is about 35% of the total area. it is still the strongest part of the building, its not flat, but vertical beams, working on the same logic as you seem to apply, take a very large pole, and if you could balance on the top of it, but it couldn't support your weight, it would bend to the point of breaking, yet still maintain a large portion of its self, I cant see how something that's traveling Down the world trade center, can have much effect on something that would need a horizontal force for it to even move?.

And judging from the video's of the collapse, the outta walls, are falling away from the core, not towards it.

So taking common sense into the equation, anything that is falling away from the central core, is not effecting it. correct?

if its not effecting it, what is?

Yes, there are a lot of pieces falling outwards from the twins, but as long as a certain percentage of the floors continue downards instead of being ejected, you\'re still getting more and more weight added to it.

As far as your 45% goes, remember that the core columns aren\'t solid blocks (so your comparison with poles is as valid as our with avalanches), nore are they stuck together - they are an intricate network of empty columns, crisscrossed with smaller steel supports.

The strength of the towers was true as long as there wasn\'t tons of matter going down on each floor and hitting them.

I understand that the NIST report doesn\'t explain every floor\'s collapse, but in my opinion, the collapse initiation is enough to explain what happened next - Gravity.

Well, from this photo, i cant see any outta skin acting against the core, can you?

and it looks pretty intact too.

At this point the collapse is pretty much over, and any force acting against it would be coming from some where around the base, for this core to fail and fall strait down, (as can be seen from the videos) it would have to be severed at some of the strongest points in the structure, (the base, WTC core columns got thinner at the top and were stronger at the base, to support the loads)

Anything that is acting against it "structural" wise would have to produce a horizontal pressure of some great magnitude. far more than mere falling steel. as it would have to sever all 48 columns instantaniously for it to have total structural failure.
and even then, it would more than likely topple over rather than collapse strait down, unless that it has been pre-weakened, so that it acts more like melting chocolate

Admitedly, I\'ve never seen that particular photo, so I can\'t say I have anything to reply to that.

But of course, we can only assume that if a strutural engineer were to look at this... Who knows. I\'m just asking questions.

same here bud same here, its nice to ask questions,

Just been going through my research, forgot just how many unique photos i have, its taken me almost an hour to shift through them, and I've just reached photo 1531 :blink:

its good to debate with out people throwing insults around, but some rather fascinating ideas.

To be honest, err... I didn\'t even think that was possible. You know, with all the blue badges going around at JREF, I almost expected to get one.

Then again, I\'ll admit at least that I believed in the theories myself, for a few weeks... before I read the debunking stuff. Now I\'m more on the OCT side, but I\'m almost a LIHOP - I mean, I don\'t think the government knew exactly what was going on, but for sure they took advantage of the situation.

To me, there\'s no way it was a CD though, I\'m convinced that the NIST report is johnny on the spot. Same for WTC7, I\'ve seen the slideshow that gives away some of their findings, and it really looks logical to me.

And I\'ll laugh at anyone that tells me the WTC7 fires were minor. :P

Yes, of course they have designed explosive proof explosives :o
Black Boxes are not full of explosives, which tends to help them survive too.


If you had any idea how ILS works you would feel pretty embaressed about now.




If they had explosives in place, why fly aircraft into the towers? They could have just blown them up. Why make everything 100 x more difficult? I know why, they didn't.

Wibble, I'm just curious, where about's in the world do you come from?

Simple, if you just "blow" the building's up, people start asking "hay, how did they get them explosives in the buildings?"

Then they go all through the research like we have done anyway, Only to find out that

1. There were power downs leading up to 9/11
2. Bomb sniffing dogs where removed leading up to 9/11
3. A certain 99 year lease taken out on the WTC complex.
4. In said lease. that acts of terror was a major clause.
5. Thing's point to people in US power.


The aircraft are a smoke screen, litteraly. Its easier to say, "ooh the aircraft and subsequent fires brought the buildings down, anyone who thinks other wise, is a crack pot and needs his head examined"

Its also the reason why the pentagon was, so called targeted, Its to sell the idea that terrorist could mount such an attack.

True, if you just blow it up it\'s suspicious. But if you have random squibbs, if the main people involved keep slipping up, it\'s not? I don\'t believe Silverstein is stupid enough not to realize that was he said on TV could be a dead giveaway, and he probably didn\'t realize the extend of the misinterpretation until he heard about the stupid accusations people are throwing at him indirectly.

About the bomb-sniffing dogs... That point is moot. First, there were dogs before and after the two weeks of extra security... Check the following statement:

Statement from David W. Lim, a PAPD K-9 officer working at WTC2 on Sept 11th 2001.

Additionally, the dogs might not have been trained to detect the specific explosives used in the towers (especially if they were military-grade, or just thermite). So it\'s kinda of useless to mention them, whether they were there or not.

