A
afransen TO
Guest
biz, read the paper posted in this thread. It is "impossible" for jet fuel to melt or even sufficiently weaken the steel structural supports in order to cause the building to collapse.
|
|
|
W
wonderboy905
Guest
The word "impossible" was something I used, I beleive if you read his paper he agrees that the odds were "one in a trillian" as calculated by Kevin Ryan who worked for the company (underwriters labratories) that certified the steel in the WTC. It's overwhelmingly obvious that the towers simply didn't collapse as you suggest due to the burning jet fuel (which burned mostly outside of the building and was finished burning within 20 minutes). That's not my point, my point is that the media is being silenced on items that are clearly newsworthy. Such as the Bilderberg conference, as well as the overhwhelming evidence that explosives were used on Sept 11. Why does the media tell us the towers "pancaked" and that one floor fell on to the other? Did they not do their homework? Do they not realize that in order for that to happen the steel cores of the WTC (something the 9/11 commission report completely neglected to mention) would have to be weakened? Which means since the entire structure is steel (thus acting like the heatsink on your computer) the ENTIRE buildings would have to reach temperatures not even possible from burning jet fuel let alone have enough energy to heat the entire building. I guess that's why people anywhere near the structure were melting :hat Of course for the pancake theory to be true as well it would not be able to collapse onto itself at a near free-fall rate, which in fact the WTC did, it was calculated that it would take well over 45 seconds (not 10) for each tower to fall. Again, no model has ever reproduced the official story... why? Because once the 9/11 commission explained WHY they collapsed, they simply stopped their investigation, rather than reporting HOW they collapsed. What about WTC7? The building down the street that mysteriously collapsed in PERFECT symmetry (something only done by controlled demolation) despite a few small fires that were clearly not burning at the buildings centre? Again it also fell at the rate of perfect free fall onto its own foot print. 3 steel buildings, 3 collapses due to very small fires... on one day, something that's never happened before all happen on the same day, yet this is NOT reported to us? British and French scientists jumped all over this right away and created a big stir overseas... our media? Hush hush.. this is not newsworthy.
If anyone can explain how an airplane can bring town either tower you clearly need to get in touch with someone at FEMA or NIST or Steven E Jones or something, because you'd be the only person to do so with a testable model. Popular Mechanics tried to run an article debunking this... an article written by the department of homeland security... how's that for great journalism!
.jpg)
*edit*, a few more questions for you NOT raised by our lovely media. Explain how concrete and steel can be pulvarized to dust like and be ejected outwards? Are you saying that by merely falling onto itself (keep in mind that high up it is only a few floors that have given way) CONCRETE was turned into DUST? Explain the plume of smoke coming out the side, are you saying this was just a pressurized buildup and released of material? Why did it occur 15-20 stories BELOW? Why in that spot? Schematics of the WTC's have showed there was nothing in the building to suggest that this would be an "exit" point. It's very common to see these plumes in demolations, they are charges set off to weaken the structure as the building collapses, yet almost the exact same thing happened "by chance" when the towers collapsed... hmm...
You really need to read Steven's paper.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
You seem to have 'evidence' confused with 'theory'. No one has offered any direct proof that explosives were used. No video. No explosives materials. Nothing. There are however lots of 'ideas', 'guesses', and 'theories' as too the use of explosives. The two concepts are very different.
Beyond the fact that two planes hit two towers which subsequently collapsed a short time after the impacts and killed 3000 people, much of the rest is theory. The big difference is some theories are logical and more plausible, others, not so much.
A
afransen TO
Guest
I would say there is less evidence to suggest that the buildings collapsed as a result of the jet fuel fires. You're confusing correlation and causation (ie, just because the buildings were on fire prior to their collapse does not suggest that the fire caused the collapse).
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
I'd be surprised if the jet fuel lasted longer than 10 minutes. However, there were a LOT more combustibles in those buildings than just jet fuel.
Not the entire steel cores, just locally at the failures.
So in order to cut a hole in the hull of a steel ship, I have to heat the entire ship to the point of melting? Pull the other leg, it's got bells on...
Kevin
W
wonderboy905
Guest
Hmm.. there's plenty of video evidence suggesting explosives. The squibs (never before seen in a building collapse not cause my detonations), the plumes of of smoke and debris being shot out, video of the lobbies completely destroyed before the towers collapsed (how can marble on the ground floor get blown to bits by something happening 100 stories above?). Keep in mind that NIST has obtained over 600 peices of film footage and photography (they pretty much confiscated everything they could around ground zero and are on record stating that they do have the pictures & film) that has NEVER been released to the public. There's plenty of evidence on video already suggesting explosives, why won't NIST release this pictures and videos? Do they not want us to hear or see what was really happening for ourselves? The boiler room at WTC 1 exploded and maintenance crew were injured BEFORE the towers collapsed, why are we being denied evidence that show this event? Same goes for the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, 5 years later we are released 1 security camera that doesn't actually show the impact, just the pentagon exploding. Even though there were camera's EVERYWHORE (it is the most heavilly gaurded building on the planet). Are these being withheld in the interest of public safety?
