This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
Preface: Bill Black writes today that Wall Street apologists say that calling for prosecution of Wall Street fraud is like saying the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Now that Bin Laden has been confirmed to be dead, it has been established that Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11 (one of the main reasons for the Iraq war), and Iran
has been accused of having a hand in 9/11 - potentially forming the
basis for a war against Iran - it is time to revisit some important,
unanswered questions.
This essay does not argue that bombs brought down the Twin Towers or World Trade Building 7, even though many top structural engineers believe that is what happened, and people could easily have planted bombs in the trade centers without anyone noticing and without the conspiracy being discovered.
It simply addresses the frequent argument that fires caused the metal
to sag, which brought down the 3 buildings, and that the case is closed.
The Fires at the World Trade Centers Were NOT Very Hot
The
government agency in charge of the investigation of why three buildings
collapsed on 9/11 - the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) - says that paint tests indicated low steel temperatures -- 480 Fahrenheit -- "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire". NIST also said that microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values of 600 Celsius (1112 degrees Fahrenheit) for any significant time.
Numerous top fire protection engineers have said that the fires in the World Trade Centers were not that hot. For example:
- A
mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States
(Edward S. Munyak) says that the fires weren't big enough to bring down
Building 7:
- The
former head of NIST's Fire Science Division, who is
one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and
safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
(Dr. James Quintiere), called
for an independent review of the World Trade Center
collapse investigation. "I would really like
to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both
structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I
think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at
[that fire and damage from the attacks brought down the buildings] is
questionable.
In addition, Thomas Eager, a
Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a
defender of the official story, concluded
that the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 800 Celsius
(1472 degrees Fahrenheit). Eager pointed out that, contrary to popular
belief, jet fuel from the planes did not increase the temperature of the fires.
Structural engineer Antonio Artha notes:
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings.
Structural engineer Graham John Inman points out:
The fire on this building [World Trade Building 7] was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
Thermal
images also suggest that the temperature of the steel in the north
tower at the time of the fire was not much more than 250 degrees Fahrenheit (and see this).
The Argument Evaporates Upon Inspection
Defenders
of the "official" version of 9/11 say, in rebuttal, that the fires
didn't have to be that hot, because - while not hot enough to melt steel - they were hot enough to cause the metal to sag.
It
is irrelevant (and beyond the scope of this post) whether or not their
argument is correct. Specifically, since even defenders of official
story admit that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, then it is
impossible to explain the huge quantify of molten steel which was
observed under Ground Zero for months after the attacks (see next
section, below).
Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was EVAPORATED. Specifically, as the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A
combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might
have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But
that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
It is simply impossible that fires from jet fuels and office materials could do that.
Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for MONTHS After Attacks
There was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
- An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
- An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
- According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One
fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the
towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but
the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in
mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part
would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order
of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of
concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about
300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk
of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."
- A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
- Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There
are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories
underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond
a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about
it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for
about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its
regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything
from molten steel beams to human remains...."
- New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."
- 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."
- A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"
- See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.
The
fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after
9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of
gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
The
spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply
the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of
water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
Moreover, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.
It was not the collapses which caused steel to melt. Specifically, a professor emeritus of physics has proven that the collapses themselves could not have melted steel. And Brent Blanchard - a recognized expert in controlled demolition - stated in a telephone interview with physicist Steven Jonesv that he has witnessed hundreds of controlled demolitions, but has never seen molten metal at any of the demolition sites.
So how does NIST explain the molten metal? It denies its existence:
»
- advertisements -
Ever...
http://www.zerohedge.com/users/plumplechook
Is it just me or is he one seriously disheartened troll. I don't mind that he's a troll. Someone has to do it.
I just hate to see him/her so depressed all the time. Have you thought of another line of work, plump? Is it all this phony birth certificate stuff wearing you down, getting under your skin? I know it has to be wearing on people in the White House and they have to feel like their days are numbered. I know the president is flustered. Totally messed up his toast to the Queen...
and did you see the date he wrote on the guestbook at Westminster Abbey today? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-signs-wrong-year-in-the-guestbook-at-westminster-abbey/2011/05/24/AFxUKbAH_blog.html?wprss=44
I hate to tell you it is only going to get worse. Have you thought about seeking counseling? Seriously?
chuckle
This is a copy and paste from your comments the other day. A lazy troll, too?