I\'m still wondering if anyone has a solid answer to my original question - which, independant of anything else you could show me, is still the theory-breaker that makes or breaks the whole idea.

How many power downs? For how long?

EXTRA security that was in place due to a bomb threat weeks before was returned to normal security levels.

There were still bomb-sniffing dogs & their officers stationed at the towers, including on Sept 11. SOURCE

While these things may seem suspicious, they are not evidence of an inside job.

What things?

So you believe that the only reason the planes were flown into the buildings was to mask the fact that they were laiden with explosives ready to go off?

I have to wonder how these explosives could withstand the heat of the fires for so long without either going off or being burned in such a way that they would be ineffective.

How many power downs? For how long?

I can no longer Answer this, as all official articles (IE: ones not covered by the truth movement) have dropped off the face of the Internet.

EXTRA security that was in place due to a bomb threat weeks before was returned to normal security levels.

Can you provide links to this bomb threat, as i can not find anything about it.

There were still bomb-sniffing dogs & their officers stationed at the towers, including on Sept 11. SOURCE

Anyone else to back up this story? Truthers post links to a lot of websites and news articles that Agree with my comments, I would like to see more than one person to account for this.

While these things may seem suspicious, they are not evidence of an inside job.

may be not, but still looks very suspicious

What things?

FEMA arriving on the night of September 10th, NORAD was doing drills of the same incident happening on the same day at the same time, to do with Aircraft hitting the pentagon and WTC.

So you believe that the only reason the planes were flown into the buildings was to mask the fact that they were laiden with explosives ready to go off?

In short, yes.

I have to wonder how these explosives could withstand the heat of the fires for so long without either going off or being burned in such a way that they would be ineffective.

Who claimed they did? But a few going off here and there, is hardly going to cause a chain reaction.

I do have my own questions and I still will not rule out any other possible out come. It may well be that the laws of physic's decided to not work correctly on that day, the Bush administration may not have had any involvement, my main purpose is to ask questions / seek answers and provide what i have seen,

A lot of people believe that you need Phds and Masters degrees, when in reality common sense and good knowledge of the basic principles of how things react with each other, is just as powerful a tool.

Why bother blowing up the towers at all. Seems an awfully big risk getting caught. Why not put large bombs on the planes so that it sheered the tops off... nice dramatic effect, lots of casualties, rest of the tower remaining as a constant reminder of the attack.

Wouldn't that be simpler, easier to execute, less likely to be found out?

why worry about small details like this?

we are not discussing "what they should have done" we are talking about "what we believe did happen",

No point worrying about why they did it in a certain fashion, but more importantly the motive behind it.

If that make sence lol

The exact opposite actually. You only have to watch a James Bond see that overly complicated plans always fail. Why would anybody make plan such as this? The manpower and resouces needed are beyond the scope of anybody on this planet. There are loads of way of acheiving the same effect without the risk of sometihng going wrong or exposure.


So it was either aliens or terrorists.

Basing your assumptions on a bond film is hard realistic though is it.

After all, in bond films, the major plot element is, that the bad guy tells the good guys what they plan to do.

Why does everyone dis believe that the "conspiracy theorists" based on the "it would take loads of man power to achieve this"

Yet quite happily settle for 19 hijackers and 1 wealthy millionaire in a cave.

Because it would. Read these boards objectively for a few days. See how many people are brought up as being paid off or in on it. You guys are saying ityourselves.

I read 1 thread stating all the news corps were in on it. People interviewed on tv on the day were in on it. That's before we even get into govt officials. People planting explosives. People hi-jacking/remotecontrolling planes. People removing people from the 'supposed' plane that landed at the airport.

Plus then there were the agents who removed all footage at the pentagon. Oh the pilot that shot down a plane. People planting evidence at the pentagon.

Almost forgot the coroner. The military pilot who saw the plane hit the pentagon. The people who planted the lightpoles at the pentagon. Popular Mechanics.

Oh and the people who made the fake calls to the loved ones from planes.

And everyone involved in NIST / FEMA.

That's just off the top of my head.

So no evidence of power downs then...

This is the account of an officer who worked in the towers with his dog daily. We have his full name, etc. Anyone else who worked security in the towers could probably validate this for you.

I love the analogy game!!

Okay, so a brick falling carries more momentum and force than a stationary one... we already know this and have agreed upon it. What you're analogy doesn't explain, however, is why that falling brick (falling preportionately to the distance travelled by the upper sections which fell on the lower sections) would completely smash the structure of a person's body instead of being slowed and then ceasing the motion of that falling body.

You have to prove that the force of the moving object was more than the stationary one could handle.

NO ONE HAS DONE THAT TO THIS DAY TO SHOW THAT COMPLETE COLLAPSE WAS INEVITABLE.

Here's my analogy from another thread...

did the material remain as a part of the flaling body? No, check out any video of the collapse... the debris falls to the sides, and no longer effects the structure.

check out this thread for more reasoning for this.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=3154