Again, true or not true, this is at the very least something that is newsworthy. It's made the news all over the world, why won't our media pickup on it? Demand answers? If the gov't has nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming (president bush's brother head of security for the WTC? mysterious "security shutdowns" of the buildings in the weeks before? the removal of the buildings bomb sniffing dogs? planes off course for well over 45 minutes that were NOT intercepted by the most sophistacated military in the world? a PAPER passport of a hi-jacker that manages to survive the crash and fall to the ground in NYC? muslims with box cutters that could barely fly the single engine planes they were trained on controlling jet liners with military precision? firefighters who reported the explosions first hand? president bush's most unusual reaction to the entire thing? hearing he is under attack with everyone knowing he was at a public school.. continuing to read to the children puting their lives in danger? surely he must have known they were safe... the list goes on and on forever). If all of this is just a coincidence, dots connected by crackpot theorists (even though among them are some of the brightest and most accomplished minds on the planet) then why... why aren't we as a public getting access to materials the government is holding? Why are we denied a public investigation?
Why? Because the media is not on our side, they've ignored all the evidence that has caused a stir world wide and even as half of all new yorkers beleive the government had knowledge of the attacks before they happened... we are not pressing for an independant investigation. As long as the media keeps the majority of the population in check, America's questions will go unanswered. Why so silent about the Bilderberg conference? I would assume for the same reason they're so silent about the tragic events of 9/11... there are some truths that we as people are not entitled to I suppose.
The official story, as reported by FEMA states that the jet fuel fires caused the weakening of the steel, which caused the buildings to collapse. This has been thoroughly debunked by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and many of their colleagues. You're right, there is less evidence to result the buildings collapsed as a result of jet fuel fires, in fact there's almost NO evidence to suggest this, which happens to be the offical story, which I happen to find disturbing. The evidence suggesting explosives were used on the otherhand is overwhelming.
Which certainly won't burn at a temperature to weaken even the lowest grade of steel.
I'm no expert, but the bulk of the building was made up of the steel reinfornced columns, according to FEMA in the official report the building was hollow which was it's biggest design flaw. Hmm... most of it appears to be compramised of the steel columns, fire really caused them to collapse at the same rate the floors "pancaked" downwards offering NO resisitance at all as demonstrated by the near free-fall speed of the collapse?
You're right though buildings collapse because of fire all the time... the twin towers fell in less than an hour, this building never did collapse despite its very similar construction:
10 hours later fire still going strong! Oooh but it wasn't a massive high rise like the WTC, it didn't have nearly as much weight to support. hmm...
Oh wait, not only did that building NOT collapse after a much longer, more intense burning fire (again of similar construction to the WTC) but it's still standing today! 2 decades after it was a blazing inferno!
Just for good measure, this one didn't collapse either! In fact, fire has NEVER caused a high-rise collapse before.
Yet WTC7, a building not even impacted by the planes and with very small fires on a 2-3 floors just happend to fall down, in perfect symmetry, straight on to its own footprint.
Hmm, that sure look like demolation charges causing those squibs...
No, but think of how a heatsink works, the WTC was designed to act as a giant heatsink. Imagine the intense heat required to weaken the steel enough to the point of failure (forgetting the fact that the steel was certified to withstand much higher temperatures than jet fuel is capable of burning at) when much of that heat is being dispersed throughout the rest of the structure?
It was so hot in the WTC this lady clearly needed to "cool off".
The evidence is there. I want to beleive the government had no role, no prior knowledge in what happened... but they are witholding a bounty of evidence from the general public, and what's even worse is they're not saying why... professors (including several from Ontario) are making incredible cases for the explosives theory... yet the media isn't reporting this. Sad.
B
bizorky
Guest
The building is collapsing on itself, that is how its materials in question become pulverized. The destruction of the structure is due to the collapse of the building's mass unto itself. Matter is being ejected outwards by the displacement of air and matter due to that collapse. Where else is it all supposed to go? It is not due to supposed explosives that just happened to be pre-planted on the floors where the aircraft happened to hit. There is no proof of this, just empty conjecture.
Both buildings are destroyed by their collapse, not by explosives. Their structures are weakened by the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent damage, heating and softening of additional steel support structures. If the "pulverizing" of the buildings was caused by explosives we would have observed the entire structures being obliterated all at once.