May I say that your tone is quite subdued and somewhat hesitant, as though you're reading from a script that somehow offends you. Your affect is flat and unanimated, as one would expect an exasperated person trying to relay the truth to others to be vehement in their pronuncuations and use of words and images. Your words, however, reveal that you don't even believe what you say yourself and give the impression that you are somewhat depressed at having to say these things.
Why is that?
yeah you sound legit
bonafide troll
ministry of propaganda needs an early warning system for the troll army.
Everyone's showing up late!!!
Go to the 22 minute mark of this eyewitness video from the Pentagon where two professional law enforcement officers are interviewed separately and have the same exact story.
http://tradewithdave.com/?p=4612
Dave Harrison
www.tradewithdave.com
How about this: Who has made a boatfuckload of money in the last 9.5 years ? Oil Dealers (like Drug) and War Profiteers. They did not directly destroy the Towers or blow open the Pentagon but they jumped on the opportunity and love all the idiots that blame the government because it detracts from the truth: the country is reeling like a sick pig from the rape of the last decade by these organizations. War and Oil go together and it has destroyed the country. When Cheney started his presidency (with Bush the savant), debt was $5 trillion. He handed it off to Obama at $11+ trillion, with a trillion or five going to the Oil and War monger shylocks... Obama and crew are like an ice trucker who looks over in a storm and sees his trailer sliding parallel to his cab. Only one option: go faster, or in real life bring the concept of the Ponzi scheme to a galactic level... fuck us all for letting it happen...
Yea, sure, keep talking about how the Towers were rigged for bombing.... its exactly the idiocy the world's top Magicians depend on...
The main event here involves physics, chemistry, and uncivil engineering. Your comment is a bit lacking in all these departments.
It involves none of those things. The majority of the "evidence" presented in GW's post is first-person statements given by eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are the least reliable form of evidence.
You don't hang around many trials and courtrooms do you. If I present one witness who said they heard an explosion and nothing else, the jury may balk. If I present fifty witnesses, ranging from firemen, policemen, and people out on the street who heard explosions, show photographs and video footage, compare that to demolitions, then I present a confession by the building owner and a range of respected experts, my odds of convincing a jury that the building was blown up...goes up
pathetic
and wtc7 was just obviously demolished by taking
out the support structure from the bottom. imploded.
syncronized and the mechanisms certainly appear to have
been in place before 9:00 am on 9/11/2001.
the work of psychopathic criminals in high places.
nothing new, eh. insurance lightening with a global
resource, geopolitical and financial crime twist.
the word collapse and the word demolition are
not really accurate with regards wtc1 and wtc2.
pulverized in place, or vaporized and dismembered
perhaps? the right word in this case is important.
if we continue to use the wrong one we will never
have it make any sense or learn the cause. as one
video pointed out, it is important to first know what
happened before you can explain how it happened.
so, in this case the amount of airborne material produced
points to one mechanism and that driving energetic force
is not gravity. i think that is clear from just the
photographic evidence which was carelessly not destroyed
by the psychopathic criminals who did this.
there is or should be a simple calculation that could be made
from photographic evidence that evaluates the amount of
airborne material manifesting from a collapse verses from
an intentional pulverization/vaporization of a structure
using high temperature explosives. this is probably going
to become a textbook example of this idea, some time in the future
maybe.
some things the eye can just see and know if the mind doesn't
get funky.
.
and the universe seems to give us the clues we need to
see things for what they are. 1. dsk, the imf and the
relationship with working, productive and service people
and industries. and of course the attitude toward women.
2. 9/11 pyroclastic cloud and icelandic volcanoes.
clues here. points of ejected pyroclastic material,
a thousand points of .... light
A Salute to Cog Dis, George W., but especially to Tyler D. @ ZH for this thread and others like it that get to the core of treason and murder.
Bloggers with Balls!
