This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
Good summary Steve. I would rather be junked than live in a fantasy conspiracy world.
The real cover-up is how so many government employees failed to do their jobs and put 1+1 together and stop the (mostly Saudi) terrorists. Clinton had the chance to order Bin Laden eliminated in 1998 and failed to act on misguided humanitarian grounds.
So much for the clandestine in the CIA busines...
Don't need crypto clearence to spot the bullshit.
Hacks.
Steve from Langley-
Great Story.
Economy of Words.... Might help to hide your spots.
8+ unjunks. I did delivery work in NYC from 1974 thru 1994. In an out of WTC many times. Gave me the impression of two giant cereal boxes. I've no doubt of a substantial Zionist conspiracy here....but the planes brought those buildings down. And Silverstein did not say "pull it". He said "pull 'em", referencing firefighters still in #7.
no no
he said he said he talked to the fire commander and they made a joint decision because they could not contain the fire "so we made a decision to pull it ...and we watched the building collapse"
review the tape again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Good job Steve. You'll be junked to kingdom-come by all the childish consipiracy nut-jobs who hang out here - but take it as a badge-of-honour. Not much tolerance here for grown-ups like yourself with intelligent, informed opinions.
Good job Plumplechook-
Glad you remembered to log out b4 congratulating yourself
this sounds like a pre-written piece that's been copy, pasted nd edited for this ZH post. Congratulations guys we are officially on the radar. "steve from vigirnia" is either incredibly stupid or incredibly well-paid for what he does.
Hi steve from virginia
What you just said is a pile of BS.
They were not under engineered.
Either the minor amount of jet fuel (5000 gallons) burned enough to weaken 10 by 15 foot structral steel colunms around the elevator shaft in which case it would have been used up(utterly impossible given the amount of fuel involved and the fact that kerosene burns under ideal conditions at 900 degrees fahrenheit, while steel only starts to weaken at 1100 degrees), and now you say the kerosene fell the the bottom of elevator shafts to create molten pools of steel.
My God how do you live with yourself coming up with this kind of clap trap.
You are obviously part of the criminal conspiracy to cover-up G.W. Bush's ordring and carry out 9-11.
What you just said is a pile of BS.
They were not under engineered.
Either the minor amount of jet fuel (5000 gallons) burned enough to weaken 10 by 15 foot structral steel colunms around the elevator shaft in which case it would have been used up(utterly impossible given the amount of fuel involvedand the fact that kerosene burn under ideal conditions at 900 degrees fahrenheit while steel only starts to weaken at 1100 degrees), and now you say it fell the the bottom of elevator shafts to create molten pools of steel.
My God how do you live with yourself coming up with this kind of clap trap.
You are obviously part of the criminal conspiracy to cover-up G.W. Bush's ordring and carry out 9-11.
I'm afraid that's all heresy on these here pages and you will be junked mightily and declared a buffoon by the more enlightened folks who have taken the red pill (or lots of them) and gone deep down the rabbit hole never to re-surface. Somebody will probably accuse you of working for Mossad in ten or less posts.
Is it so hard to believe that 19 arab terrorists got threw crappy security and flew a couple planes into buildings which caused them to fall down? What in human nature requires this silly conspiracy theories?
[Set down your koolaid and junk away]
NORAD, the Air Traffic Control System, and the Pentagon defense systems are "crappy?" Please explain.
George Washington You have my admiration for the courage to step on the third rail of what passes for USA journalism. And my regards to Tyler for permitting it. Always nice to see the faux patriots squeal. They are of the W., the Constitution is just a piece of paper, school of totalitarianism. Wish they could put together a meaningful rebuttal, beyond their Animal Farm, more equal than you, piggy grunts. Would make the thread more interesting. Haven't seen one that passes the smell test.
I second that. Further, I think your disinformation list is working... I would suggest short punch lines with your numbers to help people quickly recognize them.
Along with a way for groups of certain individuals to be "blacklisted" (or filtered) via opt-in...these forums could get a lot cleaner.
1. Don't discuss it.
2. Become incredulous.
3. Create rumor mongers.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack
6. Hit and Run.
7. Question motives.
8. Invoke authority.
9. Play Dumb.
10. Use old news as a straw man.
11. Use small mistakes.
12. Paint an enigma.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. (maybe something better here..?)
14. Demand full solutions to avoid issues. (or Demand full solutions)
15. Fit the facts.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize and Goad. (or Antagonize and Goad)
19. Ignore proof, but demand the impossible.
20. False evidence.
21. Close the case with a jury or body.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics.
25. Vanish.
Hey I have an idea for everyone who is troubled by the idea that airplanes destroyed some tall buildings.