There is no evidence for planted explosives. None. Also, there is no evidence for a government/military/intelligence conspiracy at work. There are only accusations, questionable interpretations, unquestioned beliefs and a silent vacuum with respect to solid proof for this type of grand conspiracy. What there is, however, is a history of terrorist threats against these buildings, and video footage showing two large aircraft slamming into them at high velocity.
Why the desire to hold onto a conspiracy theory that still has no proof, no evidence and no purpose to it?
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Structural steel tends to lose it's strength at ~500 C. A normal class A fire will burn a lot higher than that. That's why most modern steel structure have the structural elements wrapped in insulation, with a plan to put the fire out before the steel warms up too much. Unfortunately for the WTC, nobody considered all of those floors being simultaneously lit up at the same time.
I know a bit about steel behaviours in a fire, and it really loses strength fast. If it was the absolute top floor, things might have been different, but when all those floors came crashing down on already weakened steel, the entire building just gave. It's entirely predictable.
How was it designed to act as a giant heat sink?
Kevin
W
wonderboy905
Guest
This is a very, very silly statement. The structures were so redundant they were not compramised at all by the airplane impacts, they were designed to withstand multiple airliner hits. No airplane strike could affect the towers core, essentially the backbone of the entire buildings. Don't beleive me?
to think that the wtc was under engineered goes against the recorded testimony of both the architect minoru yamasaki and the construction manager frank de martini-- both exclaimed their unwaivering resolution that the buildings could easily widthstand "multiple" impacts from commercial aircraft and related it to throwing a pencil through a screen mesh
This quote is found on a hundred thousand web sites, too bad frank de martini made that statement on the Discovery channel just months before he died on 9/11, probably stayed in his office realizing he was in no danger of a collapse after what had happened.
As for the entire structures being obliterated all at once, well.. umm, you're completely wrong. Demolations are driven by explosives and they certainly aren't obliterated all at once.
Hmm... I guess Pearl Harbour had no political justification? What about the Reichstag fire? Operation Northwoods? In most cases of war, a self inflicted wound is used as justification to send the troups out, it's happened all throughout history. In the case of the original desert storm it was just a lie from the gov't passed on by the media. Why should the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan be any different? The troops were oversea's and battle plans drawn up in Afghanistan long before September 11, this was merely coincidence?
Wrong. Actual letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, btw, Kevin lost his job for writing this.
Dr. Gayle,
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
Just about every steel structure is designed this way, intentionally or not. Nothing spreads heat better than steel, a great way to disperse heat throughout the entire structure requiring massive amounts of heat and energy to cause specific failures in any given area. With temperatures required well over 2000 degrees F to weaken the steel in the WTC and the jet fuel fires burning at no greater than 750 F (incredibly generous estimate) the fact that the building would have been able to disperse this heat makes it that much more unbeleivable that it got so hot the steel started to fail. Consider the picture of the woman standing in the impact zone, or the fact that firefighters had no heat problems when directly confronting the blaze on the upper floors.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
Maybe Al Qaeda planted the explosives? Discuss.
A
andreapalladio
Guest
Or little green men from Mars? Or the tooth fairy? Both possibilities are as plausible as the bizarre theory presented as fact above.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Flippant responses indicate the lack of a counterargument... The steel didn't melt because of jet fuel fires.
W
wonderboy905
Guest
That's what I personally would like to beleive, and it probably was the case. Rigging up any building with explosives takes weeks of planning. You'd think it would only make sense to have someone from your "enemy" be the ones executing most of the actual attacks. There's too great a risk for whistleblowers if it's done by the hometown. A few US officials have stepped forward and quickly retracted their statements on account of threats to their families... strange.
It is well documented that there were several security drills at WTC 1,2 & 7 in the weeks before the attacks, the bomb sniffing dogs the security agency used to check the premesis were removed during this time and bit by bit, each area of the WTC was shutdown for hours at a time for "maintenance", something that had not been required ever in the buildings history. Al Qaeda simply wouldn't have this kind of access to the facility without help.
Not to be insulting, but why would so many people with such a vastly superior intelligence (in their respective feilds and elsewhere) find the explosives theory to be the only plausible and scientifically valid theory? Are you smarter than them? I'm not saying they're right, they simply have put something forward that destroys any attempts FEMA and the 9/11 commission have made to explain the multiple security lapses and improbabilities of the collapses. That alone deserves it's attention. These aren't conspiracy nuts, these are incredibly accomplished scientists, physicists, engineers and demolition experts to name a few making these claims, and you're puting their findings on the same plan as little green men from mars? I think FOX news needs to take a look at your resume.
David Ray Griffin on C-Span almost 2 years ago...
www.apfn.org/Movies/griffin_madison_full_25.wmv
I guess some people would rather go through life with the blinders on chasing that carrot.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
The arguments still have the major flaw of not being based on any physical tests or genuine documentation. Most conclusions have been made by looking at pictures or through theories which dont mean a lot until tested.