Someone needs to explain WHY the planes were even necessary if the plan was to simply blow up the WTC with explosives. What was the purpose of making the plan orders of magnitude more complex by hijacking 4 planes unnecessarily?
planes imply collapse (illusion).
cover for explosive pulverization.
different mechanisms of destruction.
different energy source.
different cause with a similar but different
effect. can we identify the difference?
also, the difference in cause implies or demands
a different identity of agent associated with the
different cause.
the effect, undifferentiated, then used wrongly as
a cause for an inappropriate response and they
got that wrong too. no matter, off to war it was.
this is the process of the psychopath, nothing
makes sense, really. so long as we all conform
to the authority of the most simple, nonsensical
narrative we sleep well.
Initially, the main post does not argue controlled demolition. It only debunks the "not hot enough to melt, no problem" argument.
If it was controlled demolition (which the main post is not saying), then read this:
Governments From Around the World ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag TerrorAnd then this:
Planes alone would not have scared the American people to the point where we would have relinquished -- for the sake of security -- traditional American ideals of fighting only defensive wars and of having broad personal freedoms (we weren't necessarily following these ideals; but Americans at least believed in them). The war in Iraq and the wholesale suspension of personal liberties -- through the Patriot Acts and secret executive orders -- could not have happened without the "shock and awe" of the collapse of the Twin Towers.
We've all seen images of plane crashes before. While planes crashing into the Twin Towers would have been horrible, that wouldn't have been traumatic enough to cause us to blindly follow power-hungry leaders with an insane agenda spouting obvious lies. Indeed, "only" a few hundred people, at most, would have died from the plane crashes -- a tragedy, but not enough to shake us to the point where we would totally abandon our idea of what it means to be American. Without the trauma of the collapse of the towers, could the vote fraud, WMD hoax, war in Iraq (and perhaps Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), torture, suspension of legal due process, and patriot acts all have happened within a few short years?
But the collapse of the two tallest buildings in New York, symbols of American business, and the death of close to 3,000 Americans, put us into a state of shock. The controlled demolition of the towers was necessary to instill the degree of fear and confusion required to successfully implement the objectives laid out by Brzezinski in the book "The Grand Chessgame", in the writings of the Project for a New American Century, and in the minds of the other wannabe-conquerors of the Middle East and the larger world.
Modern Americans are jaded by Hollywood special effects, where even everyday TV shows include visually-dazzling images. The original Pearl Harbor may have worked on our grandparents' radio-listening generation using only planes (it is now well-documented that we knew of the Japanese plan of attack, but let it happen in order to justify America's entry into the war). But the "New Pearl Harbor" -- 9/11 -- had to be much more spectacular, and inflict not only tremendous loss of life but also spectacular damage in order to sufficiently terrorize entertainment-overloaded and visually-jaded Americans.
Indeed, an expert on controlled demolition stated:
Now as to your question about planes, IF there was controlled demolition (if), it is the combination of planes plus falling towers which scared the American people into giving up all of their constitutional rights and allowing perpetual war for the military-industrial complex ...
So, your argument is: George Bush takes office in 2001 and decides to immediately begin planning a false-flag operation to blow up the WTC towers. However, destroying the two largest skyscrapers in NYC with explosives just wouldn't be enough to scare the American public into giving up their rights.
So, in addition to rigging the towers to explode, he makes the plan (and coverup) several orders of magnitude more complex by adding in 4 plane hijackings. And the demolition of WTC 7. And shooting a cruise missile into the Pentagon. And disappearing all of the passengers of flight 97. And shooting down flight 93.
And all of the people involved in this have either been killed or kept silent.
PNAC
This country has one shadow government with two public relations arms to distract the people into believing that they have a say in anything. The real "leaders" of this country have minimal name recognition and that is how they want it. By bringing up "administrations," you are just throwing in bullshit to baffle the crowd. The puppet masters made a smooth transition from Bubba to W. to Obama. The only difference between Bush and Obama besides their complexions is that Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. Dr. Turkey Buzzard, Ph.D.
Where did GW mention George Bush planning anything? And what makes you think any planning by the government, military or private parties couldn't start until Bush took office? One look at Bush's face in that classroom while the attack on the WTC was taking place is enough to convince me Bush was a sock puppet who was, and continued to be, managed. He was lucky to get his underwear on correctly each morning.
