Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
Preface: 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:
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 fire on this building [World Trade Building 7] was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
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:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ....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:
"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."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:
7 comments:
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.
Posts
Trying to generate interest in the physically possible ways the towers could have collapsed is an exercise in futility. We here in the Homeland appear to prefer our illusions pat, and our enemies and attacks from the 'outside.'
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Garrett, architect
The thing to keep in mind here is that super nano-thermite does not explain this evidence. Sure, it can get hot enough to melt steel and whatnot and may have been deployed to assist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you do the math to calculate the quantities required to account for the DURATION of said fires, it quickly becomes clear that unbelievable and unreasonable massive amounts of super nano-thermite (or its cousins) would be required. The same is true in trying to get nano-thermite to explain structure and content pulverization, a massive energy sink.
The yeomen of 9/11 Truth have erroneously extrapolated Dr. Jones' super nano-thermite into explaining pieces of the evidence that it cannot. Dr. Jones, more than any other individual inside or outside the 9/11 Truth Movement, steered us away from nuclear devices. He also debunked cold-fusion for the government in 1989, which makes that debunk debunked today as cold-fusion makes a comeback.
Fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes or cold-fusion DEW are my bets today.
Both of them explain the rabid disinformation and cover-ups surrounding all aspects of 9/11. Revelation of these Occam Razor energy sources can, would, and should inspire us to do a little bit of the old fashion Thomas Jefferson style "little rebellion now and then being good for the state of the govt." Not only would the public clean house, they might just re-structure and re-organize. National Security? No, job security for those elite in power.
Since we have peer-reviewed scientific proof of nanothermite in the GZ dust thanks to Prof Harrit's paper on the subject and over 1500 Architects and Engineers subscribing to that theory then any further discussion on mechanisms seems futile until after a fully independent review of the subject. Thermobaric weapons (using energetic composite nanomaterials) are perfectly capable of bringing down the 3 towers of WTC without resort to nuclear bombs (even mini-nukes) since they would leave long lasting radioactive trace all over NY - plus a paper trail as long as the Mississpi! Or DEW - which according to Judy Wood relies upon fraudulent physics (eg Hutchison Effect). Confusing arguments about implausible mechanisms and speculation has been sown probably by those guilty of the crime in order to discredit 9/11 truth. Think about it: if somebody was capable of putting bombs into the WTC then the same people would be capable of producing a internet smoke-screen about the same event!
ReplyDeleteIn the case of WTC building 7, NIST claims the steel expanded pushing column 79 off its seat. So in one report the steel sagged and in another it expanded. It is a fact that steel expands when heated, engineers have known this since the beginning and plan for it. I just find it odd they reach two different conclusions about its behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT Rocket Science
ReplyDeletea high school drop-out can get this,
The experts can say whatever they want
but nothing will get done until AMERICA
gets MAD AS HELL!
WE THE PEOPLE have been lied to!
Bush LIED, and now Obama continues the LIE.
On May 26, 2011 12:43 AM, Derikic wrote
ReplyDelete"Since we have peer-reviewed scientific proof of nanothermite in the GZ dust thanks to Prof Harrit's paper on the subject and over 1500 Architects and Engineers subscribing to that theory then any further discussion on mechanisms seems futile until after a fully independent review of the subject."
"1500 Architects and Engineers subscribing to that theory" of nano-thermite isn't without caveats. Nano-thermite in the GZ dust is a smoking gun, certainly, because few on this planet knew of or had access to this exotic mechanism. No question that it was deployed. However, serious questions remain regarding the extent of its deployment. Nano-thermite does not explain all of the evidence and comes up short. Other energy sources must be sought that can explain what was observed, else nano-thermite becomes another gate to stop us from peering at the truth.
I was fine with such cautionary and halting positions in the first decade after 9/11, but we all have seen where this gotten us. It has been steered and stopped at various gates, and hasn't achieved "a fully independent review of the subject." Quite the contrary.