Here is my biggest problem with what is being presented by "indepedent speculative investigators". Instead of focusing all their time and energy into making crappy little websites, screaming really loudly, and standing steadfastly to a theory without any proof, why not put the time into trying to get that proof? Im sure there are a few scientists and educated people among this group. Create a document that is based on logic, sound reasoning, and approached in a scientific method that clearly lays out the theory as well as a series of tests that could prove or disprove it. Then either through an academic insititution, or through a media outlet, use the document as a basis for requesting that the necessary information or materials be released so that the tests may be conducted. Remember, despite the fact that freedom in the United States has regressed in the past few years, it is still a relatively free country in terms of being able to access information if one is persistent enough. Then with this information in hand conduct scientific research. If such a group of persons were able to get a few samples of steel or concrete in the building then actual, physical tests could be run to determine the properties of it. Maybe a few bodies could be exhumed as well so that they could test some of the victims for various chemicals or toxins that may be associated with a bomb.
But will this happen? My guess is probably not. Its much more fun to throw out random theories and take people for a ride than actually make an effort too obtain the necessary information that may or may not prove the theory, or, may or may not demonstrate the governments resistance in providing more information about this incident (in the case that nothing is handed over).
Here is my biggest problem with what is being presented by "indepedent speculative investigators". Instead of focusing all their time and energy into making crappy little websites, screaming really loudly, and standing steadfastly to a theory without any proof, why not put the time into trying to get that proof? Im sure there are a few scientists and educated people among this group. Create a document that is based on logic, sound reasoning, and approached in a scientific method that clearly lays out the theory as well as a series of tests that could prove or disprove it. Then either through an academic insititution, or through a media outlet, use the document as a basis for requesting that the necessary information or materials be released so that the tests may be conducted. Remember, despite the fact that freedom in the United States has regressed in the past few years, it is still a relatively free country in terms of being able to access information if one is persistent enough. Then with this information in hand conduct scientific research. If such a group of persons were able to get a few samples of steel or concrete in the building then actual, physical tests could be run to determine the properties of it. Maybe a few bodies could be exhumed as well so that they could test some of the victims for various chemicals or toxins that may be associated with a bomb.
But will this happen? My guess is probably not. Its much more fun to throw out random theories and take people for a ride than actually make an effort too obtain the necessary information that may or may not prove the theory, or, may or may not demonstrate the governments resistance in providing more information about this incident (in the case that nothing is handed over).
W
wonderboy905
Guest
You couldn't be any more right. However they merely work with what we have because information is not being released. NIST won't release their 600+ items of video and photographic evidence confiscaed by FBI agents soon after the attacks. Lawsuits have been filed, repeated requests for the pentagon videos have been denied "in the interest of homeland security" (homeland... eerily sounds like Hiter's fatherland doesn't it).
Steven Jones did what you suggested, with all the evidence available he wrote a scientific paper that went through the process or rigerous peer review and was accepted, along with his many colleagues they now lecture this material to their students unchallenged by their various faculty's. Without the government willing to release the materials required and with the north american media turning a blind eye there's only so much one can do.
Back to the physical evidence, in the united states it is a federal crime to tamper with or destroy the evidence of any crime scene until a full investigation has been completed. Within days of the towers coming down the scrap metal from the wreckage was shipped oversea's and melted down, armed guards accompanied the wreckage wherever it went. It was never analyzed, it was simply shipped out, melted down and sold for scrap.
Here we have the single biggest crime scene in US history, and all the evidence was destroyed as soon as it was humanly possible to do so by the government and mayor Guilani despite the fact that it is a federal crime to do so. Why couldn't it simply be shipped out to a storage facility or holding yard and examined there? Why destroy it?
Despite their best efforts, Steven Jones recently did exactly what you suggested, got his hands on some scrap metal destined for a WTC memorial and analyzed it... what did he find?
Thermite and thermate by-products! Not something you'd use to weld a skyscraper with or use in anything but an explosive charge on a building. Is it not out of the realm of possibility that the wreckage was destroyed so quickly because thermite would have been found all over it? This finding by Steven Jones is very well documented and considered to be just one more smoking gun, the onus should be on the feds to explain just how thermite got there in the first place... remember, the muslims only brought box cutters on board with them, not explosives.
Why again is this not newsworthy? Countless initial news reports reporting explosions going off in the WTC, video clips with audible explosions well before the collapses are available all over the interet. Again, the initial reports were of explosives, the official story did not support this... now all the evidence is leading back to explosives, and again... the north american media remains silent...
What more can Mr Jones and his colleagues do? He wrote the paper you suggested, he examined the only evidence he could get his hand on, he helped put together one of the most comprehensive web sites on the subject you'll find anywhere with contributions coming from brilliant minds on all points of the globe. The media isn't listening.