Obviously, all of this had been planned well in advance. The great conspiracy really began with W's grandfather, so it is no surprise that they would just keep on rolling.
Have a look and a listen to these tapes and you can see how things just keep on rolling along even now. There is no way Obama could have planned all of this, either.
It is well worth the time. Believe me.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/plot-thickens-debt-collector-obamas.html
since ray gun they are all actors and they know it.
now we know it.
Dr. Cordell, you Overly Persistent Disinfo Shill, take a breath. Your line of questioning is very revealing.
The planes were a diversion to distract from the real cause of the collapse. GW Bush did not plan this himself, you child. The Pentagon was attacked to destroy evidence being held and examined by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) in regards to financial crimes perpetrated in September 1991. The silence has been facilitated by the use of covert operatives, some of whom may have been officially operating under a covert badge, and others who may have been "rogue", in which case they are being paid by someone with covert clearance. It is also possible that individuals who aided in perpetrating the attacks were killed during the attacks. i.e. who were the people on the flights? were they the people who had rigged the buildings? etc
I don't even know why I am explaining this to an Official Overly Persistent Disinfo Shill. If you are a genuinely curious observer, read this and come back after you have your silly and distracting questions ready:
This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.
After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55864493/Unicorns-and-Glitter
My point is this. To understand any conspiracy, you need to first examine what the end goals are. A persistent state of war and redistribution of wealth upwards were clearly goals of the Bush administration. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The fact that the Bush administration used 9/11 to persue their NeoCon wet dream is not evidence of a conspiracy. Correlation does not equal causality.
And the hypothesis that destroying the WTC would somehow "erase" financial transactions is laughable. Offsite data redundency was universal in 2001. If the CIA needed to destroy data, they would send in hackers or a covert team to sabotage a data center. Concocting one the most elaborate conspiracies in history to accomplish the same goal is nonsensical.
if it is a 'conspiracy'
.
the .gov did not attack the US... it was the facist globalist police state
.
turn that frown upside down homes
My point is this: you are a troll and a little bitch. My hypothesis is why fight what you are?
look at all the trees!
where is the forest?
Someone needs to explain WHY the planes were even necessary if the plan was to simply blow up the WTC with explosives. What was the purpose of making the plan orders of magnitude more complex by hijacking 4 planes unnecessarily?
Zerohedge, and GW, I love you guys for not letting this issue die. From reading the posts too, I get the impression that a great number of ZH readers are educated on the subject which is inspiring. Thanks so much!!!
Hey George, what do you make of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS3uuoWt1uI
He better check out www.vigilantcitizen.com as well.
Also, "Operation Geronimo" is the OBL kill mission, no? Geronimo evaded capture for so long and all. Well, not to get too kooky, but National Public Radio covered some kooky stuff involving Geronimo's skull...
Yes
Has anyone checked whether there were any strange military ships off the coast of Perth, Australia?
Looking at the videos, I would say that the towers fell due to an intense and localised increase in gravity. A ship on the other side of the world could use a focused gravity laser - pointing straight downwards and use the core of the earth as a gravitational "lense". Any building on the other side of the world would experience a huge apparent increase in its mass.
The aircraft were most likely attracted to the towers due to this graviton beam.
Molten metal? That would be the iron in a mild state of nuclear fusion. Iron atoms will fuse with lighter atoms (such as deuterium - which was stored in tower 7) and melt in the process.
The pentagon was hit with a nickel-iron meteor that was overflying New York at the time of the collapse and was pulled off course by the same beam that caused the WTC chaos.
Well, why not?
Controlled Demolition,...You fucking idiots!
Jezus H Crimny. From a structural engineer who has worked on Several Vegas high rises, Sports stadiums, High-Profile museums etc.
First things first...FIRE Does Not = Melt Steel, Fire = HOT Steel. Steel Indeed CAn Sag if heated past that particular Grade of Steel's Modulus of Elasticity given the current Loads on that Steel. Somewhere between 650-850 deg the WTC Steel would have BEGUN to deform. Not break, not fail, Begun to deform. It would be up to the Connections at BOTH ends of the steel joists/trusses to hold the joist/truss in place.