"Thermobaric weapons (using energetic composite nanomaterials) are perfectly capable of bringing down the 3 towers of WTC without resort to nuclear bombs (even mini-nukes) since they would leave long lasting radioactive trace all over NY - plus a paper trail as long as the Mississpi!"
This needs to be broken into two parts at the word "since". Agreed that many different non-nuclear mechanisms are perfectly capable of bringing down the 3 towers, but this is separate speculation with respect to what the evidence presents.
Milli-nukes would not necessarily "leave long lasting radioactive trace all over NY." Radioactivity is one of the design factors along with blast wave and heat wave. Put the emphasis on "milli" or "mini" and see efforts to contain it. Moreover, recognize that radioactivity measurements and their initial analysis came through govt entities. NIST provides us glaring examples where govt entities twist and manipulate reports to match their conclusions.
Too much emphasis on (the lack of) certain radioactivity as an indication of nuclear weapon X can be misleading, particularly when such narrow focus aims in its conclusion to rule out all forms of nukes. This is precisely what Dr. Jones did. The poor health of the first responders is a better indication of radiation.
Alas, the unburned office paper not only debunks (burning) nano-thermite as a primary mechanism, but it also knocks milli-nukes down some notches, because the heat wave would certainly scortch it.
(continued) Derikic wrote:
ReplyDelete"Or DEW - which according to Judy Wood relies upon fraudulent physics (eg Hutchison Effect)."
I haven't seen where the Hutchison Effect is proven as fraudulent. Mostly, its been ad hominem attacks and kooky labels that try to take this out of consideration.
Dr. Wood's textbooks is worthy of a prominent place in any serious researchers 9/11 library. She presents evidence that aren't addressed elsewhere.
Directed Energy Weapons (powered by fusion/fission, cold-fusion, or Hurricane Erin) has gained much validity in my mind as the primary destructive mechanism (with nano-thermite being secondary). Nano-thermite cuts and reacts with steel. How would it pulverize concrete? How would it pulverize content?
A key work in DEW is "directed". They could focus it in a narrow cone up/down. Think about how a microwave oven works by exciting the water molecules in food (but not containers). Both concrete and drywall are created in very wet processes and result in "dried form" with water molecules still present but separated. Microwave energy in massive amounts directed at these water molecules could excite them into turning into steam. A sudden transformation into steam creates volumic expanding pressure on the space once occupied by the smaller water molecule. In effect, the concrete and drywall are blown apart and pulverized where they stand by the properties of water and steam... as are humans and copious other office content. The steel girder walls? Nano-thermite cuts their connecting bolts so that they fall in easy to remove sections.
"Confusing arguments about implausible mechanisms and speculation has been sown probably by those guilty of the crime in order to discredit 9/11 truth. Think about it: if somebody was capable of putting bombs into the WTC then the same people would be capable of producing a internet smoke-screen about the same event!"
Exactly! And you need to open your eyes that nano-thermite might indeed be a stop-gap internet smoke-screen. (Dr. Jones debunked cold-fusion for the govt in 1989. Today, cold-fusion is making a come-back, debunking the debunk from Dr. Jones.)
Nano-thermite prevents us from considering milli-nukes or DEW for more accurately meeting the energy requirements and secondary damage (like flipped and/or burned vehicles). When one considers that the energy source for the DEW devices may have been the unreported hurricane, we can connect the dots with anomalous weather/earthquake/tidal wave patterns of today that many blame on HAARP. DEW can lead us to realize the extent that they've harnessed weather and use it against us. Thus, nano-thermite must be promoted endlessly even against evidence it can't explain (duration of underground fires, content pulverization), because it stops us from considering DEW, HAARP, and what that means today.
Seemingly the argument is made that "a victim was killed, so we need not concern ourselves with how except in proving it was premeditated." However, it really does matter (to the victim's family and the public) whether the mechanism was sleeping pills, poison, a pillow to the face, a vehicle, a gun to the head, multiple knife wounds, a chain saw... Gee, the way our knee-jerk society is manipulated, it will lead to the banning of said weapon! If they can prevent us from knowing the true cause, they can prevent us from seeing its re-deployment.