This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
So what caused those towers to pulverize themselves into dust?
Islam? alCIAda smack-talk?
Every floor elevation used floor trusses to span the distance between the inner steel core to the outer steel grid work. However these trusses did not fail as was widely described as the root cause of the total destruction of both towers.
reptil posted this on last weeks 911 thread. It's a well done summary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXqkZO3Y1g
GW- look up the story of Kevin R. Ryan.
And here is a graphic describing the Bankster's dirty needs arranged according to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs: http://thesilvergoldhedge.blogspot.com/2011/05/banksters-dirty-hierarchy...
dude, honestly, please quit spamming.
Why were the 19 arab hijackers needed? You obviously need a fall guy to frame for the crime.
There was a good special on public tv showing that the CIA bugged, followed, and encouraged these guys to carry out the attacks for at least tw0 years right up to 9-11. The CIA knew what they were saying and planned to do. (forgive me for not remembering the title). The CIA reports directly to the president = G. W. Bush.
Given there inept pilot raining, it is unlikely they flew the planes, instead they were remotely controlled. There is not a chance GW would rely on them to actually carry out the attacks. e.g at the Pentagon, they used the air forces larges cruise missle. An "inadvertantly' released photo by an honest military person I suspect.
Come on people, think like cops instead of cowering sheep. We have a major crime committed by a president. We will not have Liberty and Justice for all until we stop this criminal crap by our leaders.
You meant that post as sarcasm, right...right?
I would think the ZH community is too intelligent to buy the bullshit MSM version of 9-11.
Any koolaid drinkers start with this please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Then ask yourself what happened to this guy.
http://jenningsmystery.com/
What about the youngest Bush's nanny?
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html
Hey didn't Marv Bush handle the security for the WTC complex???
O well some issues are too tough to face, when's dancing with the stars on?
that full uncut jennings interview is incredible.
Why so much focus on the steel?? What about the towers falling at the acceleration rate of gravity? Where r the seats, tail, fuselage, engines, pictures at the pent? you conspiracy theory freaks crack me up... ;)
Moron, none of my links delt with the steel or melting temperatures.
Normalcy Bias? Or is it mental illness as George stated???
I understand the aversion to the truth, for the longest time I couldn't accept it. I'd rather believe a horrible reality, than a wonderful lie.
So I've always known Bldg 7 was pulled, but holy shit! that video you posted of BBC announcing 20 minutes prior... the building is shown over her left shoulder. THAT video, combined with this video fox news announcement is irrefutable <spellcheck> evidence that they knew it was coming down ahead of time....Watch this, and then go back and watch Hugh's video a few comments above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWKtO_xXsk&feature=related
Pardon me for asking a delicate question, but are you a product of the US public school system?
Let’s see what you believe here…..a group of conspirators are so clever that they can control airplanes, hit exact spots on two 110-story towers at almost wing busting speeds, set off carefully and furtively planted nano-thermite devices that result in a “freefall” collapse (with some debris falling even freer than freefall, which suggests the conspirators also suspended Newtonian physics), then “pulled” WTC7 (which had been on fire since early morning with almost no firefighters left either alive or with time to address it)…but slipped and issued a press release to, of all places, the BBC before the last of the dirty deeds was finished. And the conspirators needed to issue the press release why? Just in case nobody noticed another 45 story building falling down? Oh, and WTC7 was so world famous on 10 September 2001 that everyone would have known its iconic profile by sight, and would never have been confused by a development named WTC1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc.
Putz.
that result in a “freefall” collapse (with some debris falling even freer than freefall, which suggests the conspirators also suspended Newtonian physics),
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Of course there will be more resistance when that kind of mass is invovled as opposed to dropping something in midair with nothing underneath it. Does it have to be one or the other, doesn't the resistance of that structure falling on itself create some kind of momentum loss?
that is one my favorites as well. Since it fell slower than freefall, all questions are closed. And it's not the apple, it's the core that counts
And they hid the airplane that crashed near Shanksville, right? Right, Chindit?
almost as ridiculous as a bunch of flying class dunces immobilizing NORAD, the air traffic control system, the pentagon defense system and outperforming the world's best pilots in flight patterns never seen before. Listen to yourself.
Occam's Razor.
The logistics of any other explanantion make the conspiracy imposible. Sometimes things are what they are...no conspiracy needed.
I've always written off blg 7 collapse as hitting two birds with one stone; destroying what was in Bldg 7, and collecting the insurance. I don't think bld 7 is a the smoking gun of a bigger conspiracy, but they def took advantage of the situation.
Bill Cooper saw it coming:
Learn his material - makes the whole thing easier to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA
dbl post