Second: STOP STOP STOP talking about how every Joist or Truss or BEAM in WTC would have needed to fail for the building to fall at near free-fall. The friggin Beams Dont Hold up a building, THE COLUMNS DO!!!!! Focus on the columns and what you will discover is that its virtually impossible for all 83 structural steel columns to have failed simultaneously (buckled to the side) while simultaneously failing the braced-bays that connected the center of the building, and 2 exterior sides. NOT POSSIBLE. - The Columns were failed all at the exact same moment, even though the building was on the order of 300-ft per each of its 4 sides. No Way in Hell Column 1 failed, and a column on the opposing corner decided to fail at the exact same time, as well as all 81 other columns AND the extremely rigid braced bays.
Third: The WTC twin towers INDEED used "Composite" joist/trusses between the Core and the exterior structural steel skeleton. These joists trusses ABSOLUTELY were designed to transfer high loads between the exterior sheel and the interior core because the damned towers were designed for 100+mph winds and allowed the building to sway 15+ ft in both directions. The ONLY way for the entire building to sway is for the exterior shell to TRANSFER the wind loads to the interior core, via the floor system. Period. It is thus UNLIKELY that the floor joists/trusses were simply "sitting" on grvity bearing plates, and were most likely attached with moment and/or double clip-angle welded or bolted connections. There isnt a snowballs chance in hell that workers put up 110 stories of steel with slip-seat connections. Again, rather than focusing on how the floors could "pancake" (which is absolutely possible), one needs to focus on exactly how and why did the 6 or 8 (this is up for debate) Mega-Columns made from 14 to 20-inch thick steel at the base, and 3 to 6-inch thick steel near the top All FAIL Simultaneously. ? The Core of the building was a structure unto itself...far more strong that the Stratosphere or the Toronto Towers both of which are taller. In other words, the damned core need not have the floors in order to stand. Ditto for the shell, it ranged from 12-in at the base to 2" at the top. The floors could have pancaked to the bottom with minimal damage to the core or shell...
Fourth: As for the molten steel, it was widely reported on thru early 2002, when abruptly the press stopped. Thus we know it existed, there IS evidence. There is however a non-conpiratorial possible explanation for molten steel for such a long if during the collapse, and it has to do with the lime in the drywall, and the aluminum cladding on the exterior of the buildings. It is remotely possible that dureing the collapse, when the concrete, wires, walls, and exterior facade was literally being pulverized, that they fell, along with combustible materials and unburned jet fuel into the basements. The drywall plastics and carpets provide oxygen in chemical form, and aluminum is highly reactive in certain environments. The pulverized chemical mixture could have produced a sort of thermite underground. Or there could have been a few dozen truck loads of the stuff under the basement all along.
Seriously, I'd like dated photographic evidence here. I don't know of anything that could cause that much heat days, and certainly not weeks, after the attack. You'd have to have a nuclear power source in the building that melted down to get that effect. If that were true, the radiation would still be detectable.
So until I see some verifiable, dated pix of molten metal at the site, I'm suspicious.
Watch the videos linked in the main post ...
Where the entire conspiracy falls apart is in the implementation. The Bush administration was one of the most incompetent in US history, yet they were able to flawlessly execute a conspiracy that would necessarily involve dozens (if not hundreds) of people? Who is keeping all of the workers who were pre-evacuated out of the emergency bunker in WTC7 quiet? What about the men who placed and detonated all of the explosive charges throughout WTC towers 1 and 2? The simplest solution is most often the correct one. The entire attack being orchestrated by the CIA using terrorists that don't know they are following US orders is much more plausible. Even more plausible is the Bush administration simply seizing 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq for profit. But Bush managing to have explosives planted in 3 skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan to coordinate the explosion of the buildings with impacts from highjacked passenger airplanes is rather farcical.
Incompetent? They implemented perpetual war and a redistribution of wealth upwards. They succeeded. (And Obama has continued the same policies.)
What are you talking about, sir?
In order to accomplish permanent war and the redistribution of wealth, George Bush orchestrated the most complex conspiracy theory in history. Just a few months after taking office. Right.