Why dont you all get together and start a groupfund account to build a replica of the WTC and buy an airplane
and then hook up a RC to the flight deck and fly it into the building. If it falls hey you were wrong. If it stands
then you can live peacefully knowing you are right.
My personal opinion is indeed 2 planes destroyed several buildings. I think the guilt and conspiracy you are searching
for is in the bush administration. Ask yourself how much intelligence they had pertaining to an attack and how much did
they purposfully ignore. In my opinion they wanted an attack of some sort to take place in order to implement their desired
plans in the middle east. I don't know how much they knew or what they knew but I believe they chose to ignore intelligence.
Thats about as deep as a pre 9-11 conspiracy goes.
Check pilotsfor911truth. Jetliners flew at 550 MPH (VERY IMPORTANT) by flunkee pilots (we are told) at sea level into two bullseye targets just 215' wide. We are told it happened twice. Why more pilots are not speaking out about the impossibility of this is beyond me. America's best Top Gun pilot could not guide a jetliner at that SPEED into perfect bullseye at sea level. Are you a pilot? YYou'd know how difficult it is. I think everyone was in total shock and believed the initial story but as more facts are coming to light, it's blatantly obvious this could not have happened they way we are told. WTC7 in particular is the most obvious discrepancy, but as someone experienced in aviation I am quite sure the planes were guided with some form of beacon such as Flight Termination Systems (an old technology).
Dupe.
More pilots aren't speaking about it because it's a weak argument.
If you have enough room to line-up on your target, it would not be that difficult to fly an aircraft into a building.
The Pentagon example is better is you want to demonstrate an "impossible flight path."
Are you a pilot? Jetliners clocked at 550 MPH twice struck a 215' wide target at sea level, flunkee Cessna amateurs did it. Impossible.
If I remember correctly, didn't one of the planes turn toward the building just seconds before impact? In which case there was not much time to line up with the target...
TPOG
It's much more plausible that there was a massive conspiracy.
Cordell-
Why dont you just push Mason Verger in with the pigs, you wont have to be his troll anymore...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPpPBWxKLGc
the purported flight pattern into the pentagon is just as amazing
In the 60s it was possible to fly a fighter jet from one base to another without a pilot.
The trajectories of these planes (WTC) might just be possible if piloted by experts with thousands of hours on the planes. It was not done by students that could hardly land them.
Guess one: A "hostile" program was input to autopilot and took control of the planes after takeoff, locking out manual. Guess two: Drone controls were installed and the planes were remotely piloted.
The trajectory of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon is not possible with an unmodified airframe. So either the plane was modified, or it crashed at sea, and something else hit the Pentagon.
Since you've given it a lot of thought, please explain how those planes destoyed tower 7. Please also explain NORAD and the five other flight exercises going on that day.
I dont know man... i wasnt there. I sympathize with your emotional desire to disbelieve. We are constantly told lies by
people with power... but sometimes sometimes people die in tunnels in car crashes or organize mass murders on compounds
or walk into hotels and shoot people.
If you take a rubber ball and throw it into a room of objects you can't predict every bounce it will take. Sometimes things just
seem to be a product of the strange and unusual.
To disbelieve what, 'oulous'? What is it that 'we' are disbelieving.
Well I thought you said you did not believe the government published version of 911? correct?
Well I thought you said you did not believe the government published version of 911? correct?
Yep. And you do, right? You believe that John Ashcroft's explanation of 911 is adequate.
How much do you charge for this logic!?
Sorry I dont understand your comment in regards to charging.
No I dont believe ashcroft. I believe a man like that would lie to suit himself or gain something he wanted
and would never think twice about it.
I believe what I saw and I believe when you witness such an event it triggers several other complicated events.
What I saw and what you see are different and its now a religious argument. Everyone follows what they believe
and the truth is a casualty. Maybe someone did something conspiratorial but I doubt it and until i see the truth
i can believe in I will stay with what I saw. 2 planes hit building, boom.
I will stay with what I saw. 2 planes hit building, boom.
Thats what they expect.
Sure thing. Keep selling Ashcrofts Kool-Aid, cAssface.