Explain to me why the 9/11 conspiracy is even necessary to accomplish these goals. Why not simply blow up all 4 planes using explosives? Why not simply blow up the WTC with the planted explosives and call it a redux of the 1993 WTC bombing?
Why make the plan massively more complicated than it needs to be? Why bother having the planes hijacked at all if the eventual goal is to use explosives to level the building? If you are going to try and convince anyone that you're something more than a crackpot, start answering those questions.
Dr. C - what evidence do you have that this was only planned after getting into office? the Project for a New American Century was formed in 1997. Do you really think leaders don't start planning things until AFTER they get into office? Our history books and common sense say otherwise.
How long have George and Dick's family been on the inside? Last time I checked, George's Dad ran the CIA. I'm pretty sure he knows a few tricks. George's granddad helped out Adolph. George's brother was head of security for the towers.
How quickly did Dick have those still secret meetings with oil executives? In that one document that was released, what did that map show? What structural and, more important, oversight changes did Dick make over the intelligence agencies once he got in? How quickly did the 1000 page plus Patriot Act come off the printing press? How did they do that so fast?
Of course, if these are your only arguments, they clearly ignore the overwhelming amount of physical, witness, and circumstanital eveidence that has been presented here and in many other places. All those firemen who heard massive multiple explosions. Are they liars? Do they have hearing defects? Are they conspiratorial nutjobs?
I guess we could turn your own logic against you. How have the truthers been able to coordinate such a large conspiracy and make so many witnesses, expert and otherwise, come out and question? How about the many large structure architects who have spoken out? What is your diagnosis for them? You are pointing the finger but you are avoiding all the questions posed to you...
Ignore this guy, "Dr Cordell". He's not serious. If he's really a Dr, he's just highlighting the sad state of our professional education in this country in which a reasonably intelligent human must sell their soul and fork their tongu to prove that they have been effectively brainwashed by the establishment in order to receive appoval for their "Thesis". GW has already exposed this jackass for attempting to pass multiple forms of disinfo on this very thread. Or, he's just got his head buried way up his ass, which can be forgiven since he's certainly not alone in that regard.
Nicely said. I can’t believe that George actually called him ‘sir’. But then, George is a good dude.
Keep in mind, however, that the cat behind the Dr. Cordell ID may be alone in this regard tonight. Most of us are well-aware of that government software that enables a person to post under multiple ID’s at the same time. You know, because our government cares about us, right? ;-)
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I don’t really care whether you are a government employee or not. Most people in government are good, decent people who have been fed lies like we all have, just trying to make it in this world.
If you are a government employee – or to any government employee who tries to subvert the truth while we still have a free internet – I hope to God you don’t have kids. You are supporting a system that is going to fuck you/your offspring in the end. You are making a bad choice.
Nothing I have said yet – or will say on this site – is anything I haven’t said offline. Peace out.
Makin’ our way in the world today takes everything we got. And, yes, 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD8ljNobUys
2001, I lived in New York. Right across the river, on the waterfront in Brooklyn.
It's called Dumbo now, but back then it was transitioning from the Mafia stronghold it had been for decades. It was home to smelly recycling 'facilities', restaurant equipment factories, art studios and rubbish removal businesses. When Mayor Giuliani cleaned up the commercial rubbish haulers by requiring operators without criminal records, Dumbo was made safe for yuppies.
The yuppie nightmare was more or less in the future, in 2001 the WTC was to some degree my living room. It was right across the Brooklyn Bridge; had plenty of trains, big newsstands, banks, and special events. The WTC was not heavily built, not like other large buildings in NYC. The steel columns and spandrels in older structures such as the Met Life or Chrysler buildings were massively over- engineered. Columns were clad in fireproof terra- cotta blocks or buried in reinforced concrete. A tradition of building business corruption and mafia influence required material specifications far in excess of what actual loads would suggest.
Rising material costs (inflation) rendered the 'overdo' approach obsolete when the WTC was being built. The towers were not strong buildings, but were designed to maximize leasable floor area. Keep in mind, the more floors in a structure, the more elevators are required. Too many floors and too many folks on each floor and the elevator shafts gobble up most of the floor space in the lower floors.
The structure was compromised. The load-bearing structures were in the core -- 47 columns -- and the palisade of 236 columns at the perimeter. The WTC towers were the first large structures designed as a form of free- standing, self supporting tubes- within tubes. The primary load factor to be considered was wind loading. The floor spandrels and trusses were to transfer the loads to adjacent floors. The towers' strength was obtained the same way a mailing tube is strong: distributing loads along the entire outside of the tube.
Each floor contained appx 44,000 sq ft. about an acre. Except for the core which contained service areas, stairs and elevator shafts, the tower floors were open- free of columns.
The top third of the building the support columns were thinner and lighter than columns would have been in a 37 story building on the ground. This reduced weight and allowed smaller columns in the lower floors. Instead of a grid of massive components, engineers specified multiple grades of steel. The joist system -- the beams that extended from the core columns to the perimeter palisade -- were welded wire trusses prefabricated with the galvanized sheet- metal pans needed to contain the concrete floor slabs. Go to a big- box store and look up. This was the kind of construction used @ the WTC towers.
It is very light-weight and relatively inexpensive compared to the old- school column/spandrel - post and lintel approach.
Bldg 7 had the conventional post and lintel grid of supports on 24' centers, however this grid was built upon large trusses cantilevered over a Con- Ed substation and backup generators w/ diesel fuel tanks used by the WTC complex. All the weight of Building 7 above the 8th floor was loaded onto these trusses and a small number of columns.
The twin towers were notable for their swaying in any kind of breeze, as much as 15 feet. People became sea- sick in offices in the upper floors.
Along with people, each floor was a fully- equipped office with desks, file cabinets, chairs, carpet, lights, papers and material finishes along with drywall partitions and acoustical tile ceilings. Each floor would have 200 desks (@ 200sq' per desk) along with office paraphenalia. Most office furniture @ turn of the millenium was made of particle board laminated with formica. The desks, formica, adhesives, plastic insulation and carpeting had the heat content of coal. 200 desks x 200lbs for each leaves a freight- car load of coal on each floor ... just for the desks.
As I noted after a previous GW post, the WTC was built when trades and material suppliers in NYC were in the grip of the Cosa Nostra. The concrete used in the towers and in bldg. 7 was not of a very good quality. It seems that the buildings were designed somewhat as 'disposable': to be demolished after 50 years or so. At the point of demolition, poor quality concrete would not be an issue.
As is noted in many different studies (and by post- collapse direct observation) there were no large pieces or 'pancake stack' of slabs.
It is also possible that critical steel was also substandard.
Defective and substandard material has been an ongoing problem w/ NYC construction: note substandard 'Boss Tweed' cable ordered for Brooklyn Bridge.
Personal observations from 9/11:
- Airliners did indeed strike the buildings (who were the pilots?)
- Fires were extraordinarily intense on multiple adjacent floors.
- Core damage was significant: no airplane emerged from the 'other side' of the buildings. Keep in mind that the large percentage of core loading was carried by just four columns.
- The cores received the full force of the airplanes which was transferred to a relatively small number of columns. Destroying all the core columns would not be required: only to damage the critical corners and compromise their grid alignment. The upper- floor cores collapsed first, then the rest of the buildings:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html
- Concrete failure would have had floors system pulling down exterior columns, which is visible in many videos.
- There was no series of explosions that would indicate demolition charges.
Building 7 had several large fires also fed by office furniture and contents. The failure of truss by warping and fastener failure doomed that building which also collapsed from the center.
Office contents along with alkali salts found in cement and other building materials would support intense underground fires: alkali salts are oxidizers; the contents in sub-basements would be soaked with unevaporated hydrocarbons (survivors noted jet fuel dumps into elevator shafts.)
I did not feel the authorities did a good engineering post-mortem, relying on models like economists. Valuable information was hurriedly cut into small pieces and barged into Chinese and Indian steel mills. I don't live in NYC any more and 9/11 has faded. The problem now is Fukushima. Steel is melting there, too.
Did the establishment run a 'false flag' operation? Who knows for sure, but the establishmment did know how to take advantage of the event that did take place.