Why do you ignore all the evidence just to believe John Ashcroft's alCIAda fairy tale?
Is it really worth making a fool of yourself?
I repeat myself:
"Hey I have an idea for everyone who is troubled by the idea that airplanes destroyed some tall buildings.
Why dont you all get together and start a groupfund account to build a replica of the WTC and buy an airplane
and then hook up a RC to the flight deck and fly it into the building. If it falls hey you were wrong. If it stands
then you can live peacefully knowing you are right."
If you are so sure its the way you say it is why not reproduce the experiment? Put your money where your keyboard is.
I would even let you off the hook if you did it with everything 1/4 to scale in order to save money. There has to be
enough of you out there to groupfund this expirement. Whats your excuse?
Hi Oulous,
NIST already has done it as you would know if you had read replies above.
Wake up and smell the roses, nano-thermite was found in all dust samples tested.
Demolition requires nano-thermite. Caused by airplanes requires NO nano-thermite.
You don't get it both ways.
You are capable of rational thoughgt aern't you, or are you a member of the criminal conspricy to cover-up G. W. Bush's ordering and carrying out 9-11?
They rebuilt a full size replica of the WTC? I missed that I guess.
And I repeat myself: what's the incentive to make a fool of yourself?
What do you think of the work of professor Niels Harrit? Along with professor Steven Jones they've done a thorough analysis, and they've identified the explosive nano-thermite used on 9/11. These are eminent scientists with impeccable credentials, yet totally ignored by the mainstream media. All forms of radio and tv will absolutely not discuss these scientists, nor WTC7.
Journalist Christopher Bollyn's research (available at his website) is outstanding, and under every rock he discovers an Israeli (mossad) operation did 9/11. A false flag to incite Americans to go to war with muslims. I think most Israelis know this and laugh at us stupid Americans for being so gullible. It makes you wonder what's next, especially if Americans ever wake up and realize the truth about 9/11.
The scientific proof of explosives in WTC7 is a very corrosive issue in America, with more people than one might think. I am of the opinion, however, that the vast majority of people around the world (especially Americans but also Canadians, Australians, and Europeans) really do not want to know the truth of what happened.
"All you nutjobs, keep believing that there was a conspiracy that would have taken THOUSANDS of people to pull off."
Project Manhattan involved even more people... still the secret was kept.
The Manhattan Project employed 130,000 people and was kept secret for many years.
And just about every false flag in history was kept quiet for many years:
Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag TerrorSurely you must be kidding. It was so "secret" that the Russians had MULTIPLE spies that infiltrated the project completely. Jesus Christ.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html
Dr C. You don't think there are people walking around with the secret? Fear is a great motivator
True. the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs tipped off Stalin. He had a hard on for Hitler who murdered his father, an anti NAZI Lutheran minister, and secretly joined the CP. I don't know of any other spies inside the project. Stalin, however, did not tip off the NY Times, so it came as a surprise to all the Americans.
True. the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs tipped off Stalin. He had a hard on for Hitler who murdered his father, an anti NAZI Lutheran minister, and secretly joined the CP. I don't know of any other spies inside the project. Stalin, however, did not tip off the NY Times, so it came as a surprise to all the Americans.
Why they let this ridiculous jackass post on the best financial site on the web is beyond me. Another day, another conspiracy. Nothing is as it seems, is it Georgie? Not one single thing.
Hi Rusty Shorts
Your words prove you are another member of the criminal conspiracy to cover-up G. W. Bush's ordering and carrying out 9-11, or very frightened and not good at critical thinking.
Prima Facie = on the face of it, in a legal sense, the reported evidence proves a crime was committed. e.g. We know murder was committed because the body has a 12 inch knife sticking out of its back.
In the 3 buildings which collapsed at demolition speeds in 9-11, numerous scientists report that "nano-thermite" has been found in all dust samples tested.
"nano-thermite" is a military explosive used for demolitions.
If the planes did it then no "nano-termite" would be found, would it? The previous sentence is called logic, e.g. 2+2 = 4.
So do you still want to be a co-conspirator with GW in covering up the murder of 3000 Americans. Perish the thought that we would also consider the millions killed in the two wars he lied us into be considered?
I don't think you get Rusty. And 4+4 does not equal 4. Back to room 101!
---
Excellent post, GW!
If you believe this is the best financial site on the web, then you have clearly bought into many financial conspiracies. Do you actually think the conspiracies limit themselves to one area?